Against Democracy

Michael Anissimov has published an e-book condensing the main Neoreactionary (and in fact older Right-Libertarian) arguments against democracy. The first chapter can be read here, the book purchased from here.

ACD00

February 2, 2015admin 83 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Democracy

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

83 Responses to this entry

  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    The distinction he makes between points 1 and 4 is not clear to me. It seems like they could both be condensed into one statement that says, “All property under a democracy is a fugitive resource.” Am I missing something? Maybe a distinction between private property and political power?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2015 at 2:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    Neoreaction is so screwed it is actually funny in a really dark way. Anissimov is very much a symptom of the death of NRx, neoreaction or whatever. Not only is he not going to go anywhere, but anyone who has any intellectual links to sov corp, patchwork, the hayekian/ Scots enlightenment underpinnings of analysis etc is left high and dry, because they have all been ejected and NRx has gone Identarian. Michael McGregor calls it here -http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/10/15/724/, and the reason he calls it, is that he is identarian and he can see that most NRx were really identarian. As most NRx were actually identarian, Anissimov’s obscene behavior has been quietly and organically allowed because it is within their accepted parameters, in fact it is beneficial, as he drags the thing in an identarian direction. Think of him as comparable to left activists.

    If you make a claim along Moldbug lines (for example one based on incentives and rejecting WN and thedes and all that nonsense) you will get quickly admonished by most of NRx. It take major effort to get most NRx to deal with Anissimov, and even with the worst of his behavior it is only done grudgingly, it is really quietly allowed. You go against WN, Nazism and all the other mutated left wing bullshit, you get constant grief (really quietly allowed by “core NRx.)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    This year should be interesting. It’s probably a good idea to learn from the short book idea, and set some things out calmly and clearly.

    My sense of things (NRx-wise) isn’t quite as dire as yours. I think we’ve seen worse, in the height of the Evola-mania, and that the deep trend is to restoration of Moldbuggian analysis within the rough frame you propose.

    Mike didn’t use this publication to launch Animissovism, but instead — mostly — to recollect Hoppean insights into the failure of democracy. He has to see that wherever the NRx center of gravity might be, his ethno-populist trolling isn’t it.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    I think with every sad “success” by identitarians in europe (and by “new” right parties) the identitarian contingent within NRx is going to consolidate, become louder, and become more central.

    The question really is – why the hell is anyone not identitarian nor WN/ socialist going to stick around to put up with this constant crap? Where is the analysis going to come from? I can see many different avenues that can be taken with a strong connection to current trends in urban development, technology and intellectual outreach but why would anyone want to do it under NRx when they then have to put up with the Evola spam bot tagging along for the ride and the identitarians waving their hands and banging on about mystical crap like this – http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/we-are-identitarians

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    You know what. That’s the last I’m going to say on this topic.

    Izak Reply:

    “Where is the analysis going to come from?”

    Probably from people who have intelligent things to say, try to stick to the best reading material possible, and don’t particularly care about the unusual quirks of various social groups. People with smart ideas don’t choose groups because they want somewhere to belong. They let groups basically choose them because their principles coincide. This whole tech-comm vs identitarian thing is a pseudo-controversy. Intelligent identitarians have doofuses who spend too much time embroiled in mud-slinging internet controversies and enjoy fringe for fringe’s sake (I’m sure you’ve noticed that this is a real cause for concern around those parts), while tech-comms are surrounded by intelligent libertarians who are too socially conformist to accept that democracy is a lousy system and thus unmotivated to read further into that direction. Each group obviously has its issues. Neither camp is robust or grounded enough to competently wage war against the other.

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    How hard would it be to simply propose a division between “neoreactionary identitarianism” and, say, “neoreaction per se?” There’s no contradiction between neoreaction and identitarianism, especially insofar as the latter draws on the former and not vice versa.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    How hard would it be to simply propose a division between “neoreactionary identitarianism” and, say, “neoreaction per se?” There’s no contradiction between neoreaction and identitarianism, especially insofar as the latter draws on the former and not vice versa.

    This. Precisely.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    The strength of NRx is being all kinds of politically impossible things without being insane, autistic, and wankerous about them.

    If you’re concerned about hyper-thedish entry, then understand them, embrace them, teach them. Don’t run in fear. Lead. Most won’t follow. A few will. And they will be enlightened.

    SOBL Reply:

    Isn’t Anissimov really “Neo-European Monarchist Identarianism” (could be refined). To use Bryce’s suggestion, can’t we just set that up as a piece under the umbrella but not neoreaction per se?

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    With you on this 100%, Chris. I only ever interpreted Spandrell’s Trichonomy as a prophecy of impending divisiveness. Since ’13 it’s been a matter of waving off genuine interstices and games of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. I guess it’s the role of the ‘throne and altar’ types to say, ‘come on guys, make up, it isn’t THAT bad.’

    scientism Reply:

    If somebody set up a publishing brand under which to publish short books by NRx authors it’d be a neat way for people to promote stuff and a way to ensure editorial discretion and stop anything insufficiently NRxy from creeping in. All you really need is a name, a website, some respectable people for an editorial board and maybe an agreement to cross promote at various venues.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    I’d be glad to finance such a thing, if the right people (e.g. our host) are involved. I also have designers and IP lawyers who could work on it. (I pay ’em a salary anyway, so might as well put them to work!) If y’all are interested in pursuing this further, let me know how I can contact you.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    That cuts to the heart of it. Who holds the keys and wears the editor hat. An invitation for an ego driven power struggle. To make matters worse we have the autistic trying to herd cats. The thing is, the based people following along are the prize and the beautiful thing about them is that brand recognition doesn’t work on them, where there is quality content, they’ll always manage to find it. NRx exists in squishy idea space. When NRx ideas reach maturity (they’re certainly not ripe yet), then it will be time to see formalized leadership structures emerge and apply fully realized NRx ideas to achieve real world goals.

    scientism Reply:

    @Aeroguy

    I proposed this solution since anyone can do it, it doesn’t have to be ‘official’ (whatever that would mean), etc. It’s basically a market solution to the problem. It’d give people some control over what gets promoted along with their own ideas and would be purely opt-in. There can be as many such organisations as people see fit and people can choose what they want to promote.

    The problem with having everyone blog (or even tweet) is that NRx is about ideas and blogs are about (self-)promotion. If you want to get visitors to your blog, you need to produce constant content, which generally leads to lowering standards in the pursuit of popular appeal. It also produces the wrong incentives (i.e., self-promoters and populists inevitably get more attention, causing schisms). On the other hand, if people want to make irregular contributions, there’s the problem of promoting them. If you don’t already have an established identity, there’s no point in writing something up, since it’s unlikely to get any attention.

    Books and journals suit NRx much better than blogs and tweets, given that it’s supposed to be about ideas, rather than the promotion of a political ‘movement’. But unless there’s something like an NRx imprint or an NRx journal, it’s not going to happen. You need a system where you can publish a small number of high-quality books and articles per year, not one where everybody has to try to publish content all the time.

    scientism Reply:

    I’d also add that this is the best way to promote upwards. Since the goal of NRx isn’t to be a mass movement, it shouldn’t be trying to promote itself to the masses, it should be trying to elevate itself. It doesn’t need organisation, in the sense that a movement has a leader, so much as a process of professionalisation. People need to be moved from the periphery to the centre on the basis of merit and then they need to aided and promoted so that they can gain the attention of the people above (the elites), rather than the people below (the proles). But to do all that you first need a centre and you need a mechanism of professionalisation and promotion.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    That does make sense, like social matter but with an emphasis on professionalism and a more academic style of writing, a proper think tank. My earlier thoughts were more in regard to seizing the NRx label as a brand.

    Kgaard Reply:

    I don’t see how calling something a book advances the ball. The action is all in the blogs. That’s where the give and take is. I could easily see a scenario in which an e-publishing arm is set up, attractive e-books are created and … nothing happens. Self-publishing is not the bottleneck to idea proliferation. The bottleneck is marketing to interested cohorts. That’s a function of the viral-ness (or lack thereof) of the ideas and the quality with which they are presented in blogs.

    I don’t see what an NRx publishing house would even do, unless it did something akin to what a regular publishing house does:

    * Getting physical books in book stores;
    * Booking writers on Oprah, John Bachelor, Book Notes, Charlie Rose etc;
    * Sending hard copies to reviewers.

    The bottleneck is really in the marketing, not the production, no?

    scientism Reply:

    @Kgaard

    You’d have something less ephemeral that could be cross-promoted. There’d be a website with all the books and their info. Each book would include a list of other books in the series. People can review the books on their blogs and perhaps promote them in a sidebar, etc. Copies can be sent to other websites, outside NRx, that might be interested in them for review. Again, the point isn’t to sell a lot of books, it’s to have a place where people can write high-quality content without having to maintain a blog. It could also be used to establish a canon.

    If you stick to ebooks and keep the page count low, you can probably do it all at minimal cost.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    NRx’s refusal to spend its time bashing unacceptable rightists is one of its main strengths.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Hear, hear!

    [Reply]

    James James Reply:

    Hear, hear! No enemies to the right!

    Thales Reply:

    xReaction is just a blade pressed against the throat of “Progress.”

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    thank you

    Kgaard Reply:

    Chris — I read that Social Matter interview and it’s very interesting. Key paragraph, I think, is this one:

    “Still, I think a real base for NRx is in the tech industry and there’s definitely a sense of “we want to break away from these proles.” As the American Right has become identified more broadly with Middle American Christians who are anti-elitist, low-church Protestant, and strongly pro-American, it seems predictable that NRx is going to be defined as a kind of Right Opposition – overtly elitist (just against who runs the Cathedral today), high Church, and suspicious (at the least) of the entire American experiment. Identitarians are also against all that, but there’s a greater sense of “we have to save these people.” In NRx, you can be frankly indifferent whether we will deal with them at all.”

    Good to get these distinctions on paper. But still I don’t see how one can realistically make a precise cleavage between NRx and Identarianism. There is too much overlap. Take any subject you want, but particularly economics and politics, and there’s obviously going to be a racial component. NRx will always have to acknowledge that, no? Else it will fall into all kinds of absurd errors.

    Also, I don’t see how Evola can be presented as some kind of Identarian maniac. That’s not his message at all. Remember he split with the Fascists in large part over their race obsession. Evola is much more about the importance of elitism, and cultural mythos generally, than about race. He was an orientalist scholar …

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    I wasn’t going to respond further but this needs response –

    “There is too much overlap. Take any subject you want, but particularly economics and politics, and there’s obviously going to be a racial component. NRx will always have to acknowledge that, no? Else it will fall into all kinds of absurd errors.”

    Identitarianism and a lot of discussion on aspects of race within the identitariansim sphere of NRx are utterly wrong in serious ways. I see zero overlap with Identitarianism and NRx here (assuming NRx is supposed to be deferring to HBD on all points.) The thede idea and race are both primary. HBD guys are repeatedly telling us that there is no genetic interest beyond the immediate family, yet those pushing thedes and all the race awareness nonsense are doing so in contradiction to this, and on the assertion that we should have “feels” for other co-ethnics (but not extend further, only so far left, and no further chaps!). The entire race issue is really the left talking to itself.

    In fact, going further, I see almost no overlap between identitarians and NRx beyond the usage of the cathedral analysis, which even there is tenuous. NRx (and when I say NRx , it is my original understanding of what NRx was supposed to be) sees the systemic nature of the thing, and subsequently sees the lies based on race etc. Identarians and WN and all those guys don’t go into the system beyond “we need to have more white centric “feels”” – the only intersection is the observation of race and egalitarianism being bullshit – this is the opening they have come through.

    Also, economics and identitarians? there is clusterfuck if ever I saw one.

    [Reply]

    Mark Yuray Reply:

    I am actually deeply interested in this issue. My view at the moment is that the proper and natural hierarchy of genetic affinities goes in fairly concentric circles of me, my family, my extended family, my village, my city, my province, my nation, my race, my species. From this perspective the horror of the Cathedral is that “my race” is anathema, everything before it is suspect, and even “my species” is being attacked by vegans and animal-rights lefties of various looney sorts.

    Are you arguing that the circles go something more like me, my family, my extended family and the dissipate into negligibility? Please link me to information on this topic.

    FWIW IMO, a soft or “in-progress” Identitarianism among NRx ought not to be something frowned upon, since, though perhaps a softer 19th/20th century leftism, it is inherently a counterweight to the far more destructive, currently fashionable leftism of extending genetic interest to cows, pigs, chickens, cats and presumably eventually plants, rocks and twigs.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    @Mark Yuray
    I’ve been thinking about trying to highjack a Chaos Patch and turn it into an attempt to write a glossary for all the possible different meanings people might give to “universalism” and its antonyms (particularism, nationalism, ?).

    Kgaard Reply:

    Chris … What you’re saying here doesn’t add up. If we just start with the basic point that IQ and race are inexorably and demonstrably linked, then of course race and economics will be linked, and race and politics will be linked. Then if we accept that different races have all sorts of different, scientifically demonstrable proclivities (Asians calm and group-oriented, whites intellectual solitary thinkers as a function of eons living in the snow), then you arrive at various cultural and even architectural implications (different kinds of cities for different kinds of people).

    So I guess I second Mark Yuray’s question: What are you proposing — a notion that we ignore attachments beyond the family level? That we should feel no more affinity for someone with DNA that is very close to our own even though it’s obvious we do feel greater affinity for them (because their minds work the same way)?

    I’m confused …

    admin Reply:

    @ Peter Taylor — You’re very welcome to give that a go.

    Nyan Sandwich Reply:

    Chris you’re missing something here.

    Identitarianism isn’t just about genes. It’s about culture and hertitage. If I have children with another anglo, my children are anglos, and know what they are and what their culture is and they inherit that culture. They become a projection of myself and my people into the future. If I hang out with other anglos, I understand them and have a huge shared library of culture and ways of thinking going back thousands of years. If I hang out with and have children with chinese for example, we can have only the crudest relationships and our children can only have the crudest heritage.

    Thedes matter. People know their own and want to associate with them, which is why we get self segregation. Denying this and pretending like we can erase everyone’s identity with a clean conscience is insane.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Nyan,

    Cultures have a far ranging influence. The ancient Greeks are the perfect example of this, Germanic peoples are very different than the Greeks but the heritage of the Greeks got passed on never the less. The core of western culture and tradition is Greek, not funny hats and animism. Ancient Greece itself was hardly a monoculture, for building communities it’s about being local and tight knit. In spite of everything wrong with it and a long history of prog experimentation, the military retains a very distinct culture and set of traditions. A woman who wasn’t a military brat marrying an officer is in for a much bigger culture shock than if she marries a second generation Chinese dude.

    The ethnic thing is important, but it’s more of a compatibility thing, genetic predisposition to certain aspects of culture and heritage. I’d take a Taiwanese with a rightwing family history over a WASP with a leftwing family history. If both families share core values there already exists a culture and heritage to support it. It’s also worth noting the breakup of India into India and Pakistan, they’re ethnically identical, ideology is powerful stuff trumping ethnic loyalty making it more important. Identitarians tend to forget this.

    Chuck Reply:

    “HBD guys are repeatedly telling us that there is no genetic interest beyond the immediate family”

    Really? And who exactly is telling us this?

    Giving Bigotry a Chance
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/325/

    Misunderstandings of Kin Selection and the Delay in Quantifying Ethnic Kinship
    http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/SalterMQXLVIII-3.pdf

    Whose sock puppet is Chris B?

    nydwracu Reply:

    Talking exclusively about genetic interest is delusionally reductionist. Nothing reasonable can be based on that garbage. Anyone who can’t immediately see why ought to go away and think until they’ve found at least three other things that are relevant to identitarianism or whatever you want to call it.

    Mark Yuray Reply:

    This is pointlessly alarmist in the worst way. You try to use Anissimov as an example of creeping identitarianism, and ignore the constant drama we’ve had over the subject that has ended in everyone except Anissimov explicitly rejecting white nationalist demotist antics, both privately and publicly with blog posts.

    Your claim about incentives has plenty to be argued about, and not just from a WN perspective. In Serbia, the American government pours milllions of $ of aid into the country and the entire Brahmin mission there sincerely believes in the cause of Serbian progress. Yet Serbs still hate America and instead spend their time parading around the capital with Putin chatting about dead Orthodox heroes. Man has material incentives about as much as he has incentives for social status, sacredness, spiritual rewards, etc.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    When has anyone claimed that man has no other incentives but material ones?

    [Reply]

    Mark Yuray Reply:

    If not that, what on Earth is Chris B talking about when he was “most of NRx” will admonish for talking about incentives?

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    There is an ambiguity to ‘man doing x for profit’ – some do mean that it all comes down to money. I trust though, that NRX is not quite so naive as to assume that.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I don’t want to have anything to do with ethno-nationalism, but it seems distinctly possible that things are going to unravel along the lines of a Tom Wolfe “Back to Blood” scenario, in which case we’re not going to have a choice. You may not be interested in ethno-nationalism, but ethno-nationalism is interested in you.

    [Reply]

    Mark Yuray Reply:

    I am deeply interested in ethnonationalism, but not a result of NRx or the Internet. I have a nation in Southeastern Europe that I am deeply connected to by blood, soil and religion. If it at all clarifies, my beefs with American NR ethnonationalism tend to stem from my annoyance at the artificial way they acquire it.

    [Reply]

    Urban IX Reply:

    I sympathize with this. It seems that many, but far from all, young ethnonationalists love more the idea of a nation than any actual nation. This is true of other branches of the right (Traditionalists who love Tradition but not tradition), but it is much more prominent in ethnonationalism.

    nydwracu Reply:

    We don’t have one in this country — so we’ll have to build one.

    Where do you think Germany came from?

    Butch Leghon Reply:

    I suppose that if you think that culture and genetics are separable, then you might think that non-identarianism is possible. But if you believe as JayMan and HBDChick do, in the gene-culture coevolutionary theory, then it becomes clear that ideas, concepts, and their expressions are very much dependent upon the genetic stock of those who hold those ideas. Culture and genetics are in a feedback loop.

    Language evolved to allow for negotiation between parties, and to pass information to kin. What is being negotiated between parties is reproduction. All morality and all philosophy and all ideology and all religion are expressions of reproductive strategy, at root. Each genetic population will have differences in reproductive strategy, which will influence the expression of that strategy which we call culture.

    NRx is all white guys. It is obviously the expression of a European reproductive strategy. This is a biological reality. Are we not supposed to recognize the biological reality of the genetic underpinnings of NRx? If we do, then I suppose we are identarians. If we don’t, then I don’t think we’re looking at the same literature on HBD.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Sure, society is a spontaneous order that is dictated by its constituent part, and yes cultural influences genetics over the long run, but that has pretty much nothing to do with what I wrote. I wrote that individuals only have real attachment to genetic kin – close family. Identarians and their call for “white pride” and racial awareness are synthetic, wrong and working on crap they pulled out of their arse – just as much as anti-racists.

    It is very simple, white, nationalism, internationalism, anti-racism, pan-slavism, pan-germanism etc are all calls to collective identity which are based on picking a level of magnification and saying “I want that one”. They are all possible, and have been so since nationalism first raised its head. That there are groups of people with shared phenotypes that can be labeled races is not a issue of dispute really, just as you cannot dispute that all men are humans, but the ability to shift collective identity should really be a flashing light on this issue.

    Think of racism and anti-racism as being comparable to attempts at managed economies.

    [Reply]

    Butch Leghon Reply:

    Ok, I think I get the difference. I agree that sometimes in the identarian conversation that some seem to be saying “Because you are White, you should support X”.

    I am saying something more along the lines of “You are more likely to support X, because you are White”.

    I will agree with you that the argument of “You are White, therefore you must support X” is specious and is a way to get the not-so-bright to follow along. Are you asserting that that is 100% what ‘Identarianism’ is? If you meet Y racial requirement, you must support X? That some person gets to define what the ‘Identity’ means and that everyone else has to go along with the assumptions and precepts of that ‘Identity’?

    Are you sure that there isn’t a large portion of any Identarian movement that is busy trying to figure out just what that Identity is? To me, I see lots of wrangling about just what it means to be Western, and how it is that we got to be this way. I tend to think of Western Identarianism as those who are concerned with Western identity, what it means, not necessarily as a mass movement with an Identarian ideology.

    I understand your fear and your warning of the sheep being caught up in Identarian mass movements, being easily led astray with it. That point is loud and clear and we agree on it. I think there is a distinction between intellectual discourse on European identity, and an attempt at mass mobilization using Identarian ideology. Can one lead to the other? Yes. Does that mean we should stop talking about it? No.

    Bob Reply:

    Gene-culture coevolution isn’t a theory of genetic determinism.

    “Reproductive strategy” has a specific meaning in sociobiology. You can take a genetically determinist position and say that “All morality and all philosophy and all ideology and all religion” are genetically determined or expressions of genes, but it’s just inaccurate and sloppy to say that they are a “reproductive strategy”.

    Positing that culture is genetically determined or simply an expression of genes is another way of saying that what is commonly understood as “culture” doesn’t exist at all. That there is no such thing as “culture”, it is simply an illusion, etc.

    [Reply]

    Anne Emmanuel Reply:

    @Bob

    I agree with your general point in a general way. Rigour is the very last thing you’d want to sacrifice in such circumstances. However, this…

    “Positing that culture is genetically determined or simply an expression of genes is another way of saying that what is commonly understood as “culture” doesn’t exist at all. That there is no such thing as “culture”, it is simply an illusion, etc.”

    …reads like nonsense. Positing culture as extended phenotype does not dematerialise it in any meaningful way. On the contrary, it provides a much more cogent expression of its origin and nature. Fire is not a gift from Prometheus. Rather, just as beavers build dams, humans build cultures. The actual illusion is not “culture” but “human nature”.

    The caveat here being the fact that phenotype ‘determination’ is inherently a stochastic process. That offers us only so much wiggle room though, and it seems to me like you’re close to trapping yourself in what I would call a sui generis fallacy. Namely, that ‘unique’ occurrences must have ‘special’ explanations.

    Bob Reply:

    Where did I suggest that it dematerializes it? Obviously positing culture as simply an extended phenotype materializes it in material pieces of deoxyribonucleic acid.

    And doing so does imply that the traditional, common understanding of culture is an illusion since this understanding posits that culture is extra-genetic, non-material, freely determined, etc. This understanding distinguishes between culture and beaver dam building or any other aspect of animal ethology.

    I don’t see how “stochastic” phenotypic expression is relevant here, since it still implies a genetic determinism at odds with traditional common understandings of culture.

    Anne Emmanuel Reply:

    @Bob

    You’ve lost me. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that you are, for all intents and purposes, dancing around a tautology. But we end up talking past each other, because we’re talking about culture at different “resolutions”.

    In our context, hardly anyone is bringing up the question of whether, say, the shape of a culture’s pottery has a genetically determined component or not. Because it’s hardly relevant, and even if the answer to that query is in the affirmative the effect would be functionally negligible due to neuroplasticity, which is what you’re invoking when you’re saying that culture is that which is “extra-genetic, non-material and freely determined” (I assume). It is true that people are capable of social learning, but that was never a point of contention.

    The thing is, neuroplasticity is genetically determined. And hence, the ability and capability for social learning is as well. Absent extreme degrees of neuroplasticity, this will result in variations not only between the individual organisms of our species, but also between its populations. Thus, the average member of a population will have a propensity towards the culture produced in that population. Not only that, but provided that the culture affects (ultimately) their reproduction, the individuals of a population will become even more attuned to their cultural environment. So controlling for non-cultural environment and learned particularities, you would still expect a (random) subpopulation to build a similar culture to their previous one, once removed from it.

    In this light it is perfectly reasonable to view our culture as part of our extended phenotype. The difference between a beaver’s dam building and a human’s culture building is one of complexity.

    Are we on the same page now? If not, what is it exactly that we are disagreeing on?

    Bob Reply:

    I’m not taking a position on culture here. I’m simply stating the implications of genetic determinism and noting that they’re inconsistent with traditional, common understandings of culture.

    Traditional, common understandings of culture are not theories of neuroplasticity or extended phenotypics. Such theories obliterate these understandings.

    Anne Emmanuel Reply:

    @Bob

    Yes, when you’re talking about culture you’re employing its operational definition as commonly used in anthropology, which was predicated on the existence of tabula rasa variants (i.e. extreme neuroplasticity, in my parlance) from its inception. Definitely, that gets blown to smithereens. And good riddance.

    My point was that, there are still these phenomena (language, mores, material artefacts, et cetera) out there. It’s not like they go away just because you modify the way you deal with them conceptually. Then, insofar as you employ it descriptively, you can still call them culture and use that as a unit of analysis. Epicycles, ellipses… still orbits.

    Bob Reply:

    I’m actually not describing an operational definition of the sort used in anthropology. The sort of operational definitions of culture used in anthropology are more or less identical to your own. They’re ontical definitions or conceptions.

    By “traditional, common understandings” I mean something more phenomenological rather than ontical. The phenomena do “go away” when you deal with them ontically.

    Bob Reply:

    Culture and by extension human beings do indeed “go away” and no longer ek-sist in such a conception.

    Anne Emmanuel Reply:

    If it’s going to go that way, I’ll have to excuse myself from this discussion. Maybe I’m wrong, but I fear that at some point, one of us will get possessed by Hegel’s ghost and we’ll start throwing unparsable content at each other. That might be fun too, but to me it’s looks more like a can of worms than a rabbit hole.

    Posted on February 2nd, 2015 at 2:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Noble effort, but how is this any different than Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God that Failed?” His nine intro points seem like Cliff Notes for Hoppe …

    [Reply]

    Frog Do Reply:

    In the same way that Moldbug is a cliff notes Carlyle-Froude-Hoppe? Novelty is overrated if the presentation is good, and a non-Austrian school explainer of Hoppe might have value. Not that I’ve read it, 7 bucks for 70 pages doesn’t seem worth.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Fair enough … though it does seem more value-added to re-package Carlyle than Hoppe. It’s a lot harder to squeeze the message out of the older stuff. Hoppe is just right in front of your face, in powerful, compact prose.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Why rely on Anissimov’s presentation when Curt Doolittle actually knew Hoppe/All the Austrians from what it seems and has more accurately summed up his positions than Anissimov? Why even support megalomaniacs like him?

    Do you all insist on sweeping up glaring inconsistencies under the rug? Do you want the self-appointed leader of NRx to be reposting diagrams from /pol/?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2015 at 2:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Against Democracy | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2015 at 6:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Briefly off chapter 1:

    America was, and in many ways remains a Republic that extended the Franchise. But it hasn’t been Tocqueville’s Democracy in America since the New Deal. We have instead a government of technocratic administrators who once did what they thought was best and now do what they please.

    Tocqueville wasn’t writing a polemic against Democracy in America, I wonder how many here have actually read him. Of course all one needs is Unqualified Reservations, the Koran of NeoReaction. I do mean Koran and not the Bible.

    For that matter I doubt Assinimov has read Churchill, or he’d understand a bit more history of those of us who speak in English and what’s he’s up against.

    I have yet to see any proof past Aristotle’s Greece about the 3 cycles of governance. Certainly not in History. His Greece alone is to provide the proof for all time. He was also kissing up to his Masters, put it in perspective. Sometimes as well 2500 years ago was indeed 2500 years ago.

    Iraq is governable by the Strongest alone and always has been. It helps to be clever, but you must…must be a Killer to be taken seriously. As a Man, never mind government. I was there, and none of my Iraqi friends who are usually quite educated would gainsay me. This is a recent and well known failure, and I suppose we’ll never hear the end of it.

    I’m not seeing anything here that can’t be laid at the clay feet of Human Nature.

    I think we should recognize our challenges aren’t merely theoretical and we should work with what we have, not what we haven’t. We haven’t a King.

    A conversation of 5 minutes with any of our Elites should cure one of any notion of increasing elite power to where they are the sovereign above the law…and we have that last part already. Are you enjoying the Rule of the Empowered Technocrats?

    Well no, because the chief complaint of so many here is they covet their power and status.
    The real grievance of the Banished Whites of Eve.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    What are your thoughts on the abolitionist movement?

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    There’s a three step program for deprogramming Americans, each one harder than the last. Condemning FDR and the New Deal is step one. Condemning Lincoln and the Abolitionists is step two. Condemning Washington and the Federalists is step three. There’s plenty of other specifics to be deprogrammed from but learning how the three most popular Presidents each made a huge contribution in moving America forever to the left is important.

    [Reply]

    Urban IX Reply:

    What does an American have to tie him to any sort of tradition or history without those three? What is our Mythos then? I’m curious because I agree with your idea of deprogramming, but want to know what you think of reprogamming with.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Jefferson never considered himself an American, always a Virginian. The sovereign States under the Articles of Confederation can be thought of as a patchwork that failed due to insufficient mnemonic immunity. Much of the mythos would therefor be more local. The old gods can become the new demons. The present mythos of the civil war is that America had to bleed in order to atone for the sin of slavery. In the new mythos the civil war is an example of the unnecessary bloodshed that results from universalism. Maintaining the mythos of uniting in the face of common enemies would be maintained. The fact that Texas was entirely separate from the US but fought together during the Mexican-American war could be emphasized.

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Someone already asked the question: if successful in de-programming [who we actually are] what will they be re-programmed with?

    NRxn=Progs who’ve gone right, as there’s no room for them on the Left.

    The banished WhiteKin of Progress.

    What is the point of this pyschopathic social engineering, other than I guess you’ll be one of the new Imperial Shitlords?

    Aeroguy Reply:

    I hate having to resort to ethos but I’m sick of being called a Prog,

    I’m not a cultural Brahmin, I grew up in a Red state with a Republican family (I remember things like having a thank you card on the refrigerator with Bush and Laura’s picture thanking us for donating to their campaign). Raised deeply religious sola scriptura Christians, when I was Christian I essentially resembled Free Northerner. I was a conservative republican until I became agnostic which shifted me to a Ron Paul conservative libertarian (I never fully bought into the NAP so I was never a “true” libertarian) till I ran into Moldbug. My dad’s a mechanical engineer which makes him Vaisyas and my mom a traditional housewife who never went to college. Currently he’s more of a paleocon, when I pointed him to Moldbug about a year ago he responded with “that guy is too long winded it is difficult to tell what point he is trying to make. I honestly did not get much out of it” “I write him off as a narcissist. If your interpretation of his message is correct then I do not agree with him. One area I might come close is that both the left and the right can make politics their religion. Also his Bay area upbringing biased him too much.”

    My Father’s Father was a career enlisted Marine and my Mother’s Father a former Navy blue collar Chrysler worker who drove trucks on the side. I was a varsity wrestler in highschool. I had a 1550 SAT and a resume to match with places like Stanford offering me academic scholarships, but I thought I had a calling from God to be a pilot and I wanted to bomb terrorists. I also figured I would avoid getting the liberal brain washing by going to a place like USAFA. My having graduated without commissioning has a lot to do with a Prog selected black female commander taking over as my CO with a clean out the old Air Force to make way for the New Air force attitude, and me already having a reputation for being politically incorrect (I lawyered up too late to save my career but if I hadn’t I wouldn’t have graduated at all and owed 200k). I had assholes writing me up for having a 5 o-clock shadow at 1600 and I have as much chest hair as Austin Powers. There are few combative sports I have no experience in and am an aeronautical engineer by trade. In 2006 as a cadet I started discovering the blogs that would flower into the manosphere but only found Moldbug about a year ago.

    I say all this to emphasis that I wasn’t the Prog brahmin effeminate SWPL that went so far left he became right you seem to think populate the entirety of NRx, but quite the opposite. Sure I’m respectable, white collar, and had a fancy education, but contrary to popular culture, the left hardly has a monopoly on those things.

    When I started reading Moldbug’s open letter to open minded progressives, I thought at first that he wasn’t addressing me but fruity liberals. But as I continued reading I realized he was addressing me because in fact everyone who isn’t reactionary is some flavor of progressive.

    The rot of leftism goes deep into our history and as products of leftism reading history books written by leftists there is so much to unlearn and that unlearning doesn’t extend only as far back as the 20th century. It’s like the ridiculous notion that the Frankfort School was the genesis of the left and not just a new chapter in it’s very long history.

    You seem to be forgetting that the entirety of American history was populated by progressives. I used to read the federalist papers unquestioningly as if they were written with God’s own hand, I thought it was likely the constitution was partially divinely inspired. Even as an agnostic I still got spiritual vibes about the founders and the constitution. For years I would read aloud the Declaration of Independence every 4th of July in front of my friends the exact same way a pastor would read aloud from the Bible on Easter. Moldbug’s red pill was too big for me to swallow whole, but it’s not that kind of pill which is why it hurt so bad. This is why I use words like deprogram.

    Sure the modern left denigrates the founding fathers as backward old white men which makes it all the more tempting to venerate them. They regard the constitution as an obstacle and the federalist papers as outdated and irrelevant which makes it very tempting to accept them wholly. However it doesn’t change the fact that the founding fathers were leftwing progressives or that the constitution was the most leftwing progressive document to become law for it’s time. There isn’t a Goldilocks level of progressiveness, just different road markers on the path to left-singularity.

    When I think of the cyclic nature of history, I think of everything after the fall of Rome in the west as part of a single incomplete cycle of the Anglican Empire, the immediate prior cycle belonging to Rome. This is why I emphasis the long history and understanding that there is no way to stop the cycle from moving forward or reset before reaching collapse.

    Mythos, psychopathic social engineering, and writing 8th grade history books (which only has enough room to be an incomplete executive summary of the executive summery to the table of contents making it impossible not to be biased) are the same thing. Gnon abhors a power vacuum, there will be someone who takes that power.

    Posted on February 3rd, 2015 at 1:04 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Hoppe already obviously knows about NRx(I think), in case you guys missed this

    http://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy

    why even support Anissimov’s antics. When we actually have the public intellectuals come after us who legitimately matter they’ll burn him alive

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 3rd, 2015 at 4:28 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    Has he moved to Idaho yet?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Soon.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 3rd, 2015 at 2:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bob Says:

    “Identitarianism” doesn’t really seem to signify anything different from nationalism. The term seems to be used for PR purposes, as “nationalism” has negative connotations in mainstream liberal discourse. Similar to how some nationalists adopt the label NRx.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 4th, 2015 at 4:27 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    @Bob, I completely agree

    @Chuck I think a significant argument can be made from the fact that what you are saying might be true/is true that nobody even gets their genetic work done from say 23andme. These people have already decided who their kin are. I’m sure people have random groups of people across the world that might have more in common with them or do have common with them. I doubt these people will go assist them.

    Their loyalty almost nothing has to do with cute arguments like those. At a certain point, most people just decide.

    [Reply]

    Chuck Reply:

    @SanguineEmpiricist

    I discussed this topic prior and I don’t care to repeat what I said in full. I will just make a few notes instead:

    A. Ethnic Genetic Interest:
    (1) mathematically, the logic of inclusive fitness extends well past one’s kin.
    (2) thus, insofar as genetic similarity is important to one, one could rationally extend the concern outwards. One could say, “Well I care about my immediate kin relatively more than I do that of others because of, in part, shared blood, so it makes sense for me to also care about my extended kin (race).”
    (3) a brute fact is that some people do care about extended kin; another is that people vary in ethnocentricity; another is that ethnocentricity has a heritable component.
    (4) the extended logic of inclusive fitness can potentially explain (3) and also some other phenomena, such as why people tend to, to some degree, assortatively mate on whole genotype.
    (5) rhetorically and ideologically, in racialist circles, the logic of inclusive fitness is used to justify biological racial favoritism (let’s call this racism type 3); the context, as we know, is that many leftists (and libertarians) imitate that racism type 3 is “irrational”, “crazy talk”, and “perverted”. In counter, racialists make arguments along the lines of (2) and (3) to defend, respectively, the rationality and naturality of the disposition. In a related manner, others construct biological arguments in defense of e.g., gayness.
    (6) people project their values; what is rational and natural for them is thought to be so for others; as such, one can only expect that our racialists will see non-racialists as being deviant.

    B. Collectivism and socialism:
    (7) only misanthropes and ignoramuses oppose collectivism; sensible people oppose only the type which they don’t wish to be a part of; the problem isn’t being an ant but being a slave
    (8) socialists are not principally populist, they are no more so than theocrats; they are not guided by what people say or feel they want; they are by what they believe is really in people’s nature; for international socialists like Marx, it is in man’s nature to be communal; people say and feel otherwise because they have been corrupted by oppressive institutions — the secular devil; presumably, for national socialists people who aren’t racialists have been bamboozled by the Joos
    (9) coercive collectivists, such as international socialists, see compulsion as a necessary evil; the compulsory aspect is seen by them as no more pernicious than are places of corrective detention seen by us; it is rehabilitative with respect to true human nature
    (10) the problem with them, from the NRx DE informed perspective, is not that they are collective but that they believe in a common human nature (grounded in a disposition not shared by NRx patrons)– and that they fervently wish to cure the deviates.
    (11) in contrast, DE sees a plurality of instincts warring against each other; morality and sociability is, in practice, a Hobbesian affair; claims of Truth and the light of Reason are held in suspicion.
    (12) NRx, more or less, takes this as the state of affairs; thus, it does not seek to realize the ideal world; the solution to conflict is radical plurality and exit.

    C. Nationalism and NRx:
    (13) particularistic forms of collectivism i.e., nationalism are compatible with NRx insofar as they are compatible with radical plurality and some degree of exit. (Here I use “nationalism” in the Moldbugian sense: “[A] nationalist is someone who believes that [members] should act collectively to further their collective interests”; ethnonationalism is a subtype. “Identitarianism” is, more or less, a synonym for ethnonationalism so understood.]
    (14) this is why NRx does not have a principled e.g., Jewish problem [I take Jews, at least in their secular form, to be a collectivist group]; tribalism is not a problem, per se. Insofar as it fosters creative competition, it is a boon.
    (15) the conflict:
    (a) personality: much of NRx has a hyper-individualistic Anglo sensibility; it views with suspicion and looks haughtily down on tribes and other thickish collectives; they seem a little too inbred; the ethnonationalists, in turn, see NRx as being too raceless.
    (b) conflicts of interest (1): the techno-commercial wing of NRx, which often presents itself as NRx, is, naturally enough, hostile to socialism in the economic sense (i.e., redistributionalism); and socialism has both a historic and functional relation with nationalism; conversely, the more socialist nationalists, in turn, see tech-com as dangerously corrosive to national glue and as a sociobiologically unrealistic fantasy [as the mass is socialist], which, like libertarianism, ends up serving international socialism by warring against the only marketable alternative.
    (c) conflicts of interest (2): functional collectives, if they do not wish to merely be social clubs or meetup groups, require some degree of intragroup restriction on exit, if not legal, social; factions of NRx idealize none. (This isn’t so much of a principled problem as a personal one, since NRx, unlike much of current libertarianism, doesn’t evangelize, or impose on collectives, the right of subgroup exit; NRx is not yet Free Tibet; rather NRx delegitimizes justifications of non-exit — unrepressing the Hobbseian aspect — and then offers exit as a solution to the ensuing conflict. There is, though, an ideological tension here that warrants future exploration.)
    (d) territorial: NRx is leery of nationalism as the latter is aligned with ENR and other groups which threaten to overrun NRx.

    Now, to address your statement:

    “Chuck…nobody even gets their genetic work done from say 23andme. (a) These people have already decided who their kin are. I’m sure people have random groups of people across the world that might have more in common with them or do have common with them. I doubt these people will go assist them. (b) Their loyalty almost nothing has to do with cute arguments like those. At a certain point, most people just decide.”

    The relevant points are (2, 5, and 6). Regarding (a), I would disagree on technical grounds; people can fairly accurately read genetic affinity through phenotype similarity. Regarding (b), I am not sure how important affinity is actually felt to be on average or in the extreme (2) or how rational anyone would act on such concerns (5,6). On a personal note, I probably am the most ideologically biologically racist person commenting on this site (and I surely am the most that I know of personally) and yet my wife manages to hail from a different continental clade — it just doesn’t matter that much to me. So (2, 5) might serve mostly as rationalizations; they are nonetheless rational ones.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Western European stock that didn’t practice cousin marriage and were genetically homogeneous weren’t under selection pressure to develop type 3 racism. For this group type 3 racism isn’t transmitted by genes but by ideology. Since ideology is the method of propagation it makes more sense to discriminate on the basis of ideology rather than race. Memes run faster than genes in the evolutionary arms race (look at Mormons). Even more significant, it’s the Western European genetic lack of tribalness that made them awesome in the first place (and vulnerable to tribalism). Developing purely ideological tribes (that aren’t evangelical so they stay small, enforce K-selection = hierarchical collective, and not socialist redistribution = r-selection) makes more sense.

    [Reply]

    Chuck Reply:

    @ Aeroguy

    re: :Western European stock that didn’t practice cousin marriage and were genetically homogeneous weren’t under selection pressure to develop type 3 racism. For this group type 3 racism isn’t transmitted by genes but by ideology.”

    Refer to my comment below. There are a number of pathways by which populations could have acquired a congenital disposition for type 3 racism. The most plausible is that this is a serendipitous, from the perspective of ethnic genetic interest, over-generalization of a general genetic similarly favoritism mechanism, resultant from kin selection. The genetic similarity between two random White Europeans relative to Black West Africans, for example, is equivalent to that between halfsibs (Harpending, 2002). While not inbred, Europeans are still, owing to geographic isolation, linebreed — hence a race. You would only need a mental module which could recognize magnitudes of genetic similarity of this degree (which we have), and which would incline one to favor individuals this relatively related — and not care if individuals were actually immediate kin. A mechanism that limits favoritism only to immediate kin, that can distinguish between relative genetic relatedness and absolute, would seem to me to be less plausible — it would also contravene a common sense interpretation on Hamilton’s rule. And why would this have evolved? It would seemingly have only under the dual conditions that generalized favoritism (conditioned on degree of relatedness) was maladaptive — yet mathematically it is not — and that you had roving bands of very differently related people around, making this an issue. But you have to argue that the latter case did not hold to argue against a non-serendipitous form of evolved ethnic altruism.

    Generally, while I don’t think that the type 3 racism is transmitted by ideology hypothesis has been ruled out — I wouldn’t hang it on such ill conceived a prior argumentation.

    As for the other point, the problem with racialism isn’t the propagation of the idea — the idea is transmitted just the same way as is any — it is the limited potential supply of adherents and the difficulty of kicking out troublemakers. I think that the latter is the more vexing problem. Who wants to root for e.g., the “White” teem when not only are most members free riders but many gleefully piss on and tear down the club. This was Moldbug’s analysis (misunderstood by some here). The problem wasn’t ethnic nationalism per se, but the e.g., Brahmins. Unfortunately, for them, white racialists are unable to see this, obsessed with the Joos as they are.

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 8:20 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @chuck

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/inclusive-fitness/#comment-121465

    See the comments from Jayman in particular 2nd cousins is the cut off point apparently. Very timely post by HBD chick, unless I am reading it wrong. Of course, I am not claiming race does not matter, or that it does not exist. The manner in which a spon order comes to be is predicated by the constituent parts, but there are deep issues around this points which are ironed over by both anti-racist lunatics and ethno-nationalists along the same lines.

    Does it not strike anyone as odd that race and nationalism occur as concepts only really occurs late in the day?

    [Reply]

    Chuck Reply:

    Chris B,

    Chris B,

    If you want, I will elaborate in more detail on this; for now: Jayman’s comment — that “Coefficient of relationships…demonstrates why ‘ethnic genetic interests’ do not exist” — is either semantically of conceptually confused. “Ethnic genetic interest” is Frank Salter’s term which means something like the “distinctive genes carried by an ethnic group.” As used by Salter, the term is equivalent to neither “inclusive fitness” nor “ethnic/kin altruism”. See the quote below from Salter’s ” On Genetic Interests”. Ethnic genetic interest, so defined, could not not exist, except in a scenario were ethnic groups did not pick out biological natural divisions (races). What Jayman means, I think is that, (a) as a contingent fact of history (e.g., due to groups with large genetic differences not living in close proximity) “ethnic altruism was not selected for”; it is also possible that he means that (b) “ethnic altruism is not relative fitness (in the biological sense) increasing and therefore that it could not have been selected for. One can have (a) without (b). Mathematically, (b) is untenable. The problem with (a) is that ethnic altruism could have been derived indirectly though inclusive fitness enhancing selection which promoted general genetic similarity favoritism, such as Rushton’s GST. Thus who think otherwise need to explain the phenomenon and heritability of ethnic favoritism.

    Personally I would take Salter and Harpending more seriously then I would Jayman.
    Salter, F., & Harpending, H. (2013). JP Rushton’s theory of ethnic nepotism.Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 256-260.

    “On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, And Humanity in an Age of Mass Immigration”

    In chapters 2 and 3 we saw that ethnies carry large stores of their members’ distinctive genes, especially when contrasted with ethnies of different racial background. It is therefore plausible to assume that it would be adaptive to direct a great deal of altruism towards one’s ethny. After all, if it is adaptive for a parent to make sacrifices for a family containing a total genetic interest of a few children, it is easy to conclude, that efforts to preserve a population carrying the equivalent of thousands of millions of children must at least be adaptive. The adaptiveness of ethnic patriotism would seem to follow directly from a rule formulated by W.D. Hamilton for deciding whether altruism is adaptive… In fact this common sense proposition is controversial, when it is discussed at all. Dawkins dismisses the notion that racial similarity denotes any significant degree of kinship. Commentators responded with equal brusqueness to Rushton’s argument that competition between ethnies could amount to group selection of similar genes. The likelihood is hardly discussed, rare exception coming out against the idea that ethnic altruism is or even could be adaptive.

    The crucial issue for individual actors is whether ethic altruism is adaptive; can they sacrifice their individual reproduction for the sake of their ethnics without losing genetic interest, that is, without contributing to the elimination of their distinctive genes from the gene pool.

    Inclusive fitness is widely misunderstood to mean genetic interests, though the two concepts are distinct. It is often stated that inclusive fitness is the number of copies of ego’s distinctive genes existing in offspring and collateral kin. The definition actually describes familial genetic interest. Inclusive fitness is the effect of an individual’s behavior on the reproduction of his distinctive genes in himself and others (usually kin and fellow ethnics). [Editorial note: for reference Hamilton (1964) defined inclusive fitness as “the individual’s production of adult offspring . . . augmented by certain fractions of the quantities of harm and benefit which the individual himself causes to the fitness of his neighbors.] Thus fitness is a behavioral effect across some unit of time, not a static number of genes. Fitness is a type of speed. In terms of discrete generations, fitness is prospective, the number of offspring caused by some behavior. In continuous time, fitness is the instantaneous rate of making copies of genes. Fitness is the effect of investing in copies of one’s genes, It is not the aggregate count of those genes — the genetic interest, Behavior is adaptive when it has the effect of preserving or increasing the actor’s genetic interest, which is the sum of copies of his own genes (actually germ-line alleles) in the population. Such behavior is said to increase the actor’s inclusive fitness. Inclusive fitness has some counter-intuitive properties. And individual can have a large ethnic genetic interest, but unless he or she is investing in the interests, little or no inclusive fitness. The effort needed to bring all of one’s ethnic group within the compass of one’s inclusive fitness can be slight….Imagine a wealthy citizen whose inclusive fitness is not larger than the fitness of her children, because she contributes nothing to ethnic fitness. One day she has a change of heart, and makes a larger donation (though small change to her) that bolsters the community, With that single act the woman gas increased her inclusive fitness by several orders of a magnitude.. Hamilton’s inclusive fitness theory is the critical analytic tool for mapping concentrations of all an individual’s distinctive genes because it is based on coefficients of relatedness that apply to all genes…Individuals who show kin altruism due to the action of ‘altruistic’ genes thereby boost the inclusive fitness not only of those ‘altruistic’ genes but of all their distinctive genes, since they are replicated in kin in the same proportion.”

    [Reply]

    Chuck Reply:

    @ Chris B

    “Does it not strike anyone as odd that race and nationalism occur as concepts only really occurs late in the day?”

    BTW, where did you acquire this idea. Try Azar Gat’s “Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism”. As for “race”, the idea was imported into natural history in the 1700s; but it was based on the notion of noble lineage (e.g., noble de race), breed, and genealogical lines (e.g., the race of Shem), notions which have a deep history e.g., Genesis chapter 10: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.”

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    I’ve read the Harpending post you supplied, and if you go down into the comments, he acknowledges he is trying to envisage a situation in which ethocentrism could be selected for. Maybe it could, but is that really of value? and linking race to lineages is something I am beginning to see as a giant slight of hand. Lineage yes. Race as multiples families from shared lineage, and with similar phenotypes yes. Race as a point of organisation? hold on a second – there’s been a leap in logic along the line there that anti-racists and race realists are both playing on (anti-racists to greater effect.) Would be worthwhile unpacking this issue in greater detail, but would that be starting a fire storm that would make the Jew thing pale in comparison.

    Would also help if we had some reification of names on the topic, as I think there are multiple meanings hiding in words like race, thede and tribe.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    oh shit good catch

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 4:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    @vxxc2014

    @aeroguy,

    [I don’t recall mentioning you by name/handle].

    NRxn “culture” and most of the leading lights were at one time Progs or even Nihilists.

    It carries over. Everything must be destroyed then built back from scratch. Sounds familiar and it is to dreariness.

    For instance the need to make lasting changes to human nature, if not wipe out humanity as it exists with AI, Transhumanism and so on.

    What you specifically mention would mean the death of many, many millions of Americans not to mention however many die in the ensuing shockwaves radiating outward, possibly the destruction of Western Civ itself – for be it ever so flawed, we are the core of Western Civ’s remaining power.

    I’ve been denouncing this thrust towards Right Wing Progress and tearing down what walls we have for some time. I’m usually given Right wing Progthink answers. Let’s not doubt for an instance where this nihilist, leveling impulse comes from, or that personal grievances and lust for power play into such calculations.

    As for being roughly handled by Progress…well live and learn. One can still go enlist in ground forces, which of course are valuable skills. I did. Just as well my eyes weren’t good enough as a teenager to go for USAF-A. Infantry is where we live.

    I was never Prog or raised that way either, but you know…I learned in the Army I’m not what it’s all about, which only reinforced my Trad upbringing.

    We’re Stewards of our Civ and Guards of the Watch – all of us, every generation of Men.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    I understand your sentiment about not tearing down walls. The person here who actually takes your take on it to the fullest extent is Kgaard. When it comes to manning the walls of the status quo the bailouts and inflation are exactly that. Hurlock isn’t a nihilist for wanting the economic collapse to happen earlier, it’s respect for the god of the copybook endings and not artificially extending the life of a perverted order, though grievances with the banking establishment probably do factor in. What everyone agrees that there would be no soft landing in the case of economic collapse but the economy would rebuild itself eventually, Kgaard’s main disagreement is that he thinks central bankers can successfully man the walls of the economic status quo indefinitely.

    I see the same pattern here, man the walls and protect the status quo indefinitely. Attacking the notion of indefinitely with the inevitability of failure is contemptible defeatism to the ears of someone manning the walls who knows the possibility of failure is real. However once you’ve accepted that it’s not a question of if but when failure happens you have to ask if delaying failure will make conditions worse or better when that failure comes.

    In the case of our civilization we are undergoing a r-selection decline that if not intervened will leave the population with too few capable of maintaining civilization. To make matters worse the task of building up civilization requires greater ability than merely maintaining it. Like a world with few technicians and no engineers, at best copies could be made from templates, but more complex machines would be lost forever once they reached a state of disrepair. At the present time there as still many people capable of building up civilization but all effort is focused on maintaining strained systems holding back decay, however all hopes for expansion are lost, you’re manning Hadrian’s wall.

    Expansion of civilization is more important that any one civilization, a civilization unable to expand is dead weight. The present iteration of western civilization manifest as the Anglican Empire under leadership of USG will NEVER expand into a new frontier, not the oceans, and not space. The requirements for maintaining it’s far flung status quo are too great and it is incapable of mustering the will to cut off the cancer of consumption. Only a new civilization, cannibalized from the living flesh of the existing civilization would be capable of this expansion. The longer the wait, the more knowledge and ability lost, the longer the dark age.

    What good is a wall when you have tribbles inside the wall with suffrage extended to them. Not even the tech magic of 23rd century post-scarcity space communism could handle them without finding a way to get rid of them (Lurking WN’s take note, white tribbles exist too). Rather than manning walls that protect tribbles and strain under their weight, we need to build and man a new set of walls designed to keep the tribbles out. Acceleration is about making people uncomfortable with the status quo enough to realize their walls are inherently flawed so they’ll stop repairing the old walls and instead build new better walls while they still remember how. Standing watch is not enough.

    The task of building new walls is too immense without getting enough people to abandon the false sense of security their walls provide. It will require getting the right people for the job. People with careers destroying walls probably have useful advice on how to design better ones. While digging under the foundations of the old walls does immense work in undermining the false sense of security they provided, it hardly means that people who are incapable of helping build or preserve walls will have anything to do with building the new walls or allowed inside them. I see the role of NRx as rediscovering lost building design techniques and updating them for modern compatibility. An entire school is being rebuilt to teach design because all the old design schools were remade into maintenance schools. The design work is arduous and far from complete, but though building hasn’t yet started, materials are being gathered. Young men are being gathered so they can be forged into the image of The Coming American, capable of building new walls. I see men like you having an important role in helping forge and lead those men (which is why I pick on you so much), while the NRx project of rebuilding the school of design (the antiversity) continues.

    The very men who have traditionally shouldered the burden of civilization are found all throughout the manosphere and reactosphere. They wouldn’t be there if they weren’t interested in self improvement and being masters of their own destiny, coalescing into ever tighter and stronger groups. Because of that I see no reason we should disparage each other.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 7th, 2015 at 11:34 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    If one razes houses people were living in, levels walls they’re sheltering behind, digs under their Foundations, better have replacements at hand.

    Of course that would mean one knew how to build, and show me your building accomplishments. Show me your work, anyone can criticize.

    What do you offer that we can see and touch? If nothing then leave what stands.

    If manning the walls we have is too costly and dangerous why should any believe you’ll stand the watch on new ones? Even one’s you built making the enclosed “your property.” What have you ever built, what walls have you stood the watch on?

    If all those questions have answers of “none” then cease your calls for another Year Zero.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I just discovered Tom Kratman, who has a couple of recent articles on “The Breakup of the United States: Why It’s Such a Terrible Idea”.

    http://www.everyjoe.com/?s=kratman&submit=Search

    He also has a nice article from May 19, 2014, on “Ukraine and Crimea: What was Really Motivating Putin?” His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor Mong, has been whispering in Putin’s ear.

    “Ah, Vladimir Vladimirovich, have I got an idea for you…”

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 7th, 2015 at 11:41 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment