Cathedral Decay

Extreme corrosive pessimism is an NRx specialty. Since optimism bias is a status quo-supported human cognitive frailty, it’s a good thing to have. If rigidified, however, it can result in missing things.

One systematic distortion stems from hubris, taking the form of a confusion in causality. “We don’t like X, and want bad things to happen to it” can actually be a distorted expression of a more basic process: X is dying, and therefore we have started to dislike it.

This blog strongly suspects that the Cathedral has become an object of animosity as a consequence of its morbidity. After all, it’s a mind-control apparatus. If it’s no longer universally accepted, and in certain problematic patches actively loathed, dysfunction is clearly indicated. Contestation of its story is not supposed to be part of the story.

The Zeitgeist is its story, not ours. In this tale, it goes from strength to strength, overwhelming everything in its path. Recognizing the structure of this narrative is important. Subscription to it is not thereby implied.

Every critical component of the Cathedral — media, academic, and bureaucratic — is exceptionally vulnerable to Internet-driven disintermediation. The current phase of capital reconstruction is distinctively — and automatically — Cathedral-hostile, when evaluated at the level of technonomic process (which we do not do enough), rather than at the level of surface public pronouncement (which we concern ourselves with far too much with). Dying things can be very dangerous, and even more frenzied. It would be a mistake to confuse such characteristics with fundamental strength.

A step down from hubris might begin with an acknowledgment that NRx is — primarily — a symptom. Whatever imagined heroism is sacrificed thereby, it is more than compensated by an opportunity for deepened realism.

All of which is a framing for Fernandez’s latest. Even amidst the stupidity of the degenerating political cycle, he notices that “… the current crop of Republican presidential candidates … are openly breaking with the really important modern faith — the media-led church that has held mainstream politics together for so long.” The integrative media is fatally sick. That NRx exists at all is a sign of that.

ADDED: “I might be biased here myself, because this is what obsesses me, and this is what angers me. I could care less, to be honest, about the GOP or its programs. […] What keeps me interested in politics at all is my loathing for the self-appointed Preistly Class of the media. […] … the media serve as the shamans and witch-doctors of an enemy Tribe, and the purpose of those shamans is to relentlessly disgrace outsiders to the Tribe, which is pleasing to those within the Tribe, while also keeping the shamans in power (because they have no other skills which would earn them money or sex, except the denigration of those considered Unclean).” (Ace links to this.)

October 30, 2015admin 137 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Media

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

137 Responses to this entry

  • Cathedral Decay | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on October 30th, 2015 at 4:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • OLF Says:

    Cathedral isn’t dying. It’s the Internet. Internet has allowed for truly marginalized voices (to use the SJW-speak) to be heard and like-minded people from across the globe to get connected. Unlike “traditional” media, which is formally or informally censured, the Internet, with its anonymity allows unlimited freedom of “speech”. Yes, the bulk of the presence on the Internet is the Cathedral, however in “traditional” media the *only* presence is Cathedral and thus Cathedral stood only to loose with the advent of the Internet. With the Internet one interested in the truth can bypass schools, newspapers and television, search through the greatest repository of knowledge on the planet, thus, if one reasons in good faith, one could find the truth on the Internet. Far from dying, the Cathedral has never been stronger. It’s just that earlier it had no opposition whatsoever, and now, thanks to the Internet, it does.

    [Reply]

    Skilluminati Reply:

    It’s Akamai – anything outside that halo might as well be “dark web.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 30th, 2015 at 4:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Will_BC Says:

    @OLF
    I think that the big parts of the internet are coming into the fold. Google filters some of its results, and recently Reddit has gone through a large issue with free speech, with the decision that free speech was less important than protecting people from uncomfortable attacks. As any internet company grows large enough, pressure grows to keep it mainstream, whether by active censorship or recruiting the barbarian hordes to drown out the previous community.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Hopefully, Urbit ought to rectify that.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 30th, 2015 at 5:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • chris b Says:

    ” Cathedral-hostile, when evaluated at the level of technonomic process (which we do not do enough),” and ” Whatever imagined heroism is sacrificed thereby, it is more than compensated by an opportunity for deepened realism.” Translation, strip out the Carlyean core and replace with Marx. I’ll pass on that “realism.” Absolutly everything you advocate is the exact opposite of any sort of order.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Talking shit does not build a satisfactory epistemology NIO.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Dunno, admin tends to sound like a “love-child” of Stross and Marx (as opposed to Moldbug, a “love-child” of Mises and Carlyle)… and after all, he doesn’t deny being a nihilistic Marxist.

    [Reply]

    Marxist toady Reply:

    Admin replaces Marx’s teleology of human emancipation with a teleology of human obsolescence — capital plays an identical role (that is, the principal historical agent) in both stories.

    xheimlichkeit Reply:

    I’m as liable to misrepresent Admin as anyone else, but my reading is not “human obsolescence” as much as the self-reinforcing loop of technology and Capital and whatever else passes for “reality” — that is, the abstract machine Admin calls “Gnon”.

    If you take a couple of abstraction steps back Mises emerges plainly progressive as honey is plainly sweet: it renews the Aristotelian promise of telling the very essence of things (of Human Action, no less) from its accidents and fluctuations, rather than seeing (with Heraclitus, Hegel, Whitehead, etc) the “essence of things” to be in flux. Thus Misesians are forced to grasp at straws to reconcile purpose-driven action with the sheer purposelessness of bureaucracy, morality and the abstract machine of the Cathedral.

    As for Carlyle, hasn’t he been well dealt by Admin’s “dark enlightenment” manifesto? If modern conservatives are 1950 progressives, and their contemporary conservatives are the 1900 progressives who tackled with Ota Benga in a human zoo — aren’t we left with infinite regress as opposition to change itself?

    This is why the key word at hand is “reaction” and not “conservation”. As best as I’ve been able to follow it, NR (I refuse to say “NRx”) is a loose collective of semi-hobbyists plotting “strategies against architecture” — a nomadic attack at the Cathedral, i.e. at the capture apparatus most notably implemented at the media-intellectual elites-government simplex.

    That’s why we say “dark enlightenment” rather than “counter-enlightenment”: if the century of lights was enlisting God to humanist optimism (rather than the aloof, non-humanized christian god of the middle ages), the century of reaction tries to enlist Gnon himself — the dialectical impasse at the core of reality — against the Cathedral and for a new future.

    Or at least that’s as far as I got.

    OLF Reply:

    @Marxist toady
    Exactly. That’s what makes him a “hyper-nazi” and not a Communist, despite being Marxist.

    @xheimlichkeit
    Yes, except what he desires for a “new future,” isn’t what the rest of us do.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    If admin’s stance is more like “replace Carlyle with Darwin” I’m 100% on board.

    [Reply]

    John Reply:

    Admin could just tell us what he believes and it would save a lot of wondering.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I only believe what I haven’t got around to yet.

    Chris B Reply:

    “As for Carlyle, hasn’t he been well dealt by Admin’s “dark enlightenment” manifesto?” That seems to be the joke. Carlyle hasn`t been dealt with at all. Stricktly speaking Carlyle identifies the divide as being that between order and chaos. Reaction and neoreaction are in effect calls for order. Admin advocates chaos, disorder, adandonment to forces as being a panacea, in short he is progressive. He retains the libertarian frame of state versus anti-statism and as such refuses to actually engage neoreaction and Carlyle at all (among other deep rejections that make him solidly progressive.)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Spontaneous order is fundamental. It doesn’t sit at the top of some Maslow-type pyramid, but comes out of harsh selective environments — the debris fields of mass extinctions, jungles, battlefields … Insofar as Moldbug has fuzzed this truth, he’s left a romantic mess, for which ‘Carlyle’ provides a fairly good icon — wildly invoking sources of order and authority from out of the aether, as if it was handed down on Mosaic tablets. Patchwork corrects this nonsense, which means that Neocam, rigorously constructed, doesn’t need to sink into this swamp at all.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    No. No it is not. You have injected a counter strain into this all which directly contradicts the thing. Your counter strain (being leftism) is based on so many false assumptions as to be impossible to salvage. The only mess I can see in MM is the invoking of Hobbes and the influence of Hume in his ethics which hoppefully the Carlyle influence has finally defeated. If these shards of pure retardation were resolved, then we would move forward. The entire eruption of UR and Neoreaction is a revolt against the maniacal magic forces which promise to allow us a utopia if we rescind governance -progress, liberalism, democracy, and all others to follow including surrendering to darwinism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The Utopia nonsense comes entirely from you. There isn’t the remotest hint of Utopianism coming from this side.

    “Gnon, the god of Utopia” — and you’re talking about retardation.

    As for “surrendering to Darwinism” … it’s a phrase fizzing with incandescent lunacy. Maybe we shouldn’t give in to gravity, the second law of thermodynamics, or chemistry either? Nutty romanticism reaches its nadir. “Don’t submit to reality — some heroic savior on a white horse will be turning up any minute!”

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    “hoppefully”

    Hoppe would be proud.

    Maybe.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Acknowledging darwinian selection does not equal rescinding governance and getting everyone to mill around like retarded individuals as per Hobbes. The understanding of human nature which underpins darwinsim is always this stupid, why? Your progressive escape valve for your deep errors amounts replacing humans with units of sentience which you seem to bank on being compatible with this “war against all”. As for GNON, the real question is why this Carlyean influenced conception has been ripped of from him either consciously, or unconciously via MM.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    The notion of Gnon is very much at odds with heroic romanticism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Moldbug’s Jacobite trolling has bred monsters.

    (“Forget about the fungible primary property, stock-holder controlled State-CEO, and Patchwork dynamics stuff — just look at that fabulous feathery hat.”)

    admin Reply:

    No one is “rescinding governance”. You simply fail to understand spontaneous order, and take Moldbug — absurdly — as an excuse not to correct the problem.

    [Reply]

    Xavi' Reply:

    Spontaneous order is and always will be bunk. Order is exact. It must be so, or be a deviation. You cannot, not set out to create order and have order arise. You have only succeeded in streamlining confusion.This is basic, entry level, day one, classroom logic. You cannot even reconcile the belief of Spontaneous Order with even the faintest knowledge and understanding of Teleology. It is an error that unfolds more error.

    admin Reply:

    Spontaneous order is the essential Idea of the Anglosphere. (It’s why Anglos work so well together with Chinese, who inherit the same insight from the Dao.) Leftists and romantic reactionaries hate it, as is to be expected. It nevertheless always wins.

    It simply is teleology, realistically understood. Not that its enemies will concur with that. It doesn’t matter (ontologically groundless opinions don’t).

    Order is, of course, dissipation of entropy. Not remotely ‘exact’ therefore.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I’d be interested to know on which points @admin’s conception of spontaneous order coincides with Taleb’s antifragile souk, and where it differs (if it differs).

    Ahote Reply:

    @Xavi’

    Regimentation isn’t order. That fact is worth repeating every so often. It is funny how heroic reactionaries never cease to speak of organicism, but never once actually advocate organicist policies, but just the opposite – they advocate jacobin regimentation (for example, jacobins didn’t like “irrational” French provinces, so they made up a new administrative divisions, they divided France into bunch of equal squares).

    admin Reply:

    I agree, of course. But then, I think denial of spontaneous order defines Leftism.

    Chris B Reply:

    “The notion of Gnon is very much at odds with heroic romanticism” cut out the bullshit strawmanning. Neoreaction was built on Carlyle and UR is a Carlylean blog.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Carlylean” isn’t a rigorously constructible position. It’s a Halloween costume.

    You might as well say “UR is a blog built on Ferris Bueller’s Day Off references”.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Moldbug – the problem is lack of effective governance. You- the problem is governance. Ancap hyper individualised Hobbesianism now, to be grinded out into automation later as it clear doesn’t work.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    No. The problem is dysfunctional governance systems.

    [Reply]

    Seth Reply:

    Finding support in the XS archives for the position “the problem is governance” would require a narrow selection of choice quotes and a willful deflection of the surrounding material.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    “Forget about the fungible primary property, stock-holder controlled State-CEO, and Patchwork dynamics stuff — just look at that fabulous feathery hat.” Strawman. Sign of weakness. Maybe we can look at the progression to List and mercantalism displayed by MM which is Carlyle compatible, and in effect demonatrates the continual distancing from ancap implicit in the sov corp derived from Carlyle/Froude.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    While you’re at it, why not rebuild the whole Neocam model upon his flaky Bitcoin prophecies?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 30th, 2015 at 5:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    I began my personal search for truth while still insured in the system, as all who are born into this world after, say, 1980, must have. In that sense, your arrow: Cathedral Dysfunction -> Cathedral Contempt is tautologically true, since, by definition a functioning Cathedral would not permit cone of its subjects to wish to search for an exit.

    It seems that the essential question that you’re posing here (or answering) is: Wherefrom the original dysfunction of the Cathedral?

    It wasn’t the internet. Couldn’t have been: Even on the internet, you don’t find the crimson pill until you’re searching for it. By the time you’re searching for the exit, the damage to their power is mostly complete.

    I believe that the dysfunction of the Cathedral is from a different techonomic process, which is simply the intrinsic decay of the quality of its message, and consequently of the quality of its hosts. It was the hollowness of the story, the subtle wrongness of it, which first led me to tarry in the dark and breezy gardens Outside. How did the message deteriorate? Its own success killed it, as usual. In victory, the selection pressure relaxed, and the unprincipled exceptions in the narrative -,which should each be regarded, prima facie, as a useful mutation, by virtue of its having been conserved till then – was lost to drift.

    I never would have come here without the internet (of course), but I would have gone somewhere. Every criticial component of the Cathedral is also susceptible, not only to the internet, but to the revival of a fundamentalist religion, to a samizdat-mediated hollowing out of the narrative, to World War III, to the prophet of a new religion, and to other tail-risk Cthulus beyond imagining. It so happened that the Cthulu we got first was the Internet.

    NRx is more than the downfall of the Cathedral. It does stand as the Cathedral’s most devastating body of critique, but out of the manifold excruciations of human kind it has managed to extract a few shining ribbons of value which we never had before. That isn’t a techonomic process, but a creative one. At the most, the internet was a necessary condition for all of this.

    Here’s a question. The mutant strain of pathological altrusim which swept the West and doomed it to the protracted genetic rentrenchment of this century existed before television. But when did the Cathedral come into existence? Would a historian in the room care to peg the birth of the Cathedral to a specific date or event?

    [Reply]

    CuiPertinebit Reply:

    I don’t think you can pinpoint a precise date for the establishment of the anti-Cathedral (sorry, as a Catholic I have a hard time referring to it as “the Cathedral,” full-stop, but neither do I like the alternatives proposed, including “the Synagogue,” because they do not denote the same thing as the concept of the Cathedral – throne of the bishop, transmitter of the orthodox teaching, manifestation of all the power and might of the spirit of its age, etc…).

    Long story short: the anti-Cathedral began to emerge with the high-minded thinkers of the Enlightenment who occupied influential positions in society, and frequently belonged to the order of Freemasons, who had as their mission the overthrow of the Church, of “superstition” (i.e., tradition), and the initiation of a novus ordo saeculorum through bringing Lucifer’s light (their own conception of it), to the masses ensorcelled and benighted by the “Queen of the Night” (i.e., superstition and tradition, chiefly embodied even by the Freemasons’ reckoning in the Catholic Church). In Protestant lands, there was no real opposition to it, and it spread rapidly through the schools and institutions of the state as sharing the essential spirit and doctrine as Protestantism; in Catholic lands, which proved more recalcitrant, it was forced to continue to engage in bloodshed and revolutionary aggression. It finally destroyed the power base of its opposition in the two world wars, and in the wake thereof it entered and usurped the institutions unopposed, and sometimes even replaced old institutions with their own (chiefly in republican and democratic forms of government). They coordinated their arrack and pulled of their coup in the Church at the same time, and succeeding in nullifying the clear preaching and practicing of the Catholic Faith by stacking the hierarchy with apostates and saboteurs. The technological, philosophical and political phases of their revolution were perfectly coordinated and had come to their critical point by the 60s (the revolution continued to progress, of course, but they had succeeded in creating a “new world” by that time).

    By the end of that decade, sanity is bereft of authority everywhere on Earth, and is left without a single institution or voice in any position of influence; the only opposition to the aggressive forms of the revolution, come from clingers-on to the earlier phases of revolution (some Protestants, Libertarians and Classical Liberals here and there). Until neo-Reaction came along, it was only some very sobered Catholics and a few great men like Evola who were fully cognizant of the sham that this glorious world of progress would show itself to be; at that time, the revolution seemed invincible and even the common people abandoned reason and horse-sense for the queer sensation of a novel order of things in the world. One can hardly blame them; it was all quite impressive…before the latent corruption, the trannies, the faggots, the kid-diddlers, the Feminists, the overall rot and stench of latent sterility and death, had had a chance to waft out of the ideological sewer into everyone’s nostrils. The anti-Cathedral thus begins to take shape in the 1700s, coalesces power in the 1800s, demolishes the Church and European civilization in the early 1900s, peaks in the 60s and then begins its spectacular flame-out of increasing brilliance and disintegration in the latter half of the 20th century. We stand on the cusp of what comes next.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    @Kwisatz Haderach

    MM’s Gentle Introduction Part 6 points to Mugwumps:

    “Charles Francis Adams, Jr. was what they used to call a Mugwump. It is indeed to the Mugwumps that we owe the Modern Structure. Their experience is highly instructive.”

    Here is a passage from GI Part 6:

    What Adams and the Mugwumps are asking for is no less than the creation of a new power structure, a “lofty rostrum,” which is above democracy – which supersedes mere politics, which makes decisions and policies much as Adams and his friends would have – in the light of reason and science, the “calm lessons of history,” not the mad psychological battlefield of the torchlight election parade.

    The result is our Modern Structure, of course. The dream made real. The Mugwumps won. Yet somehow, all the diseases Adams diagnoses seem worse then ever. What happened?

    What happened is that Adams and his friends, as members of an aristocratic intellectual caste, true Platonic guardians, Harvard-bred heirs to the American dream, had been disempowered. Sidelined, in fact, by grubby street politics of a distinctly Hibernian flavor. This could not have been expected to make them happy. It did, however, render them pure – because even if the Carl Schurzes of the world had been inclined to corruption, which they were not, competing with the James G. Blaines of the world in that department was simply out of the question.

    [Reply]

    Mike Reply:

    Would a historian in the room care to peg the birth of the Cathedral to a specific date or event?

    FWIW, Clark at Popehat traces it back to no later than the English Civil War.

    https://popehat.com/2014/10/10/strange-seeds-on-distant-shores/

    Ultimately, the Cathedral is just whatever the adaptive status-escalation-through-virtue-signalling behaviour is of its time and place. In that sense, it has always been with us, and always will be.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    @Kwisatz Haderach

    When did the quality of the message start to decay? Has it not coincided with the mainstream adoption of the Internet as a news source — and, in particular, with Internet video?

    Anecdotal: Fifteen years ago, I didn’t know a single conspiracy theorist. These days, they’re probably in the majority. I try and limit my interaction with idiots in meatspace inasmuch as possible, but even I have acquaintances who regularly bring up ridiculous conspiracy theories in conversation. On the left, it’s Monsanto, banksters, hidden racism and discrimination everywhere; on the mainstream right, it’s something along the lines of “Obama is a crypto-Muslim and wasn’t born in America”; all can agree that the Masons, the Illuminati, the Jews, the CIA, the KGB, the greys, and the Vatican, among others, are up to no good.

    Doesn’t it seem likely that the Internet has had everything to do with this phenomenon? Magazine and newspaper circulation rates have dropped dramatically in recent years, and I think that the only people who watch CNN are stuck in airports and bank lounges. So it seems — to me, at least — that the Internet is breaking the Cathedral’s formerly tight grip on the media.

    …But the average person didn’t use the internet to find NRx. The average person found rense.com instead — or just hopped onto YouTube and learned all about how the Bohemian Grove and the Rothschilds have been pulling all the strings. (Note: Most average people are total idiots.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 30th, 2015 at 6:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Cathedral Decay | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on October 30th, 2015 at 8:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • 0987654321 Says:

    You can tell the Cathedral is stronger than ever when one of its supposed enemies is incapable of not espousing leftist positions. On the other hand, “neoreaction” has become a subversion of itself. So, who’s dying again?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 30th, 2015 at 9:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Excellent post.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 30th, 2015 at 11:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    I do think the internet is integral to what is occurring right now. It will likely be destroyed by the end of all this, but not before it has done its share of the damage to the satanic parasite worm known as Liberalism. The democratization of information has become a swings and roundabouts game in a way the enemy probably didn’t suspect beforehand.

    Personally, I cannot wait to see the game over screen.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 30th, 2015 at 11:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • xheimlichkeit Says:

    “NRx is — primarily — a symptom”

    Oh, est qu’on lit Lacan maintenant dans le Nouveau Droite?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (Nietzsche already had plenty to say about symptoms.)

    [Reply]

    Malcolm Pollack Reply:

    Isn’t all reaction a symptom?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 31st, 2015 at 1:57 am Reply | Quote
  • CT Says:

    @Mark Citadel
    Well said. I can’t wait for the game over screen either.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 31st, 2015 at 3:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    @Admin

    You know, you should probably force any potential commenters to take a mandatory IQ test before you allow them to post…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s not an IQ problem. It’s a romantic neo-socialism problem. And even if they look like the same thing, I don’t think they are.

    CB seems to think Austrianism is simply beneath contempt (and thus unworthy of any serious attempt at understanding). MM does bear some (small) measure of responsibility for that.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I am not sure how much of that can be blamed on Moldbug. This is the guy who openly called himself a praxeologist and said that Mises is (almost) never wrong and that Rothbard is in his top 5 philosophers of the 20th century.

    Funny thing is that when he was said that Mises was never wrong he was contrasting him with Carlyle who, according to MM, covers a much broader scope of subjects, but is frequently wrong.
    It seems to me that CB’s problem is that unlike Moldbug he cannot tell when Carlyle is wrong and when he is right.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    CB seems to think that Carlyle is especially right when he disagrees with Mises. (I’m obviously in agreement with you about the logical structure of that.)

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    An IQ-captcha type mechanism for blog comments is actually a seriously good idea.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Stick one up on the WordPress ‘Jetpack’ site, and I promise to install it.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    http://www.xenosystems.net/right-on-the-money-1/ Neoreaction as the realisation of libertarianism being flawed…in otherwords you take Moldbug`s rejection of libertarianism but reject everything else, including the reason (Carlyle) for MM realising it is flawed (nice skiping of the post context btw). But then refuse to accept libertarianism is flawed beyond a failure to incorpate reality. This is beyond confused.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    ‘Libertarianism’ (Austrianism) lacks a grasp of primary (sovereign) property, and also — but irrelevant to this spat — a realistic acknowledgement of its own ethnic foundations. The End.

    Romantic Jacobitism contributes nothing of substance to the repair of either of these deficiencies.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Libertarianism (Classical Liberalism) is *not* the same thing as Austrian School. Austrianism is wertfrei as Mises put it, value-free (he himself explicitly claimed separation of Mises the Liberal from Mises the Economist), whereas Libertarianism is an ideology. Austrian economic claims are always cæteris paribus logical tautologies (hence, e.g. there cannot be any actual Austrian predictions). Of couse, there is Anarcho-Capitalism which is an Austro-Libertarian synthesis i.e. the use of Austrian insights in service to Libertarian ideology. Many libertarians are proud that Libertarianism is an ideology, but it’s an unfortunate thing actually, because libertarians who are not blind to things such as Psychology and HBD, still advocate, because of their ideology, dumb things such as, for example, ending the War on Drugs and so-called “victimless” crimes despite being perfectly aware that it would lead to bad* outcomes. But once libertarian becomes consequentialist and thus necessarily rejects the NAP and the notion of rights, he is no longer libertarian and that’s how neoreactionaries are born. Still, Neoreaction draws heavily upon Hoppe, so obviously there is a convergence.

    * – By generally accepted measures.

    admin Reply:

    I don’t have a lot of difficulty with those definitions, but I doubt that they’re generally accepted. Doesn’t ‘libertarianism’ usually imply the NAP? That is — at the very least — an extrapolation beyond Classical Liberalism.

    Also, Austrianism is synthetic a priori (not merely analytical). It produces non-tautological propositions, in the same way mathematics does (although, clearly, more controversially).

    OLF Reply:

    @Admin
    “Doesn’t ‘libertarianism’ usually imply the NAP? That is — at the very least — an extrapolation beyond Classical Liberalism.”

    Strictly speaking, I consider that, of curse, true. However, there are many libertarians who reject the NAP, so the terms Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism have now become interchangeable. It also doesn’t help that Tom Woods, who accepts the NAP, considers Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism the same thing, along the lines of Rothbard finished what Locke started.

    Chris B Reply:

    @OLF I reject that consequentialist libertarian = Neroreactionary. This again omits Carlyle seemingly on purpose.If anything, the ethics that make a neoreactionary are virtue ethics from Carlyle which seem to be inherited from Aristotle via Scottish Calvinism, or from his analysis and Interest in medeival Christianity. (Froude notes the similarity to Aristotle even though Carlyle never read him, as does MM.)

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    It’s interesting that you say that, since both the Austrian School of Economics and Libertarianism are very Aristotelian. Austrian School of Economics is a descendant of the Late Scholasticism, and its precursors are the Salamancans. Indee

    Concerning Libertarianism, Rothbard was essentially a sort of secular, atheistic Thomist, so if one should criticize Libertarianism in connection to Aristotle, it should be for excessive Aristotelianism.

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    Libertarianism does not have Aristotlean virtue ethics, it has a confused retarded mix of stupid which it calls ethics.

    admin Reply:

    This is just silliness (it would even sound pathetic in a school playground). If you seriously think you’re vastly smarter than anyone who has ever contributed to the Mises Institute, you’re massively deluded. I’m sure you actually realize that, when you’re not being obnoxiously trollish.

    chris b Reply:

    @ though this stupidity is not constrained to libertarianism by a long shot.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I think ‘Neroreaction’ generally involves more trolling, hair dye and social media hijinks than anything you’ll find around here.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 31st, 2015 at 10:35 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Honestly after I’m done with a few projects i’ll pick up Carlyle, austrians are quite distasteful to me, he can’t be that bad, although I must confess right wing marxism seems much more exciting.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Well not that they’re distasteful, it’s just their followers, I should hedge.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I’m currently finding Pareto much more interesting than either.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Yeah but he’s indisputably a genius, what few parts of “Mind and Society” I read left me in shock. I need to check it out from the library again.

    Posted on October 31st, 2015 at 11:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Jacobitism is definitely a costume, but it’s Halloween here in California, let us dress up and play!

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 31st, 2015 at 11:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • chris b Says:

    @OLF that exerpt from Rothbard’s “economic though before Adam Smith” is curious. This is very interesting “While Aquinas scarcely has any conception of economic growth or capital accumulation, he clearly posits man as active molder of his life. Gone is the passive Greek ideal of conforming to given conditions or to the requirements of the polis.” Moldbug in the re–application of the state (sov corp) and defining the population in relation to it, is bring it back to Aristotle and his system of ethics being a sub set of politics (Confucian commesurability with this is surely there.) This is especially so if you factor in the mechanism of the ceo leader of sov corp acting as a means to encourage and produce excellence as a result of the profit/ wealth motive. Virtue ethics compatible, not Rothbard ethics, argumentation ethics, deontological, consequentialist etc.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    That’s a massive non-sequitur if I’ve ever seen one.

    How does the fact that Moldbug (according to you) defines the population in relation to state lead to the conclusion that this conception necessitates virtue ethics as an ethical system? It is not obvious how the two are even related.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 1st, 2015 at 5:14 am Reply | Quote
  • Arred Says:

    For any of this to make sense, the war of words between the Cathedral and the Reactionaries would have to persist longer than 5 years. As it is, rather than accepting the counterintuitive conclusion that reactionaries hate the massive leftist conspiracy because of its intrinsic decadence, it’s a lot easier to write the whole thing off as a short term trend of PC dorks that attracts conservative ire for a few years before petering out.

    [Reply]

    Arred Reply:

    But, that interpretation would be an existential threat to dorks on both sides of the aisle, so we’ll see how far it goes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 2nd, 2015 at 4:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Froude Society Says:

    @Chris B
    I very much agree with your interpretation of Moldbugian Reaction (hate the term “NRx”) as Carlylean first and foremost. His recommended readings are Maine, Froude, and Carlyle; authors with scant resemblance to anti-humanist materialism. Maybe it’s that I’m bad at math or will probably never read Mises but I do hold the Austrians “below contempt”. Why? Because Carlyle taught me to treat all economists as such. While Moldbug may have warned me not to, I can’t help but to cast aside all M’Crowdys. As far as I can see techcoms are M’Crowdys who learned from the twentieth century. What admin dismisses as “romantic” or “socialist” is actually genuine Reaction which is heroic and mercantilist. When I read Moldbug the sovcorps, patchworks, and resets appeared as rough hewn solutions to modern problems desperately trying to reach Carlyle’s approval while still being plausible. A logic game to be solved with a computer programmer’s methods, but the constructions are not the real genius of MM which is his critique.

    Carlyle is [the voice of] God or Gnon, if you must, he must be listened to in an earnest fullness. Jacobitism is an aesthetic fountain that can birth a new civic religion that can compete with, nay crush, our enemies! Authoritarian Ancap like all libertarian products is spiritually, culturally, and aesthetically hollow and bankrupt. “Neo”reaction allows for the material goals of liberal political economy to be fulfilled as a side effect of proper governance, those goals are always in the background via political determinism. Occasionally Moldbug squeaks doubt on the very viability of commercial thinking, “economic growth”, market magics etc but stayed on the Austrian reservation. The materialist vs spiritualist divide is tremendous among the internet far Right, as big a divide as religion or the JQ. Personally though, I think latent liberal thoughts are the most corrosive memes still kicking around.
    —–
    In regards to the OP’s main topic: The Cathedral is decaying firstly because political systems always decay, cycle of civilizations and all that. Especially a religious phenomena like the Cathedral needs some means of reinvigoration to stop it from slipping into Brezhnevite rot and dysfunction. After 1945 the Cathedral has fought very few, if any, wars that boosted prestige or legitimacy. Bloodshed is the most sanctifying act in the human consciousness, without a “good” war to fight there is little sacrifice other than taxes the populace has given. There is little investment in Cathedral regimes even though politics is ubiquitous and mandatory, there’s plenty of circuses and bread so democracy fails to stir the excitement necessary for a dynamic civic space. Anyone who has rubbed two brain cells together is dissatisfied with the status quo, governments have utterly failed to maintain trust, I bet if Pew polled it they’d find more percent of Americans approve of Khrushchev or Mussolini than Congress.

    In order to “progress” the Cathedral has had to overextend into wild territories to maintain itself. When the Communists on /leftypol/ want to gulag most of their fellow leftists you know something is terribly wrong in the enemy camp. The post-Lisbon centralized EU alongside its peer regimes in New Labour and Obama put to practice ideas that were on the academic fringe only a decade prior. To be a good progressive required a higher level of cognitive dissonance, especially if one wasn’t of a protected class, than could not be easily maintained just by the regularly scheduled propaganda. We probably should give the cuckservative machine more credit for chipping away at the inner party edifice, personally it was discussions with neocon friends that first brought me out from under Satan’s spell. Before the internet Right emerged on the scene circa 2006 conservative radio, fox news, newspapers, etc had coalesced a market for counter signaling. An overtly biased OV network had formed to fight the culture war that went beyond anti-Communism and low taxes, warriors of that early conflict like Derbyshire and Buchannan have been warmly welcomed by the radicalized new generation of counter-Revolutionaries.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “I very much agree with your interpretation of Moldbugian Reaction (hate the term ‘NRx’) … Occasionally Moldbug squeaks doubt on the very viability of commercial thinking, ‘economic growth’, market magics etc but stayed on the Austrian reservation.” — So which is it? Actually, I think you know. Romantic Socialist Paleo-Reaction can lay claim to much of his rhetoric, reading recommendations, and trolling, but the substantial analysis is Neocameral (and Tech-Comm NRx comprehends it best). There’s no way these two tendencies can co-exist productively within a single State, so Patchwork (geopolitical fragmentation) is the only conceivable source of common ground.

    [Reply]

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    >There’s no way these two tendencies can co-exist productively within a single State

    1. What are you on about? Why can’t HRx use Neocameral structure and analysis? Why won’t a wise neocameralist state be HRx?

    2. Watch me.

    [Reply]

    Froude Society Reply:

    He named his freakin’ daughter after a character from Carlyle’s “French Revolution”! I’m pretty sure MM’s soul is with the Carlylean interpretation even if his mind lingered upon the the more Misesian interpretation. There’s no way that kind of devotion is “trolling” or rhetorical fedora tipping. He’s a complex enough of an author for both of our perceptions to be partially correct. The only thing that can settle this is to stir him from his silence to weigh in on the dispute.

    As Warg said, the whole idea of breaking up states into smaller parts is to allow for dynamism and synthesis of policy to take place. It’s quite frankly a little ~universalist~ to think there’s a best political system to which everyone should participate in it. The difference between NRx and HRx are relatively minor and I’m sure both would do much better than a modernist democracy. There’s plenty of ways to execute an unabashedly hierarchical state, you might need us for military reasons or we might need you for industrial goods, I see no reason why the two models should be hostile.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Personal authority matters far more to you guys than to us. If we were privileged enough to have MM show up here to share his own (current) perspective on the question, it would — of course — be a delight, but it would make no difference whatsoever to the substance of the topic under discussion. (His present role, in any case, is to push Urbit forwards at maximum practical speed, rather to shepherd the unruly flocks of ‘Moldbuggian’ Neocameralism.)

    “It’s quite frankly a little ~universalist~ to think there’s a best political system to which everyone should participate in it.” — I hope you don’t think I am in any way supporting any such idea.

    Chris B Reply:

    @admin Sov corp – A sovereign entity which is then denied the ability to order economic activity in line with state craft and ethical good. List is chortling in his grave somewhere. There are no states with libertarianism, anarcho-cap nor liberal economics, they are all anti-order. You must see clearly that even Moldbug saw this inherent problem given that he progressed from labeling mercantilism “primitive” to realising List was correct. Also, no, the substantial analysis is Carlyean. You have just latched onto a part that is kind of an-cap soundingish and and then extrapolated things that don`t logically follow.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    “order economic activity in line with state craft and ethical good”
    What does this even mean? Marx adopted the Traditionalist Conservative / Paleo-Reactionary critique of Capitalism that our Quixotean friends still screech today. I suppose, considering that you’re neither Marxist, nor Distributist that you don’t accept “muh exploitation, muh alienation, muh dehumanization” theory, so I don’t understand what’s your particular problem with Laissez-faire economics?

    I don’t know whether I got this right, but it seems to me what you desire is Neofeudalism instead of Neocameralism (the difference being subtle, namely where Neocameralist SovCorp does only the enterprise of governance, Neofeudal Megacorp in addition to governance also does all businesses from food production to cars and computers to high-tech, which ends up seeming like a Communist state, except it’s privately owned). Moldbug said to libertarians in UR comments that he desires the same thing as they do, just that he considers that the best way to achieve it is through Formalism. Moldbuggian theory, of course, allows the SovCorp to be run as Neofeudal Megacorp, but I don’t think that Moldbug would consider such a thing to be an example of good governance.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @OLF Actually, Marx was a big fan of Smith. His critique of Capitalism from my interpretation can really be seen as a special case of free market theory, or rather, free market theory taken to a logical conclusion. Smith = free trade which implies state should not intervene (and in List view implies a utopia which I am apt to agree with.) Marx = wait a second. All those holders of capital are impeding on free trade (in labor.) hummmm.
    As for the rest, I can only say that the way that liberals around here keep trying to pull the rhetorical trick of heavily assuming and asserting the neocam is free market, and everything else is (insert attempt at insulting name here) is quite poor. Mercantilism seems the closest fit so far.

    OLF Reply:

    @Chris B.

    What Marx took from Smith certainly wasn’t devotion to free trade, but rather labor theory of value. Everything else in Marx is Traditionalist Conservative talking points, that you’ve recently also come to espouse, like, e.g. “muh atomization”.

    From the classical liberals, Marx took an at-least-proclaimed devotion to humanism, reason, industry, peace, and the eventual “withering away of the State”; from the conservatives, however, he took much more, including an idealization of the feudal period, an opposition to individualism on behalf of favored classes and the whole collective society, a determinist belief in laws of history, and the charge that liberal division of labor and the free society “alienated” the laborer from his work, “atomized” the individual, etc.

    BTW Mercantilism *is* quite poor. It’s a system of tarifs, subsidies, protections and monopoly grants which is what we already have today (the only difference being that in the age of actual Mercantilism they had hard money and low taxes and we now have fiat money and high taxes).

    admin Reply:

    English is the global language (of tech-comm stuff), and French is not, primarily because the French were differentially mercantilist relative to the English. Gallic delusion lives on in the Heroic Reactionary community however. It’s not the sort of thing that can be extirpated by anything other than the harsh claws of Gnon. (So give them a state.)

    admin Reply:

    The whole point of Patchwork is that this kind of positive policy content doesn’t need to be sorted out in advance by a bunch of bloggers (including even Moldbug, but certainly including us). Your position is especially inconsistent:
    “I respect the majesty of government and its absolute discretion, so now I’m going to tell it exactly what to do, down to the fine details of its trade policy … ”
    Darwin sorts this stuff out, or the Patchwork isn’t working.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    How you set the thing up is key, and in that department your proscriptions are utterly incoherent. You seem to have a couple of models which you switch between, these being A) blockchain republicanism with no one in real control. So who owns it? and how do they deal with their property? or is this ownership without control? B) a property thing which is run by an entrepreneur in direct contradiction to (A), but they are unable to decide on what happens in their property, because free trade and anrcho-capitalism (you might as well replace with the word “magic”). C) AI control. So who owns what? and why don’t we just theorizing on the basis of an alien invasion while we are at it?

    On the other hand, Modlbug constantly through his blog and thinking has in mind the placement of a “delegate”, “king”, “despot” or whatever, who has the ability to exhibit judgement and make a rational plan (Carlyean.) This is something which is always absent from anarcho-capitalism/ Darwinism with it’s weird little assumption that we are just billiard balls bashing around with no conception of time. This does not fit with free trade in the Smith category at all. He obviously realized this.

    admin Reply:

    The Neocameral CEO is under stock-holder control. That, on its own, makes a nonsense of your whole polemic.

    It’s catallaxy vs Great Monkey Theory. Fortunately, catallaxy doesn’t have to waste time winning an argument. (Neither does The Great Monkey, if you can find one.)

    In Chris B. world — not believing some guy on a white horse is going to save us = ‘Utopianism’ [*facepalm*]

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    @admin

    How exactly are the shares of the shareholders secured? How do they remove the CEO? Are we back to crypto-locks, or do we have anything better than that yet?

    admin Reply:

    Nothing could be better than a crypto-lock

    Aeroguy Reply:

    On the subject of crypto-locks, something complex enough that is already under crypto-lock protection, are ICBMs. Under a geopolitical meta with widespread nuclear proliferation and fragile peaces secured with threat of nuclear arms, the keeper of the crypto keys stands tall. Under the present system there is a chain of control and any link in the chain is theoretically capable of aborting, a new system could be developed that inverts this. The ICBM could be set to automatically launch periodically unless it receives the crypto-secure signal. If officers in charge of maintenance of the missile attempt to sabotage it, they will by extension sabotage their patch’s primary means of defense, something they can’t risk. As an example there might be a total of ten unique cycling crypto keys for 10 shareholders who get one each and at least 6 are required to the secure the ICBM. The CEO lives inside of the SovCorp and manages it to the shareholders satisfaction because rebellion=suicide.

    As far as shareholders go, they’re the formalized (real) power of the SovCorp, in USG they would include media mongols, heads of Ivy League universities, heads of the bureaucracies and company presidents/CEOs. Something that is unanswered is the nature of shareholder succession. Under SovCorp all the shareholder’s power is delegated and concentrated into the CEO, who is then free to do stuff like put all the bureaucrats into retirement. The issue I see is, how are power shares managed? When first incorporated the founding power shares weren’t fungible, but afterwards they could be made so. It’s identical to feudal titles of nobility, once they represented formalized power but after a generation they become just another element of power and formalization needs to happen again. This means that another layer is required above the shareholders that initiates formalization, turtles all the way down.

    I regard immortality as degenerate, death is essential to life. Instead of seeking immortal civilizations, recognize that they must age and die, perhaps even having life spans as short as our own is good (that is to say ignore succession). However instead of clinging to life, part of the lifecycle of the civilization is to give birth to daughter civilizations (true succession). Arguably colonization is an example of this, or the phoenix like dynastic successions in China, but it’s not quite there. Civilizations are a common emergent phenomena from simpler systems, like how in the RNA world hypothesis, many different RNA molecules would form out of the organic soup but it’s the self replicating RNA that would lead to life. I think any proposal for a system of government should include how to reproduce itself, with bonus points for sexual reproduction

    I think SovCorp can be salvaged, provided it involves reproduction with a new generation of shareholders. Communities might be bound to a set of land, but the administration over that land and community may change. Or it could be cannibalized to make way for new communities as the reigning sovereign sees fit.

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    Excuse me if nuclear proliferation with dead-man switch MAD sounds too spooky for me, but it sounds pretty spooky.

    >Instead of seeking immortal civilizations, recognize that they must age and die, perhaps even having life spans as short as our own is good (that is to say ignore succession).

    Sure, as long as they don’t regularly nuke themselves and their neighbours when the CEO dies.

    I think you’re right though that governments have finite life. I think it’s good to include succession plans, but the ultimate succession plan is that the whole thing dies and is replaced. Ideally it does so peacefully and efficiently.

    Good thoughts on colonialism and daughter civilizations as well.

    Thank you for providing a start of an actual model. I’m suspicious of some of the details, and it needs work, but it’s a start. I’m working on a Hestia Grand Plan that will have some more ideas and should eventually involve a completely working design.

    Hurlock Reply:

    So you haven’t even tried to study economics, but you just have a prejudice against all economic science, including that of the austrian variety, because His Majesty Lord Carlyle told you so?

    Way to demonstrate your lack of agency.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Disagreeing with Carlyle isn’t very heroic. What, are you a nerd or something?

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @hurlock I’ve made it quite clear that I’m favorable to mercantilism. I would be more favourable to something which was stronger then mercantilism if it could be devised. What I object to is pozzed Capitalism, anarcho-capitilism, liberalism, libertarianism, communism and all the other stupid theories which are anti-order to their core, and throw human organisation and society into a utopian grinder because they make obscene assumptions of the optionalality of the state or hierarchical organisation.

    [Reply]

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    How are we defining mercantilism here? The wikipedia definition has considerable stupidity unless it’s boiled down to “the state ought to fiddle with trade policy to achieve long term economic strength”.

    We need serious rational analysis on these points and you guys are just busy shitting on each other.

    admin Reply:

    We don’t need serious analysis on these points (which is not to say it wouldn’t be interesting), because Patchwork doesn’t require a universal economic doctrine. Hong Kong and Singapore both work exceptionally well. The former is almost wholly laissez-faire, the latter has definite mercantilist elements (although of a sophistication that a less highly-evolved society would be unlikely to match). The world is better with a maximum of policy diversity, combined with maximally ferocious competitive culling. Why do we need to ‘decide’ anything on the topic at all?

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    “Why do we need to ‘decide’ anything on the topic at all?”

    Because somewhere along the line, we have to build something, and that something has to have an understanding of economics. The corner of NRx I’m fond of is developing the evolved reactionary traditionalist fascism of later Moldbug and Jim and so on, towards the end of actually fixing the West, by either replacing USG or building some patches. To actually build patches, we need actual designs, not just opportunities for designs.

    Global patchwork is not a policy or something that we can do; its an outcome that either happens or does not. It’s out of anyone’s control unless we have the next satoshi kicking around. Maybe we do, or maybe laying the idealogical groundwork for him is your master plan. I can’t tell what you’re up to.

    To the extent that we can actually do anything, that thing is build patches and sovcorps, and the theory that is their foundation, and the theories that they will pursue as their strategies with respect to demographic, economic, ideological, and political policy.

    You’re right that the core question is how to build and launch sovcorps, but the rest of it is interesting too.

    So for example, the crypto-lock sovcorp. Let’s see a prototype, or a design for a prototype, or a sketch in that direction. How does it actually work? Does anyone know? Wouldn’t be hard to build one and test it out, if we knew how.

    Right now the only sovcorp designs I’m aware of are the classic ones built on human relationships. A few tweaks here and there and we might be able to build one. So that’s what I’m pursuing. Can’t say the same for the crypto-lock designs, not that anyone has tried.

    admin Reply:

    I’ve no idea — at all — why you think you’re going to be ‘building a SovCorp’. You think you’re a potential major sovereign property stock-holder? (Why the Hell would you think that?) We all agree that under Neocameral principles the stock-holders control all policy decisions (delegating executive authority to a CEO), right?

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    >why you think you’re going to be ‘building a SovCorp’. You think you’re a potential major sovereign property stock-holder?

    Either someone is going to be building or fixing some sovcorps, or this is all totally pointless. Maybe it will be independent guys like LKY and Washington, or conglomerations thereof, but I see no reason we shouldn’t be planning to stick our fingers in that pie and help them build their thing to the best possible designs.

    It’s a bit reductionist to say that the shareholders control policy. They do in the crypto-lock neocameral state, but other designs could be different. Practical sovcorps we actually end up seeing might be a semi-neocameral where the government or party members are majority shareholder and are tasked with delivering a profit to the shareholders, but which not under direct shareholder control.

    In either case, putting a man in charge does not magically make him wise enough to rule. Sovereign government is considerably more complex than other types of companies, and I suspect the leadership is going to need research and ideological support and all kinds of structures to be set up which no one currently knows how to set up. We need to figure out what those things are, and replace all the pozzed bullshit we have now. Economic trade policy is not the highest leverage research question, but it is relevant if someone could figure it out.

    For example, let’s look at Google. Controlled directly by its shareholders, run for profit, and has every incentive to be wise, and none of the additional rigours of sovereign government, and yet it can’t help itself but become a pozzed diversity-center in only a few decades of existence. This is unacceptable for a sovcorp. Why did it happen?

    It happened because google has no official ideology and no inquisition. All institutions end up captured by virulent memeplexes, SJWism in Google’s case, unless they are occupied and fortified by some existing memeplex.

    So we need to be building ideologies fit to rule, and designs for their control and defensive structures. And there are probably a handful of other such major failure modes that need to be mapped out and fortified against. There’s more to this that building a sovcorp, though we have to experiment with that too.

    One of our projects controlling major sovereign capital is an eventual goal, as far as I’m concerned, but we can experiment with designs before that. For example, suppose we structure the Hestia Society or one of its clients as a crypto-lock shareholder republic. All “sovereign” means is there’s no higher court to secure your rights, so we can simulate and test by not using higher courts. Such an experiment would be valuable information for any LKY or neohitler, and there’s no reason we can’t do it today if we had a design and a project to test it on. We don’t have a design yet, let’s come up with one.

    So I repeat, how does a crypto-lock shareholder republic work? Someone should produce a working example and some documentation for how they did it.

    Chris B Reply:

    @admin so you assert that we are all equal, and that society is not natutally hierachical as a result of our very nature?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “you assert that we are all equal” ???

    Inequality and (spontaneous) hierarchy are inescapable. It doesn’t require some random blogger to tell us what the specific outcome is going to be in advance.

    This perfectly illustrates the decay path of NRx.
    A) “Hierarchy is inevitable (and resisting it is degeneracy).”
    B) “Yes! And Bob Smith should be king! Here are the policies he should follow …”

    Extreme tolerance for emergent inequalities does not require caste certification.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    To hell with Bob Smith, I should be king.

    admin Reply:

    Then you should change your name to Bob Smith and buy a feathery hat.

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    >Extreme tolerance for emergent inequalities does not require caste certification.

    Non-seq. Caste certification (ie title) may be an important mechanism in achieving overall strength of the state. For example, it enables some control against degenerative elites (eg Jewish media promoting antisocial ideas), feedforward investment in high quality people before they show up (ie sons of aristos inheriting title), reward for exemplary service, control and use of tribalism among elites, etc.

    Statecraft is complex and I can’t pretend to know how these things should be done, but ruling out stuff like title a-priori seems like an unwarranted overextension. Ironic that you are accusing others of premature policy design, if I understand you correctly.

    If we are speaking from the point of view of the state, and it wishes to maximally promote and develop itself to the benefit of its shareholders and itself, we can look at a few different strategies:

    1. Unmanaged Ecosystem. Do what thou wilt, etc. Skim some tax off the top. Disadvantage is enormous waste.

    2. Semi-Managed Permaculture Garden. Remove parasites and useless stuff, prune and plant, have overall strategy. Less waste, but requires more intelligence.

    3. Fully Managed Farm. Control every aspect of economy so that if you went away or fucked up, it would die. Maximally productive given the intelligence to do it, but that level of intelligence is impossible.

    Obviously 3 is out, but you seem to be promoting 1 over 2. Why is that?

    Chris B Reply:

    @admin the decay path is you taking an aspect of a thought experiment from 2007, declaring that the whole thing is just anarcho-cap then proceeding to try to cut out everying else which makes a mockery of this radical misreading.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @wargfranklin “”We need serious rational analysis on these points and you guys are just busy shitting on each other.” I take offence at this. I`ve offered repeated analysis which admin and the rest if the hypercapitalist here have responded to with abuse, namecalling, strawmans and bad faith arguments. I`m not on their level here.

    [Reply]

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    Ok. I’ve missed it. Link pls.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Yeah, I’d like to see a link to this infamous “in-depth analysis too”.

    I have been asking for one for weeks now…

    admin Reply:

    Your powers of self-delusion are deep into psychosis territory. You have been by far the most abusive voice in this discussion (consistently, from the beginning).

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    It is inevitable that such speech acts disrupt productive communication.
    (Though of course this priest-duel should not be confused with communication.)

    Having associated accusations of such with psychosis, I’m concerned that good-faith actors will be discouraged from making such accusations when they are accurate. This is only not a concern if good-faith actors never produce abuse beyond the noise level.

    TheDividualist Reply:

    Part agree, part disagree. I think the real point is to as much as possible stick to facts, observable reality. And the spiritual stuff can have two interpretations, one is that it is a fact of human nature that people’s behavior is affected by spirituality or suchlike and this can have observable real social effects. A different interpretation is that the author (you, Froude, anyone) is having spiritual beliefs and it takes your eyes off from empirical facts.

    This is incredibly difficult to keep the balance – the typical modern atheist will usually undervalue the real social effects of spirituality, while the Bonald type will take his eyes often off from observable reality and lets his views modified by his own spiritual beliefs.

    To have a truly empirical eye, you basically have to do the impossible: not believe in anything spiritual or cultural yourself or at least able to set that perfectly aside, while not having any animosity to it and thus not having any desire to ignore, undervalue or misintepret its real social effects.

    This is almost impossible, because if you decide to understand something empirically, that also means you are deciding NOT to understand it culturally or spiritually, and thus put yourself automatically into a mindset where wall yourself off from them – and thus easily ignore their real effects!

    While if you pull a Bonald, you never know where you observations end and your religion or culture begins. It is in you, and influencing you.

    The first thing to understand here is to not give anyone sh_t for committing any of these two mistakes, because it is incredibly hard not to done or the other!

    You can give sh_t to economists about them ignoring how culture and spirituality influences human choice and not just prices, but they could also give you sh_t because “hollowness” is not an observable fact and are you even talking about facts or just your beliefs, aren’t you just talking out of your preferences of spirituality instead of how it observably changes human behavior? To the economist, aesthetic is just stuff you like.

    To be clear, I agree with neither fully, my position is that that there is probably such a thing as e.g. objective aesthetics, this things aren’t just preferences, it is just incredibly hard to actually observe and prove it, so be skeptical about any specific claim of objectivity in these while accepting the possibility that some are so.

    So the goal is to understand keeping this balance is hard, and sort of try to keep it by reading people who are bit this side or that side.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I’m an economist, I’m a scientist, I only believe in what I can see. Hush, the Zeitgeist is moving now.

    [Reply]

    TheDividualist Reply:

    You are not seriously implying I was meaning that?

    Posted on November 3rd, 2015 at 4:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    “And now that the tradesmen and landed nobility have
    triumphed for over two hundred and fifty years, what
    could be. more natural than that Charles I should be
    the most reviled of monarchs.? “What could be more
    feasible than the fact that Thomas Carlyle, that utterly
    Puritanical and obtuse romanticist and ranter, of the
    stupidest and vulgarest age in history, should have spoken
    of this great King’s death as follows

    “Thus ends the second Civil War. In Regicide, in a Commonwealth and Keepers of the Liberties of England.
    In punishment of Delinquents, in abolition of Cobwebs;
    if it -be possible, in a Government of Heroism and
    Veracity; at the lowest of Anti-Flurtkeyism, Anti-Cant,
    and the endeavour after Heroism and Veracity.^
    It will be the burden of this chapter to show that this paragraph is a piece of the most utter nonsense and misrepresentation
    that any sentimental scoundrel has ever
    written. It will be the object of the facts adduced to show
    not only that Carlyle lied, but that he must have lied
    knowingly and deliberately in writing these words, and
    that,^ if it were not for the fact that his opinion, as that of
    a eunuch, must be taken with pity rather than with
    censure, the above half-dozen lines ought to be sufficient to discredit him for ever in the minds of all conscientious
    readers of history.

    ” – Ludovici on Thomas Carlyle from “A Defense of Aristocracy”

    and then critically in the index

    “Carlyle : his stupid and vulgar
    estimate of Charles I, 107 ; his
    foolish concern about a defunct
    aristocracy while British aris- tocracy was most in need of
    criticism, 108; as a eunuch
    naturally on the side of the
    Puritans, 1”

    I really have no opinion on Carlyle and eventually will probably use some of his positions for Jacobite trolling and then perhaps seriously if he merits consideration, but for now those comments have to be important at least a little right? I mean for christs sake Ludovici wrote a “textbook defense” of the aristocracy.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @OLF “What Marx took from Smith certainly wasn’t devotion to free trade, but rather labor theory of value. Everything else in Marx is Traditionalist Conservative talking points, that you’ve recently also come to espouse, like, e.g. “muh atomization”.” You should go and read Marx directly some time. The Marxist party still retains his support of free trade. Behind the fluff, he basically said free trade is great as it liquidates nations, but unfortunatly evil capitalists and property then stop workers from trading freely in labor. So his complaint was caitalism wasn`t leftist and atomising enough.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… unfortunatly evil capitalists and property then stop workers from trading freely in labor …” — Your ‘reading’ of Marx is even more bizarre than your deliberately blindness viz the concept of spontaneous order. Marx’s Capital is a critique of labor commoditization, so pretty much the exact opposite of what you say.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Marx is a massive red herring troll that economics professors make you read to distract you from Darwin, same as Keynes. It’s like trying to think clearly about physics while (inexplicably) insisting on the relevance of Swedenborg.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 5:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2015/11/04 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] Cathedral decay. Related: The antiversity in Russia. […]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 6:33 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    nio come back to us and put back up your website

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by Mencius Moldbug and transformed into grouchy LARP-monkeys.

    [Reply]

    Froude Society Reply:

    As opposed to eldritch tentacle horrors with cybernetic implants? Worshiping capitalism as some sort of elder God immanentization is a tougher sell than the “trollish” Jacobite romantic interpretation.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    What has “selling” got to do with it? (I was assuming, like us, you were doing it for God — or the closest available approximation.)

    In any case, given their utter mutual repulsion, the idea that HRx and NRx are direct competitors is almost certainly a delusion. No one has ever crossed from one to the other, or ever will. Both are more likely to have sympathizers poached by Ancient UFO cultists than each other.

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    >No one has ever crossed from one to the other, or ever will.

    That’s a funny idea given that I can’t figure out which side I’m on. I suspect there is a bigger contingent of hybrids than you think, but I’m not sure I know what you mean by NRx and HRx.

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 8:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Froude Society Says:

    @

    “Pitch” probably would have been the better word choice. Both sides are trying to convert disillusioned Brahmans away from progressive ideologies. To the newb stumbling upon r/darkenlightenment or some facebook meme page the divide won’t be apparent until a lot of pages have been read. This religious aspect is clearly where most of the disgust comes from, the rest is aesthetic. We can’t be at each others’ throats like the fringe Left is when we are still so young and few in number. I’m merely stating that HRx can gather more Brahmans from wider backgrounds because it provides a more attractive alternative to modernity.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 1:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @froudesociety “The difference between NRx and HRx are relatively minor and I’m sure both would do much better than a modernist democracy. ” How about no. Admin in trying to shuffle everything non-anarcho capitalist (so basically neoreaction) into the heroic reaction moniker is playing an absolutely obscene game. It is cuckoldry of the highest order. How about Admin just calls himself an anarcho-capitalist and be done with it.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Anarcho-capitalism (pre-MM) has no conception of fungible sovereign property. (But I’ve already repeated this countless times, and you’re incapable of hearing it, so I don’t expect it to register this time, either.)

    There is no rigorous element of the neocameral model of government that I have any problem with whatsoever, as should be obvious to anyone without severe reading problems, or a demented feathery-hat fetish. Yes, I think MM’s great contribution, establishing what we now call NRx, is fundamentally captured by Neocam + Patchwork*. “But what about his reading list?” If you’re a Carlylean, call yourself that. (Carlyle does not formally conceptualize what MM does, and certainly doesn’t provide the model for fungible sovereign property, Exit-based Patchwork selection, or stock-holder controlled voice-insensitive executive government.)

    * + ethno-cladistics (the “Ultra-Puritan Hypothesis”)

    [Reply]

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    >fungible sovereign property, Exit-based Patchwork selection, or stock-holder controlled voice-insensitive executive government.

    Has anyone written this down in non-rhetorical detail? What if I actually wanted to build such a thing, what would I read to get started?

    I have this feeling like people ITT are trashing and defending each others ideas without even having them written down in sufficient detail to see what the difference is.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The only problem I have with this is the extreme lucidity of MM’s foundational expositions on the topic. Re-inventing the wheel doesn’t look like an obviously worthwhile enterprise to me, even if one were hubristic enough to somehow imagine one could do it better. Perhaps some focused linking is called for, when people forget what’s already been done.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “I have this feeling like people ITT are trashing and defending each others ideas without even having them written down in sufficient detail to see what the difference is.”

    Do you even blogosphere, bro?

    Chris B Reply:

    You`re anarcho cap. Stop strawmaning and tryin to play a split off of me. I`m not Anissimov and I am not supid enough to play along.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… tryin to play a split off of me …” — Get a grip. You came here and started shouting.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    You should seriously consider being more authoritarian in your own domain. If you continue to allow idiotic content to be regularly posted in these comment sections it will keep multiplying itself. It’s a positive feedback loop and you know how those work very well…

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 1:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    finally there some tools on the jobsite

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 3:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2015/11/01) | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] may be laid against the principle in which we refuse to refuse all dialectics. He also considers Cathedral Decay as a possible source for alternative right […]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 3:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    @Warg Franklin thanks for your postrationalism ideas. real good aproach, but limited in scope, perhaps couplings with System Dynamics can can enhance it aplicabilty.

    just look at “shitting on each other” as Social Darwinism at work.

    shares in neocameralist government can be secured via block chain. removals of CEO procedure can be hard coded into blockchain. in fact CEO can be changed very frequently, that way he will have no chanse to implement something really stupid and damaging.

    [Reply]

    Warg Franklin Reply:

    >CEO can be changed very frequently, that way he will have no chanse to implement something really stupid and damaging.

    You mean no chance to develop any expertise and a feel for the trade.

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ca/2007/08/rotary-management-next-big-thing.html

    I’ve not dived into the blockchain governance idea. If one you folks who has could outline how the shareholder blockchain works in practice, that would be great.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 4:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Cue Debussy – waka waka waka Says:

    […] also an earlier Outside In post, linked to from the post above, that […]

    Posted on November 16th, 2016 at 6:38 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment