Mix this with the Archdruid Report, and you begin to get why the world is so confusing. One of the crucial defenses of the term ‘Neoreaction’ — and thus an argument for clinging to it despite all frustrations — is its intrinsic orientation to grasping both of these perspectives at the same time. (Do that without time-spirals, and you’ve come up with something I’ve yet to consider.)

January 23, 2015admin 17 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction


17 Responses to this entry

  • Erebus Says:

    Personally, I feel that what you’re talking about is best exemplified by the Hestia Society’s Post Anathema NRx-aesthetics image blog. Look at today’s top two images, for instance. Post Anathema’s sort of aesthetic synthesis renders it more interesting than more monothematic (but still excellent) image blogs.


    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 6:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anti-Greer | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Anti-Greer […]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 6:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • neovictorian23 Says:

    I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating: The great science fiction writers, starting in the 1930s, extensively explored the tech-apocalypse, the tech-utopia/singularity and the resource-collapse scenarios. These signals to the future have prepared those of us who read and thought, for the possibility of all of them.

    As Greer notes, the changes, whether “good” or “bad”, will be “fractal.” Since no individual can effectively change the World, the key to the NRx project is to attempt to ensure that enclaves of Sanity continue no matter what form the Great Change takes.


    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 7:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:

    “This works on smaller scales too. The movie Back to the Future came out in 1985, and “the past” took place in 1955. In the movie, when Michael J. Fox went back to 1955, he was caught off-guard by the newness of TVs, the prices of soda, the lack of love for shrill electric guitar, and the variation in slang. It was a different world, yes—but if the movie were made today and the past took place in 1985, the movie could have had much more fun with much bigger differences. The character would be in a time before personal computers, internet, or cell phones—today’s Marty McFly, a teenager born in the late 90s, would be much more out of place in 1985 than the movie’s Marty McFly was in 1955.

    This is for the same reason we just discussed—the Law of Accelerating Returns. The average rate of advancement between 1985 and 2015 was higher than the rate between 1955 and 1985—because the former was a more advanced world—so much more change happened in the most recent 30 years than in the prior 30.”

    This seems flat-out false on it’s face. Notice how the world of today looks considerably LESS different from that of 1985 than the fictional 2015 of the movie… and how the change between 1955 and 1985 actually seems greater!

    However, this is only in a *material* sense. The world *looks* similar- but the rate of cultural mutation going on in the last thirty years is arguably even higher. In many ways, things I read from the 1990s feel more archaic than anything I read from the decades before that, which is very strange time perception distortion. Now, the fact that I turned 18 in 2000- and thus these were the zeitgeist around the time of my coming-of-age, and it’s merely the Hanfeizi of 2015 in his perpetual cyber-now who sees this period as uniquely archaic because of my personal perceptions… well, that could be as well.

    But something very weird is going on. I daresay that Peter Thiel’s stagnation hypothesis may simultaneously be very correct- and very, very off…


    Kgaard Reply:

    Yeah I see it the same way. I am late 40s and basically nothing has changed in my life other than the internet and immigration. Every other aspect of daily life is unchanged from when I was 5 years old. We live in the same houses, drive the same cars (conceptually speaking), fly the same planes, watch the same movies and TVs, watch and play the same sports. The food is worse and the music is worse. Most techy things have evolved and gradually improve.

    Here’s a helpful way to split this egg: Compare life in 1900 versus 1958, and then compare 1958 with today. I would venture the changes between 1900 and 1958 were far more profound than 1958 to today. The first half of the 20th century saw the introduction of fundamental life changers: Cars, airplanes, TVs, refrigeration, fast food, penicillin and basic surgery advances. Since then what have we got? Computers and the internet. That’s about it.


    Amon Khan Reply:

    This is exactly how I see it. It’s amazing how people seem to be so enthralled with the internet and smartphones that they don’t see this deeper stagnation. I’m wondering if these new generations will even be capable of, say, building another Hoover Dam, or if they’ll just be texting away until the dams break and the lights go out. The Matrix could actually be a terminal for us. If there’s another period of rapid change in my life time, I expect to be in the direction of collapse, not “progress.” This could be the “weird” thing that Hanfeizi is sensing — the feeling that this isn’t going to be sustainable for much longer, and things are going to start seriously collapsing. I was hit by this feeling like a ton of bricks back in 2008, and now I just take it for granted.


    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 7:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:

    ” He believes another 20th century’s worth of progress happened between 2000 and 2014 and that another 20th century’s worth of progress will happen by 2021, in only seven years. ”

    How anyone in the developed world could believe this, I don’t know.

    Though it is arguably true for China. I saw more change in six years in Shanghai than I did in twenty-five in the US.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Probably because they have more distance to go.


    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 8:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:


    I don’t know if I’m alone here, but I’m a nonbeliever in AGI, but I believe that enough ANI systems at high enough speeds are ultimately indistinguishable from ASI. We’ve already seen the consequences of this in financial engineering, and they’re going to start cropping up in many other places too.

    Break out the holy water and incense.


    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 8:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:

    As for Greer, his energy math is so far off I can’t even take him all that seriously anymore. We’re not facing serious oil shortfalls at any time in the natural lifespan of anyone on this page, and probably not even that of our progeny- and that’s given proven reserves. That’s before we even get into all the potential reserves we haven’t discovered yet. And governments and businesses around the world are rapidly moving into new nuclear and renewable energy sources anyway.

    Not to mention, the world’s existing hydropower reserves alone would be sufficient to run an industrial base the size of China in 2005. A considerable global drop in standard of living, but not exactly a post-technological existence, either.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Greer is the classic heretic. He realized that one of our civilization’s dogmas is false (the dogma that material progress and the glorious future are inevitable) and has substituted for it an anti-dogma, that material collapse and the declining future are inevitable. He’s an intellectual tonic, but not a guru.


    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 8:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    It’s pretty difficult to argue against the quote Greer attributes to William Gibson: “The future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed yet.” The Mexification of California or the slow motion Camp-of-the-Saints scenario unfolding in Europe come to mind—with policies of progressive-totalitarianism only exacerbating these issues, in their attempt to forcefully redistribute the future more evenly.


    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 10:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anti-Greer | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 11:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    GNON, meet COLOSSUS.

    Search and replace CEO/Monarch/Sovereign with “superintelligent AI” and the political precriptions of NRx seems much more plausible.


    Posted on January 23rd, 2015 at 11:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anonymous Says:

    @Stirner (@heresiologist)

    I’m a lefty who’d go NRx for a superintelligence in a heartbeat. I always thought AI dictatorship was implicit in the whole superintelligence discussion, though thinking now I suspect the idea might actually be horrifying to a lot of progressives.


    Posted on January 24th, 2015 at 9:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • peter connor Says:

    Good luck with AIs when the fossil fuels, farmland, and fresh water run out….And don’t talk to me about fusion until you can demonstrate that it hasn’t always been a dead end.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    Agreed, especially when you consider that the world’s two major per capita output of technological innovation peaks occurred at 300 BC and the other at 1900 AD. I admire some of the optimism around here—but I’m a bit of a pessimistic misanthrope and figure we’re done for; I find the Carter-Leslie DA particularly compelling.


    Posted on January 26th, 2015 at 3:31 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment