Mark Yuray has made me a believer. From nominal head-nodding towards the Moldbug model of caste identities, I’ve been dragged into utter compliance (with an even simpler variant), in awe-struck wonder at its explanatory power.

This model processes the NRx / Rx gulf difference to my entire satisfaction. It works beyond the Anglosphere, too:

It’s far less an ideological difference, than a difference over the importance of ideology. It’s also a matter of thede, rather than phyle (I’m assuming). The initial, obvious, and somewhat disconcerting implication is that nothing is going to be shifted anywhere significant by ideological maneuvers. NRx and Rx will each attract their core constituencies, after which there’s only pointless bickering. On the positive side, there’s our work to do …

ADDED: A slightly different tack (from June). “NRx is signalling to ‘open-minded progressives’ aka ‘cool people’.”

ADDED: Heading back a little further (to December 2013), contains much of relevance and interest.

November 5, 2014admin 64 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

64 Responses to this entry

  • Caste | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 1:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mai La Dreapta Says:

    Never forget the importance of the object level. Rx and NRx have different cultures, and this is definitely a source of tension, but in the unlikely event that any (N)Rx actually acheived power, their object-level policies would be very similar.


    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 1:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jay Money Says:

    As one of the few Vaisya to post here, my thinking is: once a Brahmin, always a Brahmin.

    I read NRx to amuse my curiosity; it explains and helps me safeguard my own nature. I see no possible real world application to NRx beyond this.


    admin Reply:

    My suspicion is that core NRxers are ultimately certain that writing abstruse tracts is simply what life is all about (at least). This isn’t an axiomatic ethical commitment that travels well (in ‘caste’ terms), but neither is it easy — or even possible — to extirpate.

    When the Vaisyas ask: but what is it for? The (ex-)Brahmins might make some stuttering attempt at an answer, but the genuine response is: huh?


    ||||| Reply:

    The genuine response is to roll one’s eyes and become a little more unhinged from sisyphean frustration. Might as well revive polemics over ghosts of departed quantities, hindsight is 20/20, spherical horses, blah blah blah, rinse and repeat.

    The more globally oriented ones of either caste will work on trying to keep both connected and correcting each other’s vices. Prevents brahmin detachment from reality outwards into clever incoherence and nothingness and vaisyas from pragmatic but simple-minded and ultimately vulnerable provincialism. It (well-maintained hierarchy) keeps the structure open and information flowing, keeps the organism as organism instead of tangentially connected provinces. Probably maximizes some kind of entropy measure in the network, too.

    Secession between hierarchical structures can be good (think of something like patchwork, or good governance in general, as trying to provide a sort of Apollonian gasket where each circle is a community), but as far as I can see, secession within is almost always a bad omen (schism, class warfare, etc).


    ||||| Reply:

    That’s basically an explanation for why exit is better than revolution I guess.

    Been thinking of something I see as ecographic cryptonomy. Namely, what is the role and management of secrecy (more generally, of access and information) , how it relates to structures and environmental circumstances and how to map that.

    Both sacred and profane sound to me like they acquire their definition mainly through, and are bonded by, secrecy.

    Sacred: “This has a mysterious/vague/inacessible force/information/nature which allows it to help me somehow and thus demands some tribute or requires special privileges.”

    Profane: “This has a mysterious/vague/inacessible force/information/nature which allows it to harm me somehow and thus demands destruction or quarantine.”

    Some of the most sacred things are collective tasks that are to be brought about by special sanctified rituals whose functioning is deliberately left unspecified as otherwise they would not be sacred (since they would be accessible). This provides communal orientation but also some measure of flexibility.

    The eschaton is the task completed. Part of the perversion of rationalism is the demand of schemas for the justification for anything under, in and beyond the sun but this completely dissolves the basis and internal coherence of almost any collective task (and eventually structure) which is not rationalism itself.

    [Ritual / Eschaton], “Intelligence / Singularity”, “Rationality / Truth”, “Religion / god”, “Family / Happiness”, “Egalitarianism / Communism”, “Liberty / Prosperity” and so on.

    Now, many of those are judeo-christian in the sense that they posit some eventual elimination of secrecy, the abolishment of the unknown, the extinction of what is feared. The triumph of Good, however it is defined.

    “Be faithful and you’ll go to heaven”, “Be persistent and you’ll solve that problem”, “Be nice and things will get better”.

    “Lower your time-preference.”

    But I bet that there are plenty of other communities which relate to secrecy (and thus information) very differently (look at ragnarok for example).

    Secrecy is naturally ambiguous so there is the ritual and then there is the anti-ritual, which unmakes, usurps and otherwise perturbs the ritual.

    [Anti-Ritual / Eschaton], “Fascism / Communism”, “Communism / Fascism”, “Freedom / Democracy”, “Democracy / Civilization” and so on.

    It’s a kind of collective metric used by the community to renormalize the community. Whence Ingroup/Outgroup.

    The ritual is whatever. The anti-ritual is a perversion, subversion, entryism of that specific whatever. The representational generality and inherent ambiguities in the human cognitive apparatus end up entangling everything.

    One thing I want to point out is that I use secrecy as mainly meaning withheld (not necessarily consciously or by any agent) information and thus a kind of expectation of surprisal (literally in the shannon sense) which is eliminated both by condemnation/absolution and magnified by exile/isolation. This eliminates the information (ritual/anti-ritual, good/bad intel, brain/life growth/damage ) How is this important?

    Someone comes along and retools the legal system (and maybe even a lot more than that) to full disclosure. It’s minimal, clear to all, easy to enforce, almost obvious. It eliminates surprisal. It dissolves perversion. It dissolves entryism. It dissolves leftism. The system becomes incorruptible (assuming they have in fact eliminated any potential surprisal). This is reformation. Or perhaps reformalization.

    The alternative strategy is instead of making everything in the system function clearly, make everything appear opaque, fully random. It eliminates surprisal. It dissolves perversion. It dissolves entryism. It dissolves leftism. The system becomes incorruptible (assuming potential surprisal was in fact eliminated). This is cryptography! In a way, deformation, as it makes shapes/patterns unrecognizable.

    The leftist finds in surprisal the ammunition and license to construct new laws and dictates in a false attempt to eliminate the anti-ritual while at the same time embodying it (because to eliminate the anti-ritual and thus surprisal would be to eliminate the genesis of his power). Hence the sacralization of novelty and noise and the incessant polemicization of anything and everything, they’re mining surprisal. Info-addicts, thus the connection between NRx and ex-brahminism.

    Incidentally, liberal and conservative brains appear to differ in a few significant ways (but don’t extrapolate too much from this).

    This is clearly an issue since it places the production of information almost strictly and entirely in leftist hands (hence eventual control of mediatic/academic avenues, even if they’re not producing it directly) granting them undue powers in technicism (and remember that rationalism, or perhaps naive rationalism, already has profit motive aligned with a similar direction). If this deep profanation is overcompensated by technical advance and resource gathering the society becomes anti-robust, resisting both the restoration of the cure and the fatality of the disease, otherwise it collapses harshly (think OWS).

    The “mysteries” of a culture are continuously unraveled by its very existence. It’s autophagic in a way and almost tragic.

    This sounds suspiciously like ergodic theory (if you look at it from another angle).

    Another thing to note is that both of these structures have at their core uncertainty and so provoke fear/anxiety. Horror is related to worship (“tremendous” is that which causes trembling, alike but not exactly fear). I guess this places a whole new perspective on horrorism (or a wholly old perspective). I mean, apocalypse means revelation, disclosure, etc. but now has degenerated mostly into a plain synonym of calamity.

    Neoreactionary task being to desecrate profanity (profanity is a leftist ritual, but they are not demons, they have their own notions of sacred). Anything can come under discussion destroying the possibilty of potentially withheld information so no blind spots against prophylaxis. This is a tension clearly extremely difficult to sustain and truly uphold for aforementioned reasons. Also deeply entropic. Perpetually embryogenic, generating generators of tribute to Gnon (because if it were to do so directly it would become an encoded system with its own founts of surprisal and more immediately vulnerable to perversion). Protection through nullity. Cognition as Aegis, Dagger and Cloak.

    Finally, do note that I failed to mention any underlying truth, somewhat sacralizing ontology which is predictable of anyone inclined to platonism.

    “When economic and social revolutions are not simply ideological pretexts for religious crises, after a few years of disorder everything continues as before.”

    Of course besides all the mice and men talk there’s also the practical aspect of observing informational economies and flow in social or technological topologies.

    Should I stop posting overall? I don’t get many replies and most of my contributions seem very weak or obfuscated restatements of the obvious and I don’t want to blemish the place. I mean, it’s obvious I have no idea what is going on or what is it that I’m doing.

    nydwracu Reply:

    Should I stop posting overall? I don’t get many replies and most of my contributions seem very weak or obfuscated restatements of the obvious and I don’t want to blemish the place. I mean, it’s obvious I have no idea what is going on or what is it that I’m doing.

    The inferential distance is mutual. Start a blog.

    aristocalypse Reply:


    Shortly said, since the Woe-men cannot compete in Truth, they keep and work with keeping things in the dark.

    Women are of the devil, the father of lies.

    Thus women keep secrets, to keep against men.

    Make this politics and you have Leftism.

    + Grievance (sorrow, shame, blame).

    The action of not putting things to

    the Light. Lux Aeterna. et Nord.

    Southern Light vs. Northern

    Light. Regress vs. Progre.

    Sauwastika vs. Hastika.

    examine arastikkka.

    prognostica. el-as

    profanatica. xxx

    trastica tract





    Hanfeizi Reply:

    “core NRxers are ultimately certain that writing abstruse tracts is simply what life is all about (at least)”

    To stay in the subcontinent, this makes the core NRx Gnana Yogis; such figures typically come from the highest and most literate class, given their practice is based on writing and argumentation. This might be a more helpful way of distinguishing the place of NRx though than to try to write it off as mere bloviating, but it’s clear that we need more Karma Yogis in this movement.

    Bhakti Yoga and Gnon just don’t mix, however.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Isn’t this just straight out of Aristotle? Highest life is … philosophy. (Somewhat self-serving conclusion for a philosopher but there it is …)

    blogospheroid Reply:

    Impressed by your accurate perception of Indian Philosophy. And you’re naming your self after a chinese thinker. So, presumably you’re knowledgeable there as well. Kudos, Hanfeizi, keep up the good work.

    Bhakti Yoga and Gnon, That image would’ve had me spitting coffee if I was drinking it!

    nydwracu Reply:

    My suspicion is that core NRxers are ultimately certain that writing abstruse tracts is simply what life is all about (at least).

    I really ought to write up a comprehensive list of reasons why I burned out of philosophy halfway through college, but that one is definitely on there. “Yes, that’s a very heavy stack of papers you have there, but what can they do?” — not even let the paper-stackers rise above the level of Daily Kos commenters in political discourse, and if anyone outside academia is using this (analytic) stuff then I haven’t heard of it, so why the hell should I care?

    Abstruse tracts are useful because the ideas contained in them can do something. If they can’t do something, it’s like the Problem of Holes, which one of my professors told me was a serious problem in analytic philosophy. “What is a hole?” Why the hell should I care?

    (If they were trying to figure out the processes that create actual judgements, that would be one thing — but a lot of it is just trying to come up with very long dictionary definitions, because they seem to think that words not only have but are objective context-free meanings. That’s a separate issue, but figuring out those processes probably would do something.)


    nydwracu Reply:

    (come to think of it, the analytic stuff does do something on an aesthetic / metapolitical? level; it’s just that the content of what it does is false and probably a security hole.)

    forkinhell Reply:

    Performative words is what you want. Robert Graves, Ogham and battles of trees.

    John Reply:

    > I see no possible real world application to NRx beyond this.

    This is a typical Vaisya view point on Brahmin theorizing. Whether they see the “real world application” or not, such theorizing, if it be potent, eventually does germinate in the real world and impacts Vaisya lives in subtle but powerful ways.

    This is impossible for Brahmins to explain to Vaisya because the language and concepts required to communicate what is happening exist only in Brahmin-speak.

    There will always be tension between Vaisya and Brahmin, but this doesn’t preclude mutual respect and alliance when appropriate.


    Contemplationist Reply:

    Mandatory Keynes Quote

    The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    thank you based Keynes for your other quotes which while being defunct also enslaved droves of practical men

    Hurlock Reply:

    Practice always follows some theory.

    Whoever controls theory controls practice.

    Kgaard Reply:

    @Jay Money

    Right. And speaking of Keynes, we are seeing a fight over theory right now at the highest levels, with potentially global implications: Draghi and the Bundesbank are going at it over QE. Draghi (whose pro-QE stance I support) may be forced out. The future of Europe hangs in the balance. If Draghi leaves and the Bundesbank vision reigns supreme — i.e. no QE in Europe — it will be a hard-money paradise, with every plane out of France and Spain filled with white emigrants, their places to be taken by brown people from the south as Europe goes through another decade of “cleansing” edification — otherwise known as a never-ending depression.

    But the initial point was that this is ALL a fight over the theory of a dead economist, and thus Brahmin to the core. If Skinheads end up roaming the streets of Athens putting immigrants heads’ on spikes, it will be because of a Brahmin battle in Berlin. Here is Ambrose Evans Pritchard on the situation. Europe could seriously crack in two over this. Pritchard is the best financial reporter out there BTW …

    ||||| Reply:

    Weirdly enough I’m reading this which opens with precisely that quote.

    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 2:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    Well, at least now NRx has an excuse for disliking and mocking Rx.

    They are lower class!


    ||||| Reply:

    That’s would be about as useful as brain mocking bowels when the bowels have the option of leaving. Producing organs without bodies.


    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 4:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • MLR Says:

    Are our theorizers a sort of elite who care, in a way, about the well-being of Vaisaya in a way ‘vampire-Cathedral’ Brahmins demonstrably do not?

    I can see Nemesis and Gnon sitting down to a bowl of popcorn to watch us divide in such a modernist way, when there is real potential, in a TheLastPsychiatrist way, to make the highly theoretical also highly practical, and so improve the lives of those around us.

    Can the Ex’Brahmin theorizers not help provide some form of practical guidance to navigating modernity and its ills for the Vaisaya among us who have, in a sense, the greatest likelihood of raising a next generation that is a little less narcissistic, and a little less Blue Pilled?

    A little more wise? I love what Gaelic Norseman posted in his Twitter feed yesterday: I know this for sure, if you pray for wisdom, you will receive it.


    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 5:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Yuray Says:

    “It’s far less an ideological difference, than a difference over the importance of ideology.”

    A captivating summation.

    Brahmins view ideology with great importance and respect. A heavy tome is an end in and of itself.

    Vaisyas view ideology with little importance. A heavy tome is not as useful as a heavy [memetic] club.

    Yet, both our NRx and Rx Brahmins and Vaisyas agree on practically everything. The only arguments that seem to pop up are “nurds vs. j0x” and “But what’s the practical value!?” Not ideology, but importance of ideology. How else to explain hilarities like Glanton declaring himself non-NRx but regularly writing for Social Matter (and consequently having everyone mistake him for NRx)? Does anyone else notice that Looney agrees with us completely but spends all his time posting aphorisms and images (memetic ammunition?) while we write abstruse articles on ideology? (memetic weapon design?)

    If the revealed difference is on the importance of ideology, and the degree to which resources and reverence should be dedicated to it, the difference must be caste. An IQ difference would be presumptuous, and the obvious geographical divide quashes it anyway.

    I think, much like the Trichotomy, we ought to formalize and vocalize this expected caste cleavage so as to dampen urges for proto-leftist ideological purification. If both NRx and Rx can agree that they share a telos, but due to caste differences disagree on the particulars of methods, we can continue to maintain a cordial and productive relationship without a messy fission — a result which would be most unfortunate.

    If NRx and Rx represent two caste sides of a single reactionary coin, the question then becomes what to call the whole? What is NRx and Rx together? ‘Neoreaction’ has been epistemically conquered by the Brahmin theorizers, and ‘Reaction’ seems claimed by the Vaisyas and old-guard of the Right. Is there an Rx trichotomy? Do NRx and Rx represent two distinct trichotomies? Or one trichotomy with two layers? Or are these sides? Are there more layers and sides? If NRx corresponds to the priestly caste, is Rx the merchant, warrior, or both? Or is this wrong completely? And the most salient question:

    Is the NRx/Rx divide simply a divide between the priestly castes of two different thedes mixed among each other?


    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    What is NRx and Rx together?

    The wider (not unified and equivocal) reactionary community.

    To be honest, I haven’t (yet) gotten tripped up by conceiving neoreaction as a reaction-producing engine. In a real sense, it is meta-reaction, and not reaction itself. It is not so much over or under it, but generating it. A sort of Mere Reaction (following CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity)… a room where pretty lies are rebutted. Yet to enter reaction, one must choose a door… a particular reaction based upon psychology, history, place, metaphysical commitments and the thing that you love that is getting fucked over by progressivism.


    scientism Reply:

    I’m not surprised that Vaisyas are skeptical of modern Brahmin. The modern Brahmin views his job as “theory”, but this is what is problematic in modernity, and stems from skeptical philosophy producing the illusion of a space for theoretical speculation where there is none (on the subject of how we should live). Having a priesthood that thinks of itself as scientists is the ultimate source of modern political, cultural and economic malevolence (the modern priesthood also has a tendency to assimilate all thought to this model and so thinks all thought – including religion, philosophy, etc – is “failed science”).

    So it’s not that Brahmin write that’s the problem, it’s the content and purpose of what they write. Brahmin need to go back to their traditional roles (divination, moral guidance, etc) and stop trying to impose a theoretical vision of society upon society.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    No, this isn’t right, exactly. Priests have always directed moral custom and were often the actual scientists.

    It is the revolutionary quality of their soothsaying that is ill, as is the revolutionary quality of the lower caste desires.

    If anything, the Rx/NRx represent two parts of the Counter-Revolutionary Society.


    scientism Reply:

    Well, I’d say it is the revisionist quality of their thought. The best priests try to keep a tradition alive, sometimes through adaptation to new circumstances, sometimes through reasserting orthodoxy. The worst try to reorganise society around some kind of utopian ideal. The most malevolent priesthood of modern times is communism, which was revolutionary, but you can still be malevolent without being revolutionary, by virtue of having a revisionist account of the society. It all depends on what you define as natural and what you define as a distortion of the natural order. It’s relatively easy to give the impression that you’re simply defending people from intrusion – as in liberal and libertarian “rights” discourse – while simultaneously pushing a highly revisionist, reductionist account of society (self-interested individuals pursuing their own good) upon society and therefore acting in an extremely malevolent way (undermining the family, morality, religion, etc).

    I have no problem with a priesthood that engages in science, the problem is with a priesthood that tries to assimilate all its priestly duties to the model of science.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Many natural reactionaries are very fond of Ideas Have Consequences—the book to say nothing of the concept. I don’t think it’s resistance to theory. At all. It’s resistance to theory that tries to go beyond extant theories. (Muh intellectual mursturbation)

    There are a million (OK) a lot of pet reactionary theories (from pet reactionary groups) that people have to explain why they are right and their enemies are wrong. What none of them ever explain is why progressivism keeps on keeping on winning. All the time. For 400+ years.

    Neoreaction comes in and says we have a theory about why all your theories are mostly right, but just wrong enough to keep you from winning. Ever.

    And if you can’t beat ’em and you’re too proud to join em, the only left is to say: “Nerds”. And pat yourself on the back that you have thrown a piece of shit at your enemy and enjoy the dopamine rush as all your chimp friends cackle with delight.


    nydwracu Reply:

    NRx/Rx synthesis: unity of thought and action. Construction and use of tools.

    If you don’t design or seek out tools, you’re stuck with whatever you’re given; if you don’t use the tools you design or pick up, you have no way of seeing whether they work. (If you’re not trying to see whether they work, then you’re playing a different game. Philosophy detached from application, theory detached from even an attempt at praxis, is a solid gold hammer: impressive, but useless.)

    Da Vinci was impressive in retrospect, but not very useful: he didn’t publish, much less build. Was he more important outside the sphere of culture than Alex Manoogian? Better a single-handle faucet that anyone can use than a helicopter that sits around in a notebook doing nothing until after someone else invented one that worked.


    nydwracu Reply:

    (Someone’s going to have to start insight-mining the Axis countries eventually. I’m not being at all rigorous here — Rorschaching on Mishima, mostly.)


    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 6:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Not to take anything away from Yuray for putting it so well, isnt’ this pretty much what Butch was saying in:


    Aeroguy Reply:

    I like that one better, it makes it clear that there are technically minded vaisyas (which is what I see myself as). Mechanical engineering while highly nerdy is still a very hairy knuckled vaisya occupation, I’ve heard of fist fights breaking out at JPL over disagreements concerning partial differential equations. The programmer crowd on the other hand tend to be lower T and more likely a part of the brahmin class.

    I think affinity for intellectual theorizing is good at distinguishing NRx from Rx but not good at distinguishing brahmin from vaisya, participation in twitter (fashion for the sake of fashion) is a better at distinguishing between the two castes. I see Mrs. Grundy more as the bottom of the brahmin barrel than as an aspiring vaisya.


    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 6:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • R. Says:

    This is because communism is viewed not as ideology but as an expression of national strength i.e. ethno-respect.


    Communism in post-communist countries is the same as conservatism in capitalist countries.
    You’ll find commies in rural, especially poor areas and among old people.

    It’s just nostalgia.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    a good deal of ethno-respect is just that, I mean look at Looney’s TL


    fused Reply:

    Both ideas are partially right. Communist regimes are frequently nationalist regimes in disguise, and once the transition past communism occurs frequently the veneer is shed and nationalism is all that remains. The CCP came to power and amassed support largely by dispelling the Japanese, and today state and party are roughly coterminous for this and other nationalist reasons. Sure there are some folks that, bewilderingly enough, harbor nostalgia for the failed policies of the Maoist era, but this is a woefully inadequate explanation because the communist name-brand has been intertwined with nationalism.


    C. Y. Chen Reply:

    Regarding Mao: It’s a bluff in large part. Admitting that Mao was a fool whose policies had disastrous consequences would only undermine their public reasons for legitimacy. Better to sweep it under the rug and not discuss it whilst simultaneously learning its lessons in private. As for the low-level Party members or commoners, some might unironically profess nostalgia for Maoism, but they don’t really matter.

    It’s worth noticing that the Soviet Union became nationalistic in ways during and following the war.


    Hurlock Reply:

    This is true.

    Plain old romanticism of the past.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    I know this is late, but how is that different at all from what I described?


    Posted on November 5th, 2014 at 11:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    “Often, an intuitive decision emerges with a surprising primitiveness of thought, as is clearly shown in the recently emerging harshness of manliness. Such thought is always instinctive, earthy, single-minded, intent on actions, never on so-called objective standards of observation. The objective observer, of course, is an intellectual who recognizes the apparent weakness of the opponent, and exploits it thoroughly. He sees the strength of the self-imposed limitations of a man of action as a weakness. This overlooks that fact that in politics, just as in the individual, there are two minds, one of action, and one of contemplation. Only one is publicly observable.” -Eugen Hadamovsky, Propaganda & National Power

    Vaisyas are too quick to suppose that they have perfect access to all relevant information determining whether or not some action is taking place. They have inordinately high time preferences in the realm of ideology, which seems to be indicative of a failure to understand its significance. It is an undue prejudice for the concrete which may be adaptive in disciplines such as engineering and mechanics, but it overlooks the utility of language in informing action.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    The whole ‘man of action/man of contemplation’ divide is essential to post-nicene thought, in which those who inherited the Greek tradition decided once and for all that the contemplative path is higher.

    From my experience though, the path of action does tend to be more satisfying, if also more frustrating.


    Posted on November 6th, 2014 at 12:10 am Reply | Quote
  • fused Says:

    An accurate, parsimonious theory; I like it. I also like the above mentioned idea that NRx is right-Brahmin signalling. Every so often in academia, not so frequently but not so infrequently as to not be a definite pattern, I find someone who ever so slightly alludes to a ‘subversive, wrong’ idea, then we both smirk or nod and walk away knowing that there are more of us out there. Strictly speaking this is unrelated to NRx, and I’m sure it is characteristic of some fields more than others, but the idea is the same.


    Posted on November 6th, 2014 at 12:32 am Reply | Quote
  • blogospheroid Says:

    How does one classify Satoshi Nakamoto?

    if one would classify him/them as Brahmin, I would like to note that there really has to be a distinction made between writing documents and writing code that works. Bitgold and B-money were theoritical constructs. Bitcoin is in the process of changing the world.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    You disconfirm the theory before you reclassify any one, although Moldbug is to be trusted. A lot of people do not fit within this class framework.


    nydwracu Reply:

    I don’t know — how does one classify a fscking pseudonym?


    Posted on November 6th, 2014 at 6:43 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    This is one of the most impotent discussions ever. Here in this thread a straight up play for play was given of the same arguments marxists used to have over marxist dialetics and what it means for action. The analysis

    Moldbug’s class system emphasis, obscurant ‘analytics’, it’s all here. Any attempt by the feeble obfuscationists to pretend that legitimate execution does not matter and to put the pedestal on theorizing is laughable. So is any attempt to legitimize this view. For all the fear about entryists every one sure just replayed 20th century ultra-leftist arguments right in this thread.

    A) Class emphasis up to a point where everyone’s continental is showing.
    B) We have the same historicist doctrine albeit more potent & correct
    C) Useless questions. Plenty of “discussion”
    D) Karl Popper rolling in his grave

    “My suspicion is that core NRxers are ultimately certain that writing abstruse tracts is simply what life is all about ” I let that collapse on its own weight. These people will largely have to be removed or made irrelevant.

    I wonder what Mencius is going to do when everyone over-leverages on his work and he is forced to just ignore every one’s bullshit and move forward.


    Hurlock Reply:

    “My suspicion is that core NRxers are ultimately certain that writing abstruse tracts is simply what life is all about ”

    A lot of humans spent their lives writing abstruse tracts.
    They didn’t collapse under their own weight, but became some of the most influential figures in history.
    And please, stop pretending as if action/theory arguments have through history been exclusive to marxists.

    Everything starts with abstuse tracts.
    What do you think the Bible is? And look how many people live by it.

    People, by and large, whether they realize it or not, live according to abstuse tracts written hundreds, or thousands years in the past.


    ||||| Reply:

    Στοιχεῖα Stoicheia.

    الكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة.

    Disquisitiones Arithmeticae.

    Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

    Artis Magnæ, Sive de Regulis Algebraicis Liber Unus.

    Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt.

    Systems of Logic Based on Ordinals.

    Cours d’Analyse.

    And much more. Would be a funny situation if it weren’t so annoyingly repetitive.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    No it isn’t, this discussion is just largely off base with people severely over-extending on some superficial recognition of differences that may or may not exist. I understand that every one needs something to do, and I *will* be writing plenty of abstruse texts, however pushing it so much forward and emphasizing that the

    “Core NRxers” are largely satisfied with just that, is an insult. Unfortunately, your response that

    “And please, stop pretending as if action/theory arguments have through history been exclusive to marxists.”

    I do not “Pretend”, but it would be very difficult to not notice this tendency in NRx, which largely gets it’s influence from “Machiavelli not Marx” that somehow it was said that

    “My suspicion is that core NRxers are ultimately certain that writing abstruse tracts is simply what life is all about ”

    What in the world? Talk about jumping ship. The insulting part is the “certain” with, as if it was beneath these fools to execute. The connection to Marxism is based off of the extreme emphasis placed here on class difference unnervingly echoing the petite-bourgeoisie vs proletariat arguments of the writers vs the working class that the ultra-left had to deal with. How can it be a ‘Debate’ and how can people be ‘Certain’ so much that they would value ‘Theorizing’. It has much value, but that emphasis was disgusting.

    Your response would make sense in some other context, but this is *so* overt & close that it cannot be unnoticed.

    Machiavelli not Marx. People who do not realize this have just gone off script and are the real entryists.

    ” To advance order, always work for the next step – without skipping steps. In a state of war, advance toward peace; in a state of insecurity, advance toward security; in a state of security, advance toward law; in a state of law, advance toward freedom.” – Mencius

    It’s not a debate, it’s solved. Thank god these idiots aren’t doing anything. It’ll be easy to replace them.I must emphasize there is room for both, but dare saying “certain” is much too far.


    Hurlock Reply:

    Your hysteria is over the top.

    Placing emphasis on writing abstuse tracts does not make one a marxist.
    Noticing patterns doesn’t make one a marxist either.
    The way you are using ‘marxist’ here is the same way progressives use ‘racist’ when someone notices the pattern of higher crime rates among black compared to whites. Or when someone notices any patterns and cultural characteristics amongst different races/ethnicities at all.
    You are reacting like a progressive and you are not offering a counter-argument to this despicable ‘marxist’ class analysis.
    You seem too consider class analysis of any kind as crimethink. This is ridiculous. I thought, we were different from progressives in that we evaluated theories on whether they are true or false, not on whether they sound ‘racist’ or in this case ‘marxist’. Either prove this theory wrong, or stop your whining.

    If you feel insulted, and can’t contribute anything more than a knee-jerk emotional outburst, take a deep breath and ignore all of this. You don’t have to foam yourself all over the comment section.
    At any rate, why pay so much attention to idiots that are not doing anything?

    Too high on rhetoric and too low on substance.

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:


    Well said, but not correct


    Alrenous Reply:

    “Analysis” means ‘breaking down.’ There are two kinds of dismantlings. Creative analysis, to take apart to put back together or to swap parts or expose interfaces to add parts. Destructive analysis, to take apart to show it doesn’t fit back together.

    The human brain privileges the goal over the process, because in normal humans the executive consciousness is not supposed to know what’s going on. This can be usefully exploited, but in the case of analysis, it causes the subconscious to feed the consciousness approaches for destruction or creation per se rather than curious analysis. Which I suppose is a meta-kind; to perform the analysis so as to discover in retrospect whether it was naturally creative or destructive.

    ‘Critical’ analysis is an asemantic way of saying destructive analysis.

    You’re critically analyzing the tendency to critically analyze. You cannot succeed without also destroying your own argument. Popper rolling in his grave? Well, this argument certainly reminds me of the accusations of falsification being self-refuting.

    There is a creative analysis here, which I know because I’ve done part of it. (I haven’t finished because it’s obviously going in an unpopular direction and it’s of no use to me individually.)
    What is action as applied to scholarship? Start with thee ur-principle of scholarship: knowing the truth. Action, then, is spreading the truth. As there is only one truth, then minds must converge.
    Action, then, for scholars, is converging of minds subject to external discipline.
    Action, then, is coming to agreement. Or, prerequisitely, deciding on a methodology for coming to agreement. (Schools of thought are then alternative methodologies.)
    By contrast, what’s popular is the impulse that makes Scott Alexander say that blog posts appear for free, and subsequently hoping what appears for free is what you need and subsequently hoping agreement appears for free.

    (Agreement does not appear for free. Ref: open your eyes. What happens instead is too many chiefs, not enough indians. I couldn’t hide my own chiefing impulses even if I wanted to, but for exactly this reason I’ve developed strategies of deliberately indianizing myself.)

    What does this mean? Well, see above, ref: unpopularity. Don’t know, no reason to care. However, it is easy to see a mass of minds in agreement is likely to lead to some kind of actual implementation for free. WIth enough minds it will happen by chance, and even with fewer it makes action easier in numerous ways. Lowers the activation energies.


    Alrenous Reply:

    Btw you basically have to end up with too many chiefs, because indians rarely write comments, let alone blog posts. (Except maybe on youtube.)


    Posted on November 6th, 2014 at 7:12 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    @ Hurlock

    I am not saying any one is a ‘Marxist’ it was just that the manifestation of a particular and well documented tendency here was relatively funny. I am not using it in that sense. The argument used in the new language of ‘Vaisya/Brahmin” and the ‘differences’ is largely magical in its usage and I don’t think it’s quite that hard to see it.

    Prove the theory wrong? You believe things when it leads you to it forcibly accept it or due to probabilistic nature, that is if we restrict probability to a mere extension of classical logic in this case. Preferring absence of belief. This is the problem of having a few good continental people here, they do it correctly, but every one starts aping at the overt forms and stylisms and thus get lost in their usage.

    The ‘class analysis’ here is unempirical and unfalsifiable in any of the stated cases with everyone’s ‘class analysis’ morphing alongside whatever is convenient. I have no issue with class analysis and accept that it is a legitimate & necessary, but not in the procedural usage here.

    “This is impossible for Brahmins to explain to Vaisya because the language and concepts required to communicate what is happening exist only in Brahmin-speak.”

    “Can the Ex’Brahmin theorizers not help provide some form of practical guidance to navigating modernity and its ills for the Vaisaya among us who have, in a sense, the greatest likelihood of raising a next generation that is a little less narcissistic, and a little less Blue Pilled?”

    (two random quotes, but essentially the entire thread)

    There is no discrete empirical quanta underlying any of this, it might have as well been Markov-chains.


    Scharlach Reply:

    Yeah, Markov chains never did no one no good no how.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    I’m not sure what this comment was supposed to well me. I’m well aware of the applications and utility of Markov chains. I have bookshelves of texts on probability, proceedings from Annals, and much more to come. I am using Petrov’s limit theorems text to supplement Taleb’s ‘Silent Risk’ if what you were trying to show me was Russian school type probability/

    A link to a wiki page for applications or whatever you were trying to do is exactly the opposite of the competence we should strive for.


    Scharlach Reply:

    It was in response to your last sentence in which you negatively compared the analyses in this thread to Markov chains.

    If I mistook your point, I blame your huffy, always exacerbated prose style, which clearly gets in the way of your clarity.

    Posted on November 7th, 2014 at 12:40 am Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Let’s see if I can out-cynic reality.

    Yuray’s description is too polite. Let me shift focus slightly to the trichotomy.

    The source of NRx is not virtue, but animalistic rage or fear. Not love of truth, but hatred for your enemies. It’s an aversion response as a result of being unmistakeably attacked by something unmistakeably Progressive.
    Tech-comms had their liberty attacked.
    Theonomists had their beliefs attacked.
    Ethnats had their kith or relationships attacked.

    The reason NRx are Brahmins and Rx are Vaisyas is simply because Brahmins won’t have their traditions attacked by proggies, whereas Vaisyas won’t be attacked intellectually. (Or something near there.) It’s not like there’s no Vaisyas in England. Yuray’s caste pattern merely matches the pattern of imperialist aggression, which is primarily intellectual in the ‘Brahmin’ areas and primarily social(?) in the ‘Vaisya’ areas.

    My point being that if your liberty, beliefs, or relationships haven’t been attacked, they simply haven’t been attacked yet.


    Hurlock Reply:


    Deserves a quote note.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Alrenous … This is spot on. “Animalistic rage or fear.” That is exactly right. And of course the knock on any white man who expounds NRx views is that he has a victim mentality. In the Marxist worldview it is impossible for a white man to be oppressed because he is by definition the oppressor. Now … oddly … there is something to that. White men created the machinery of modern oppression, so to an extent they are guilty as charged. BUT … it’s also the case, as you say … that everyone who is not a white man has ganged up on whites. So they are both oppressed and oppressor at the same time.

    It’s a tricky thing. How best to live when you are under attack — but at the same time still enjoying a cushy existence at the top of the economic food chain? Everyone thinks you are nuts and a whiner. And I guess at one level I sort of am. If I’m at a $60/plate restaurant being served by Ecuadorans making $4/hour and at the same time moaning about oppression, there’s an inconsistency there.

    One guy who I think dealt with this challenge very eloquently is Muhammad Ali. He was oppressed in the ’60s and knew it and talked about it and was angry about it. And at the same time he was able to overcome it. He was in many ways a truly loving presence and a man of god — He sacrificed his brain to god in the sense that he kept fighting long after he should have retired because he felt it helped spread the word.

    When someone starts reeling off magic black men to me (Che, Mandela, Ghandi etc) I now come back to them with Muhammad Ali. He was the TRUE magic black man and perhaps a role model for NRx-ers wrestling with the problem of how to live creatively in an oppressive environment.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Oh … And Ali was actually kind of a race realist. When asked if he would fight in South Africa he said “Sure. Just put a rope down the middle of the stands and have the white people one side and the blacks on the other. Everyone wants to be with their own. Lions want to be with lions, zebras want to be with zebras, giraffes want to be with giraffes. It’s a natural thing.”

    He was really a black nationalist at heart, I think. A sound position (at least for the ’60s).


    Posted on November 8th, 2014 at 3:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] unleashed a Class 5 Twitstorm. Nick Land captures the highlights (with some tentative conclusions) here. (See, especially, the comments; Land has an unsurpassed commentariat.) And my question is: […]

    Posted on November 8th, 2014 at 10:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2014/11/19 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] What is neoreaction? Related: The difference between Rx & NRx is thede. […]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 6:01 am Reply | Quote
  • Brahmanica | Says:

    […] in-spired to act by X. […]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 12:15 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment