Castillo on Nrx

From the perspective of an intrigued (and thoughtfully critical) libertarian, Andrea Castillo offers an initial appraisal of Neoreaction. It’s definitely the most dispassionate yet, and in various ways the most perceptive (which isn’t to forget how admirable Adam Gurri’s more obviously polemical engagement was).

The greatest structural merit of the piece is the firm positioning of Mencius Moldbug at the foundations of the phenomenon. Unlike most of the critical NRx commentary so far, Castillo has clearly read Moldbug with some care. This is basically enough in itself to ensure that something real is being seen.

Steve Sailer, who served Castillo unwittingly as a gateway into the darkness, receives disproportionate attention given his manifest lack of affiliation with NRx. Of course, he’s hugely-respected throughout the reactosphere due to his rare refusal to stop ‘noticing‘ upon firm request. Beyond the fact he hasn’t let the Cathedral put his eyes out, however, there’s nothing very much to differentiate him from mainstream American conservatism. Still, Sailer’s presence in the piece does much useful work. In particular, it helps to mark out the boundary controversies defining contemporary libertarianism (the immigration topic prominent among them).

Since she’s already got herself into trouble, it can’t make much more to add that @anjiecast was already one of my favorite people in the world (remember this for instance?). A little bit more now.

July 29, 2014admin 54 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Media , Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

54 Responses to this entry

  • Zerg Says:

    I really don’t understand Moldbug’s feeling that Carlyle’s on his team. Moldbug sees the Puritans as the source of The Evil and fantasizes about restoring the Stuarts; Carlyle sees Cromwell as a True Wise Hero and has contempt for those who enthroned Charles II, seeing these restorers as falsehood-loving phonies. Moreover, Carlyle again and again declares that there’s an Eternal Law, an Eternal Reality (Gnon Lives!) that must be adhered to Or Else — an image absent from Moldbug’s thinking. Moldbug favors homosexual marriage (he says something to this effect somewhere in his Open Letter) and appears to be open to a heavy female presence in the public realm; Carlyle would have denounced feminism and homosexualism (had he imagined that such things could possibly have emerged) as Satanic lies.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If no one has yet tried inserting a lever into these cracks, they should.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    It’s quite ironic that Carlyle, who was a pretty strict calvinist, would be the one thinker that Moldbug loves the most.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    Seriously you guys are just figuring out Yarvins not Yahweh

    [Reply]

    JPOutlook Reply:

    Perhaps, M.M. is not so much anti-theocrat, but that he thinks that the modern theocracy is against his thede.

    It could be a way of keeping the militant ethno-nationalists away, since a focus on critiquing theocracy is a critique of the first estate while critiquing the lack of a role of the second estate is much more in the camp of the ethno-nationalist focus on sovereignty and nobility.

    J.P.O.

    [Reply]

    cryptael Reply:

    Moldbug has a love for Western Civilization, whether or not its decay temporarily benefits his thede.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    This is like me quoting Chesterton; sure, we agree on certain important things (probably many) but you’ll never see me supporting the papacy (unless against sedevacantists, who need to learn obedience.)

    I’ve recently come to view MM as primarily an aesthetic writer (he did a bit of poetry before) and …surprise… so is Carlyle. To be precise, both Carlyle and Moldbug are aesthetic reactionary writers. So to read Carlyle is to experience his way of viewing the world, even if you don’t pick up his principles. Moldbug is about being a crazy trip that destroys the assumptions of modernity in your mind so permanently that you can’t put them back together.

    The disagreements can be worked out later, over tea, or pistols.

    [Reply]

    Zerg Reply:

    Yes, that sounds right. Thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 29th, 2014 at 3:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Konkvistador Says:

    I like talking to @anjiecast and most of her articles, but this guide is I think poorly written if a guide was the goal of the article. Adam Gurri’s piece was much closer to something that gives the right idea, this one tries to be fun and export all the lifting into the chaotically placed links. It feels like LessWrongian funny article style guides taken to an extreme.The article is readable to me, but I suspect only worst link junkies will read it how it should be read.

    One can do that but then one should be systematic, make something like a list article. A “9 links that explain Monarchy for Geeks” would still be fun for libertarians, a clickbait title and if they were right 9 links better.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    This one really is what it says it is — a gentle introduction. It’s a gateway people can look through and — almost uniquely as these things go — see what’s there. It demonstrates an impressive confidence in the libertarian position by reining back judgment to subtle anglings of perception.

    Gurri’s article was good, but it assumed much more, in the sense that anyone approaching it oafishly wouldn’t necessarily be de-oafed. For one thing, the Gurri-MM contact clearly didn’t go very well, putting a skew into the argument that could be easily misinterpreted. Ideally, the order in which these two articles have appeared would have been reversed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 29th, 2014 at 3:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • tg moderator Says:

    Steve Sailer is always interesting because his views do not fit with any present political ideology. He is not pro big business, libertarian, or reactionary. Sailer’s emphasis on affordible family formation as the most desriable gola to be pursued is much different from Moldbug’s desire for an ordered society. Sailer often reminds us what a wonderful place southern California used to be and how affordable it was for average citizens. The closest politcal ideology to Saielr might be populism, but Steve is smart enough to realize that the poepl will not be capable of acting in their own best interest. I’d be interested in knowing what would be required to push Steve into the reactionary camp? I suspect that he would need to be shown how the King, or CEO ofthe country would act to enrich the average citizen instead of just the King and his buddies. Imo this is the biggest challenge that reaction faces–how to persuade the populist right. Moldbug’s letter to an open minded pregressive is already a fine template for bringing the left to reaction. In a nutshell. At present the US is ruled by an elite who wish to increase sales of toilet paper by at least 8% every year. To do this they issue obscene levels of debt and import millions of consumers from the third world. Post reaction how will the new elite act differently and why?

    [Reply]

    Anthony Reply:

    Sailer is a liberal who understands reality. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy wouldn’t have much of a beef with anything he advocates, if they were fully aware of, and willing to accept, the realities of HBD.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 29th, 2014 at 5:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Castillo on Nrx | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on July 29th, 2014 at 5:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anissimov Says:

    I’m curious what the difference is between Castillo and admin’s politics, if any.

    [Reply]

    Zerg Reply:

    Anissimov, I’ve noticed that on your site (More Right) you sometimes appeal to Moldbug as a kind of canonical NRx-definer, but it seems to me that there’s a HUGE difference between his political attitude and yours (I prefer yours, please note — this is not a hostile observation); if I’m not mistaken, you believe in C.S. Lewis’s “Tao” (also Carlyle’s Eternal Law), while Moldbug surely doesn’t; Moldbug just thinks that a monarchical regime would be more efficient. (No hostility here towards Moldbug either; he seems to be a fine fellow.)

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Do either of them believe in politics? (I’m unfamiliar with Castillo).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Without knowing much about the details of Castillo’s ‘politics’, I’d assume they’re far more egalitarian than mine (fotrkd’s response, however, is near-perfect.) On the most important issue in the world today — blockchain promotion — we’re at the very least tactical allies.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 29th, 2014 at 6:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Akaky Akakievich Says:

    Admin publicly distances himself from The Sail! Steve Over-E(a)rnest Sailer-the-Salesman, in his ‘American Conservative’ white-collar salesman shirt, topped-off with Christian hair and tough-but-tender, manly-ironical, smile-grimace!

    2-nil to the Overcoat, I think.

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    Why are you here again?

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 29th, 2014 at 8:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @T g Moderator – the only real resource the USA has is the consumer. Yes. All those fat people buying crap and shoveling down their throats are a resource. Without them the USA has no market to bully and persuade anyone with.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Mouths don’t buy things, money buys things. How does the US get money, through debt and fiat. Why does the world continue lending the US money and keep huge reserves of dollars, because of the oil dollar. Why does the world put up with the oil dollar, because its what props up the global financial system and no one has a system ready that can replace it. If mouths were a resource Africa wouldn’t be a shithole.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    I agree with all of your analysis. However, all of that borrowing is being directed at keeping the consumerist bandwaggon going. Those fat people are the engines of economic growth. Their horrendous flab physical manifestations of the consumerist bubble. And Africa would make a consumer engine if you funneled foodstamps and welfare into there as an excuse to generate economic growth and create consumers. What do you think they are doing in the USA with welfare.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    The consumerist bandwagon has an older name, bread and circuses. Bread and circuses aren’t the engine of economic growth, it’s the caboose. When we talk about economic growth, if we want to talk about meaningful growth then you’re talking about wealth creation (the purpose of economics is efficiently optimizing allocation of scarce resources). If you want to talk about economic growth in terms of fudged GDP numbers you end up with the joke about economists eating shit. The people contributing economic growth are the ones working. Consumers aren’t monetized, so they can’t be a bubble, consumer debt however can be monetized and is part of the bubble. Understanding the distinction is important. Fat rolls have nothing to do with it, you can’t eat your way to prosperity. You don’t grow the economy when you consume something, you grow the economy when you make or offer something of value.

    Populists offer plebs wealth in exchange for power, Julius Caesar went into debt paying for the most spectacular gladiatorial games Rome had ever seen. Bread and circuses, that’s all this is. Funneling wealth into Rome to be consumed rather than invested didn’t help Rome, it merely sustained the power of populists. It’s bad economics (but fantastic politics for power hungry populists), a terrible misallocation of resources.

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 1:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Jason Says:

    I’m curious what the difference is between Castillo and admin’s politics, if any.

    Anissimov,

    How would you describe your ideological connection to neoreaction? Aren’t you a white nationalist? White nationalism predates neoreaction, and white nationalists generally regard neoreaction as distinct from themselves.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Indeed. Moldbug, Castillo, and I — whatever our differences — are cladistic kin. Mike’s coming from somewhere else, and doesn’t really get our culture or preoccupations.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Difference is, you aren’t ranting non-stop about how Anissimov is an entryist, while that’s practically all he does these days.

    “ANYONE WITH REMOTELY LIBERTARIAN IDEAS IS AN ENTRYIST!11!!”

    Anissimov is actively trying to make neoreaction into a white nationalist movement of his own design, which is annoying, but also quite hilarious.

    Now, because all techno-commercialists share a lot of libertarian ideas Anissimov is in effect trying to kick techno-commercialists out of NRx (because he disagrees with them the most) while pretending he is protecting the “movement” from entryism.

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    April – May 2013:

    http://www.xenosystems.net/visual-trichotomy/
    http://www.xenosystems.net/reaction-space/
    (primary link is dead but mirrored here)
    http://www.isegoria.net/2013/04/visualizing-neoreaction/

    Neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment conceptualized as broad concepts bringing together a variety of incompatible but nominally rightist schools of thought for the purpose of analysis and discussion of the predicament we find ourselves in.

    Which would necessarily have involved some critiques of each group’s sacred cows.

    ————–
    Nowadays (but it’s been like this for a while):

    Neoreaction is neo-cameralism is techno-commercialism is anti-democratic libertarianism. Always has been, always will be.

    The entryism already happened. The entryists are inside the gates. It’s over. We lost.

    Neoreaction will forever be synonymous with libertarianism + techie CEO kings + a desperate race to replace humans with robots before this whole contraption falls apart. Which is basically an acceleration of where libertarianism was going anyway.

    While the original neoreaction project was a noble one (or at least noble sounding), it was also doomed, because it wasn’t what it appeared to be. One of the groups was not like the others. Specifically, one of the groups was not conservative. And Cthulhu always swims left.

    Religious traditions + social conservatism? Conservative. Or maybe reactionary if it is too late for conserving. “Securing a future for ____ children and the survival the ____ race.” Conservative. [*] (Conserving the genetic makeup of an existing population group in a universe where it turns out that genes drive human behavior)

    Mark Zuckerberg as CEO King + disintegrative Social Darwinism (with a strong and intentional emphasis on disintegration) + hyper-capitalism + replacing humans with robots as quickly as possible + destroying and recreating the world in a technological singularity? Not conservative, not even a little bit conservative. And in the long term probably not compatible with the idea of a patchwork. What are the odds that the machine god (or the incredibly powerful world shaping processes that enable him) cares about your petty borders?

    It’s too late to sound the alarm about entryists, they were on board from the beginning and they’ve gotten control of the ship. It’s time to head for the lifeboats.

    [1] Which quote illustrates that ethno-nationalism is a) poorly named and b) not even close to the same thing as historical liberal nationalism, which often had the opposite intent and effect; ie: to subsume existing, organic biological and cultural identities in a greater artificial national identity.

    admin Reply:

    @aiat — Does it really seem to you that the Techno-Commercial strand of NRx (which does indeed identify Neocameralism as the core Moldbuggian insight) is in some way preponderant or dominant? It doesn’t remotely look like that to me, although I admit it’s been comparatively dynamic recently — as you’d expect given its orientation, no?

    If there’s a dissymmetry here, it’s an informative one. TC-NRx is distinctively ‘open to experience’ compared to its more emphatically illiberal coalitionists, with the consequence that this discussion — “Should the Tech-Comms be frog-marched out and strung-up from the yard-arm, yes or no?’ — is happening here. More Right, for significant instance, doesn’t even admit comments, which is philosophically consistent, and of course practically consequential. Relatively open polities — even micro (‘toy’) ones — thrive. Their enemies end up feeding them. It’s the lesson of modern history repeated as a miniature simulation.

    The ‘space’ being ‘entered’ is here. If you guys still think the answer to that lies in boycotts, shunning, blocking, comment immunity, or other comparable securo-maniac policy responses, you’re missing the opportunity to learn a serious lesson about how things work.

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “Does it really seem to you that the Techno-Commercial strand of NRx .. is in some way preponderant or dominant?”

    Yes. My impression is that in the minds of reasonably informed outsiders, at least on the right, “neoreaction” has become pretty much synonymous with “tecnho-commercial NrX.”

    And I’m not encouraging shunning, it’s been too late for that for a long time. I’m just doing my part to encourage fission.

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 2:24 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    Gotta give Tyler Cowen some credit for the massive internet presence he hss built. MR, Econlog, Umlaut, even Hanson’s blog are all the product of his minions. If there’s any central lodge were the progressive elders meet, Cowen probably got himself a seat recently.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Tyler Cowen is the libertarian version of Leo Strauss — and I mean that in a good way (honest!). He’s a cultural tactician of genius, from which the results you note follow.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Thing is my feeling is that this sort of smart yet unrequisite long term planning often has disastrous unintended consequences.

    I can totally imagine Bryan Caplan coming out as transexual in 10 years, Umlaut becoming an antinatalist rag, and Tabarok being elected to president in a platform of nuclear war with Russia; all while Cowen himself keeps linking to Matthew Yglesias while wondering why his dear daughter feels the need to buy a 7th cat.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If we were clear about what DIDN’T have disastrous unintended consequences, it would be a whole different game.

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 3:48 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @ aeroguy
    Again, I agree with everything you have said. I think we are on the same page here. I never meant to infer meaningful growth. But the more the mass of obese consumers consumer – the greater the economic activity, and the fatter they become. Exacerbated by credit bubbles, housing bubbles and low interest rates creating a consumerist bubble = fat consumers.

    On a further note, it makes you wonder if the likelyhood of a USA/China conflict is inversely proportional to the consumption capability of the USA consumer population, and whether the current immigration ploy is an attempt to fill the USA with low wage earners to bring the production for these consumers within the USA borders again as part of a geostrategical gambit. An attempt to weaken USA/China economic ties to free up USA options in relation to a conflict now rather then later when demographics become disastrous.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 8:29 am Reply | Quote
  • tg moderator Says:

    I wonder if we are missing the boat a bit with the emphasis on consumers. There will always be the temptation for an elite to engage in short sighted policies. As an example: imagine two kingdoms ruled by competent kings. In kingdom A the king does not issue fiat currency or expand the kingdom’s debt. In kingdom A the king chooses to invest some of the surplus wealth in research and innovation. Kingdom B does issue fiat currency and imports millions of people. The king of kingdom B uses surplus wealth to create a very large and poorly trained standing army and then conquers kingdom A. While admin and a handful of others have taken reaction to a deeper level of understanding, I think reaction for most of us is simply motivated by a desire for rule by a competent elite instead of an incompetent elite.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Hear, hear. That’s it for me, basically.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    As you demonstrate with your example, sometimes immediate recklessness is rewarded. Kingdom A won. How do we make it so this does not happen?

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 2:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @Jason @an inanimate aluminum tube
    Short of setting of a EMP pulse world wide, you are going to have to deal with capitalism.

    [Reply]

    cryptael Reply:

    Funny you should mention that

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 2:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    @AIAT

    Here we go again.

    “ENTRYISTS!!11!! TECHNO-COMMERCIALISTS ARE ENTRYISTS RUINING NEOREACTION!!!111!!”

    I’ve had it with whiners like you.

    In the last months you have barely contributed anything more than “wah-wah Nick Land is a progressive!!!”

    If the ship is sinking, what the fuck are you still doing here?

    You think libertarians are your enemies when in fact a lot of them are possible allies.

    A libertarian of a Hayekian bend would be the first to emphasize the importance of tradition in civilization. Hayek was the only 20th century thinker who emphasized the importance of tradition in civilization so much (in developing the theory of Spontaneous Order).

    Of course you don’t know that. All that people like you know is how to talk out of their ass about libertarians and libertarian ideas. Because to you all libertarians are leftist progressives.

    And what is your problem with capitalism? From what I read by people with your sentiments, you don’t even have a basic idea of economics, not to mention what capitalism is about. Your opinion about capitalism is based on the picture of capitalism that progressives paint and then you give the exact same complaints about capitalism that progressives give, but with more nationalistic emphasis. Sometimes I literally can’t tell a progressive from a nationalist when they talk about economics.

    And then you come around and tell us that we progressives because we don’t share your socialistic tendencies. Ridiculous.

    And social darwinism? What’s the problem with that? I am sorry, is it wrong or “not-conservative-enough” to prefer people getting smarter instead of getting dumber? Since when is that a leftist thing? Last time I checked it was precisely leftists who cringe the most when they hear the term “social darwinism”. Curious how much in common you have with those progressive leftists you so much despise…

    Also, let’s say a couple of things about nationalism in general as well.
    Have all of the great “Reactionaries” who are also ethno-nationalists forgotten that it was exactly ethno-nationalism which contributed so much to the destruction of the great monarchies of europe whom they pretend to love? Have they forgotten that WWI which led to the fall imperial europe started because of nationalist terrorists? Curious how they never talk about that, but always complain how libertarians are secretly leftists because they do not share their nationalistic tendencies.

    There is a difference between nationalism and race-realism.
    The european monarchies pre-WWI were race-realist, but as we all know, they were not nationalist. At that time, nationalism was considered a pretty radical leftist idea, on par with communism.

    So, it is quite hilarious when I see white nationalists complaining that the techno-commercialists are the entryists because they are not nationalist enough.

    Really, it cracks me up.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Chill Hurlock. Intelligent opposition is good, and AIAT has offered enough of that in the past to earn him a life-time free admission pass. (I’m more worried he’s going to flush it away and slink off.)

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Ok, ok, I might be overreacting here, but I just think this “techno-commercialists are progressive entryists” thing is getting old.

    [Reply]

    scientism Reply:

    You might be right that some reactionaries retreat to tired arguments about capitalism, but I think techno-commercialists are too quick to throw around terms like “socialist” and “collectivist”. Reactionaries are interested in the state’s role in the economy as it pertains to orderly and ethical (socially conservative) outcomes, not egalitarian outcomes. That’s the difference. I don’t know of any reactionaries who are actual socialists (i.e., want the state to own the means of production), everybody seems to be okay with private ownership. Nobody is very interested in equality or egalitarianism, which is the foundation of socialism.

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “If the ship is sinking, what the fuck are you still doing here?”

    Encouraging exit / fission. (This is the only active comment section left in neoreaction)

    It’s difficult to respond to your post because it contains a lot of inaccuracies and strawman arguments based on nothing. In contrast my comments on techno-commercialism are based on following the phenomenon since it has emerged.

    I’ll just say that I’m a former libertarian who found the Dark Enlightenment (in the broad sense expressed above) to be very enlightening. The broad theme that I took away from the Dark Enlightenment was the need to question as many ideological truths as possible.

    As such, I was quite excited by the possibility of getting the various elements of the right together and encouraging them to slaughter each other’s sacred cows. The links I mentioned above seemed to hint at that possibility.

    My problem with capitalism is that this libertarian concept of a “true capitalism” that will solve so many of our problems is eerily reminiscent of the other ideological truths that I was encouraged to believe in back in my libertarian days.

    A prominent NrX figure once said “Neoreaction is not an advocacy movement, it’s an analysis movement. What draw us together is our willingness to see reality for what it is, and to see how exactly did civilization decay to the point that it has”.

    If so, that willingness to see reality ought to be extended to capitalism, both actual, existing capitalism and the “true capitalism” of the libertarians. It is hard for me to believe that one of the most powerful forces in the universe would have played no role in bringing about our current situation.

    Unfortunately this analysis did not really occur and I put this down the presence of post-libertarians who aren’t really over libertarianism and who are unwilling to open up certain sacred cows and examine their entrails. Neoreactionary analysis of capitalism seems to be identical to that of the libertarians. Which, given the overall foolishness of libertarians, leads me to suspect that there is some ideological truth involved and that certain enlightenments are a bit too dark for some of us.

    In fact, the best neoreactionary critique of capitalism has inadvertently been provided by Nick Land’s vision of a disintregative, world re-shaping hyper-capitalism that eventually won’t need humans. I think he’s right. But if you’re dedicated to human survival and sovereignty, that future doesn’t look ideal.

    As for Social Darwinism, it’s not an ideal term, as it implies an association with certain historical theories which turned out to be somewhat pseudo-scientific. What you’re looking for is regular Darwinism, applied to human society. Which is based on differential reproduction, not money. Thus, it is entirely possible that a policy of Social Darwinism might make the population less intelligent as rich people choose not to reproduce very much, middle class people lose the financial ability to reproduce very much and the very poor utilize the abundant and cheap food resources provided by the green revolution to continue reproducing rapidly. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case, but more analysis is certainly needed, rather than a blanket endorsement of Social Darwinism.

    But the main reason I mentioned disintegrative Social Darwinism is the disintegration part. Nick Land emphasizes the ability of capitalism to disintegrate existing institutions and reshape the world. Which is a power that it certainly has. But there seems to be a fundamental conflict between ideologies that seek to conserve things and ideologies that seek to disintegrate everything.

    I don’t want to defend nationalism or socialism or anything like that. I think it is entirely possible that there is no good solution for the current situation, but merely a choice of several very, very bad options. If I lean towards ethno-nationalism and caged capitalism, it’s only because I feel like we should probably try to survive.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “I feel like we should probably try to survive.” — That position, however eccentric, certainly deserves a hearing.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    I agree pretty much with every point you make. Capitalism is a vastly destructive force. You really have two choices 1) ludditism 2) intelligent agile compromise with the process. point 1 result in capitalist non luddites beating you over the head with advanced jets. Of course there is a third choice which involves stumbling around like a blind spastic which is the current strategy of the western world.
    The options do not seem great. An intelligent analysis of capitalism would be great to get at some deeper points, I keep trying to set that one off, but the problem is all you get is “kill capitalism”!

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 3:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Akaky Akakievich Says:

    “I think reaction for most of us is simply motivated by a desire for rule by a competent elite instead of an incompetent elite.”

    Ha ha! That is indeed quite a simple motivation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 4:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Akaky Akakievich Says:

    “I’ve recently come to view MM as primarily an aesthetic writer (he did a bit of poetry before) and …surprise… so is Carlyle. To be precise, both Carlyle and Moldbug are aesthetic reactionary writers.”

    Moldbug is a cross between a Moldy Fig and a Young Fogey, I think.

    ‘Moldy figs are purist advocates of early jazz, originally those such as Rudi Blesh, Alan Lomax, and James Jones who argued that jazz took a wrong turn in the early 1920s with developments such as the introduction of printed scores.’

    “Young fogey is a term humorously applied, in British context, to some younger-generation, rather buttoned-down writers and journalists — conservative young men (aged approximately between 15 and 40) who dress in a vintage style and who tend towards erudite, conservative cultural pursuits.”

    Your leader!

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Are you ever going to raise your game above this level of half-assed trolling? It gets old.

    [Reply]

    Akaky Akakievich Reply:

    You mean it gets annoying? Ha ha!

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If you want to be banned, just say.

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 4:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    @Jason
    i would say its the religious leg that’s not conservative yeah loved the Latin mass but seriously its Christianity [incidentally?] a Jewish heresy that our Jewish patron saint identifies as the root of the virus, So how and why exactly does it get a pass ? because we are sentimental romantic like old stuff then why not reboot the constitution as written and understood 225 years ago?- you know a republic of only propertied male gentlemen voting and all. And how does the self sacrificing advice of Christ work with our HBD and free market Ideas are we going to contain it in a glass box on Plum Island maybe forbid mass or any religious reading or discussion in other than Latin? How for that matter is this Gnonsense any different than when I say there is no good not subjective except replicating DNA in order of closest copy all else being subservient and derivative and knowing what we do about HBD how can anything but an ethnostate be the Ideal no matter how rude that seems cause GNON rejecting the neonazis for their socialist proclivities serves Gnon true Dat but prole whites are if nothing else good company and good high IQ breeders. the problem is not AI AI can never go rouge the problem is AG this could divide us cause there reboot to be messed up again or fall into the wrong hands

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 31st, 2014 at 2:48 am Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    The comments thread over there degenerated quickly. Stop replying to anyone who calls you a racist, people.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 1st, 2014 at 3:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    A would propose a Gentlemen’s Agreement to ban use of the term “entryist” when applied to Neoreaction until such time as there exists a thing to enter. By that time we should have a Formal Theory of Banning Entryism which may be simultaneously put into service and to an empirical test.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 1st, 2014 at 6:20 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment