Broken

‘Absolutist neoreaction’ seems to think its techno-commercialist enemies (and I think it’s fair to say, XS in particular) will have some kind of fundamental problem with this:

The history of ideas is the history of the resources behind them (which has some overlap with the base superstructure of Marxism) but that this is augmented and overridden by the action of Power, and power centres in both unified, and un-unified political structures.

If there is some determined attempt to separate Power™ from techno-economic capability, then incomprehension is probable. (But no one could possibly be suggesting anything that preposterous, surely?)

To ignore the historical association of power disintegration with the emergence of self-propelling techonomic competences also looks like a serious blindness. Capitalism hatched in Europe because Europe was broken. Keeping the world broken seems similarly indissociable from the survival of capitalistic historical momentum, and breaking it more profoundly is the route to capital intensification. Perhaps that’s the argument we’re having (not that such arguments matter much).

The Idea that unified power is the reliable principle of social competence is ethno-historically French. That is where it has worked its magic since the epoch of the Sun King. Under sufficiently dismal circumstances, the RF analysis might catch on there.

August 19, 2016admin 38 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , ,

38 Responses to this entry

  • michael Says:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/16/secret-history-trumpism-donald-trump

    in a parallel universe

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2016 at 4:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Apatheos Says:

    Thomas Jefferson’s probably the individual with the most daily life minutiae documented and yet his Francophilia seems to be underplayed. The image of Jefferson goading on and then fleeing the French Revolution seems critical. Also his debate with Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, where Buffon argued for a (temperature based) natural selection, Jefferson developed a PR campaign around the greatness of American animals, woolly mammoths are still out there, etc.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2016 at 4:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • (N) G. Eiríksson Says:

    ▬ „To ignore the historical association of power disintegration with the emergence of self-propelling techonomic competences also looks like a serious blindness.”

    Couldn´t have said it better.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Because theres never been a world power as weak as USG? Or because there’s never been a government that had less control of the technological improvements?Or is it that theres never been a time when power was more distributed?

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >>“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy,” wrote George Orwell. This is a familiar — and important — argument.

    A powerful case can be made for the printing press as the catalytic technology of modernity, but it is the musket that most unambiguously obliterated feudal power at its core
    [N.L. «Military Determinism»]

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    and now we have gun printers. people wont bother printing guns if you do a good job. if you dont or you abuse them eventually they remind you that you only administer their estate you dont rule them, well white people do this because they are not genetically predisposed to be ruled and too intelligent to be subjugated . fortunately they are easy to manage and slow to anger dont get stupid or greedy and youre good.

    John Hannon Reply:

    So is that rifle on the wall now the symbol of doom itself?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2zpcwAAf4g

    Axel Mckibbin Reply:

    “A powerful case can be made for the printing press as the catalytic technology of modernity, but it is the musket that most unambiguously obliterated feudal power at its core”

    Couldn’t have said it better.

    Oh, wait. I did say it better.

    “Inventors alter the material incentives of society, and as a result, change its morals. The printing press is created, the reformation and renaissance happen. Movable type comes along, then the enlightenment. A man invents the first accurate firearm. Democracy follows because equal weapons create a more equal political order. The cotton gin destroys the profitability of slavery. Lincoln takes credit. The pill dramatically lessens the incentive for chastity. Sexual revolution happens. In every case liberals steal credit for technologies works. A mythos of “progress” is created with the left as changemaker. But they incorrectly take credit, and technology was the puppet master all along.”

    http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2016/07/neocameral-future-chapter-1.html

    Ahote Reply:

    RF seems to believe in some version of false consciousness theory.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2016 at 4:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    If there is some determined attempt to separate Power™ from techno-economic capability, then incomprehension is probable. (But no one could possibly be suggesting anything that preposterous, surely?)

    Not that Im ever sure wtf you are saying you do realize the Hank Reardons [Musk Theil etc ] are being paid in company script which they can use at the company store near the company house they live in. Of course they are free to move into a different company house even in a wholly own subsidiary company house or buy some company bitcoins they can even run for company president or blog about how they built that powerful techno economic capability.

    Just know that youre not going anywhere you have no power we dont allow you yor ideas and property belong to us and we got a million musks waiting in the wings to replace you

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Not that I think monarchy is any less stupid I dont have a dog in this larp

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Do you even have a dog?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    an english springer spaniel who i constantly remind is owned by an irishman.

    If you mean a solution or official ideology am I alt right or nrx or nro then no i have problems with them all and think they are all better at criticizing each other than a path forward. i think trying to predict how novel ideas might work in the distant future is a waste of time which we havnt got,since we all seem to agree pretty much on what we dont like and what we do like time would be better spent taking out the cathedral then arguing about how many brilliant non whites can live in the patch on what terms and whether we will make the 90 IQ whites commit hari kari or draft them or have them be butlers or just give them welfare and neuter them .

    Axel Mckibbin Reply:

    “The history of ideas is the history of the resources behind them (which has some overlap with the base superstructure of Marxism)”

    This sounds exactly what I have been saying with the five-phase model. Is this unreferenced inspiration?

    “but that this is augmented and overridden by the action of Power, and power centers in both unified, and un-unified political structures.”

    This sounds like like the kind of “materialistic determinism sucks and is therefore wrong” idiotic argument I expect from the Orthosphere.

    My position is that material processes determine everything….., BUT, we may escape total enslavement to them by taking control of the process (effectively inserting our will into the process to engage in self-directed evolution).

    Reactionary futures position? Do we even know? Something like “muh De Jouvenel” or some shit right?

    anissimov’s position was “King communism” in my understanding. Not actually much of a contradiction between pure monarchy and communism. Both suppress capitalism utterly when total. Both centrally plan an entire economy.

    Nick, your position is what, “accelerate it until AI happens” ?

    See the five-phase model if you haven’t already.

    http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2016/07/neocameral-future-chapter-1.html

    Henk Reply:

    @Axel Mckibbin, interesting book. NRx analysis certainly isn’t done yet.

    Posted on August 19th, 2016 at 5:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Starting with the peasant revolts in the 1500s, the European system began to crumble, and everything since has been a hack.

    We know what works from 6,000 years of recorded history: aristocracy, nationalism, positive reward methods (incl. capitalism balanced by cultural rule; see “nationalism”) and some kind of transcendental goal to the civilization.

    The question of #nrx is how to get to that point.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    come on Brett It may be kinda what we both want and there might be some way to get it approximated but capitalism and nationalism are products of modernity, aristocracy even 6000 years ago are what the guys who killed the other guys called themselves.lets not get caught up in romance or ideology.
    power violent superiority is what opens a space for civilization and its rewards.
    Power can come from chance or careful planning but sustaining that power is the thing.

    a large unified populace is one of the best foundations of power because;
    they can often overpower superior technology and they will if also a high IQ race develop the most advanced tech and be able to afford it.

    ways to maintain a unified high IQ race. do i really need to spell it out dont adopt niggers import slaves invite outsiders to share power.Dont expand by empire see hitler rome etc slow and steady see china. but killing people on a regular basis is good to keep the young from faggotry

    yes many things have been tried to unify religion seems historically problematic, sharing the bounty seems to work well and scalable from pirates to yankees, cultural myth is good but aristocracy has problems as foes fascists or any personality reliant cult.see a good fascist is hard to find.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    I like Mr. Land’s idea of the calculative power of nature, including natural selection and markets.

    This runs into problems when the markets are selected by idiots, because if you can design a product for millions of people who do not care about quality, you can save a lot of money and take that home as profit. This is a metaphor for the collapse of complex societies into third-world ruins itself.

    Nature produced the four pillars. They are purely logical ways to maintain a society. However, they are opposed by most people because of the Bell Curve and the Dunning-Kruger effect, which produces arrogant people who refuse to understand anything about their own energy rating.

    For that reason, we need hierarchy, so the wisest get to the top and oppress the others, who are stupid little parasitic monkeys who destroy civilization unless oppressed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2016 at 5:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ahote Says:

    [Louis XIV] is not content to compare himself to God; he compares in such a manner that it is clear that it is God who is copy
    The Memoirs of Professor Keohane

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2016 at 5:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • cyborg_nomade Says:

    I guess Spandrell’s analysis of monarchical rule should have killed the hopes of undivided government by now. apparently, it hasn’t.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2016 at 9:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Garr Says:

    All the girls want to marry “self-propelling techonomic competences.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2016 at 11:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Regarding the conditions under which capitalism flourishes, I am reminded of a quotation from race car driver Mario Andretti:

    “If you’re in complete control of your car, you’re not going fast enough.”

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Hayek noticed how emergent complexities of market economy are both impossible to achieve with planned economy and incomprehensible to planners.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    territory > map

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    We’re supposed to pretend that nothing has ever been learned about complex systems.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    As any old Eastern European Commie will tell you, market economy “doesn’t work at all” and “it has been *scientifically proven* that planned economy is better.” Then he’ll go on to explain to you that “the rotten West is rich only because colonialism and slavery.”

    SVErshov Reply:

    @Ahote planning works, sure, question is how it is done. for example Sowiets mirracle recovery after devastation of WW2 was achieved by use of prisoners work. 14 prisoners work camps surrounded small city in Siberia in which first nuclear Russian bomb was made. that is how planned economy works in USSR. more then 50 mln people died in those camps. mesure of sovereignty of kind – number of people you kill in prisons. any comi country doing the same, no need pointing finger, I guess.

    that is how natural selection works in civilised society, somebody was arguing recently that with civilisation survival of fittest means nothing.

    Ahote Reply:

    @SVErshov

    Er… yes… that’s why I never say that markets are more efficient.

    John Hannon Reply:

    Emergence – getting something else from nothing but.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 20th, 2016 at 2:37 am Reply | Quote
  • (N) G. Eiríksson Says:

    ▬ “In every case liberals steal credit for technologies works. A mythos of “progress” is created with the left as changemaker. But they incorrectly take credit, and technology was the puppet master all along.” — Axel Mckibbin

    So true. Al Gore famously tried this with the Internet, e.g.

    We have the analytical tools to expose this.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 20th, 2016 at 9:25 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    pardon my naiveté, but progress can be seen as assumption that as a result humaty’s consciouse (?) efforts the world becoming better place. criteria of success can vary wildly, ‘… like Heidegger’s history of being – for which the proper sense of progress has always been the expansion of devastation;’

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    to me progress means ‘4GB < 8GB'.

    but word got co-opted.

    by bad relig

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    “A Klee drawing named ‘Angelus Novus’ shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe that keeps pilling ruin upon ruin and hurls it at his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.”

    – Walter Benjamin

    Dark or what?

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    not sure, looks a bit infintile for a drawing of 40 year old man. Goya’s Los caprichos quite dark, tough

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Not Klee’s drawing, but Benjamin’s response to it.
    Could be he was completely stoned when he wrote about it –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsq83VuArlw

    SVErshov Reply:

    this angel reminds me Laplace demon, who can predict future by observing present. in the real world such idealized models become dysfunctional. then the whole scene is getting darker, while Laplace demon struggle in chaos, unable to find departure point for his prediction.

    Posted on August 20th, 2016 at 2:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • (N) G. Eiríksson Says:

    ▬ “In Moscow the spectacle took a macabre turn. Ah! those Quakers, purest of heart, whose dreams all came true in the shadow of Lubianka Prison, those estimable clergymen passing, bright-eyed, through the anti-God museums, those Fabians discovering in Stalin the very personification of the inevitability of gradualness. How to explain it except that the Quakers, without knowing it, were sick of peace, the clergymen of God, and the Fabians of gradualness. It was liberalism, not God, that had died. Nietzsche had confused the two.

    Orwell, in his enchanting fable Animal Farm, in his brilliant analysis of double-speak and double-think as projected by the Ministry of Truth (based, as he told me, not on a Nazi or Fascist or Soviet model, but on the BBC), worked it all out superbly in imaginative detail. He made only one mistake. He envisaged the nightmare as being imposed by ruthlessly efficient power-maniacs, not realizing that it had been born and nourished in the finest, most civilized, and most humane minds of our time, including his own. For our Dark Ages, it is we ourselves who are turning out the lights, fondly supposing that we are turning them on.”

    Malcolm Muggeridge, The Great Liberal Death-Wish, New Statesman, 11 March 1966.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Wise words.
    Such a pity that all anyone remembers of Muggeridge these days is him making such a tit of himself over The Life of Brian and his association with Mary Whitehouse and – horror of horrors – Cliff Richard, when he was involved with the Canute-like Festival of Light.
    So much more to the man than that.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 21st, 2016 at 3:55 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment