Dazed and Confused

The first stage of the NRx master-plan — coaxing our “perceived enemies” into the consummation of their howling insanity — now seems to be approaching completion.

If leftist moral-political axioms were an argument, these (dazzlingly white*) guys might have one.

* Perhaps the funniest part of all this, it’s only a matter of time before they’re chaited by the all-devouring lunacy they align with.

ADDED: The New Inquiry piece helpfully fnorded (+) by laofmoonster.

January 29, 2015admin 90 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Media

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

90 Responses to this entry

  • ReactionaryFerret Says:

    Oh how cute. They’re comparing us to Nazis again.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    We can probably take that as a constant.

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    It’s kind of flattering though. Nazis actually changed history, though not really for the better.

    Personally, I do not believe NRx is ever going to matter much.

    Earth’s real estate is pretty much parceled out*, and elites in established countries are never gonna let themselves be pushed away from the public troughs. NRx, as it’s little more than an intellectual debate club is not going to produce movements which might achieve a measure of power in a time of crisis.

    Good ideas do not matter, because people are generally irrational and are always going to prefer appealing but not so rational ideas. So unless there is a concerted effort to develop a memetically appealing ideology that’d have a concealed rational core, it’s not going to help.

    But that’s just my opinion.

    *there’s a forsaken bit of desert (2060 km^2) which is so useless Egypt and Sudan both want the other country to have it. Though apparently recently some US joker travelled there and ‘claimed it’ so his daughter might be princess of it. Now that’s a really weird approach to raising kids.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 4:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    These Neoreactionary guys sound pretty fucking based. Where do I sign up for their newsletter?

    Every weak critique of NRx is viral marketing to the uninitated. Don’t throw us into that briar patch! (But of course, no self respecting prog has ever seen Song of the South, so they simply don’t get it).

    [Reply]

    Harold Reply:

    I had never heard of ‘Song of the South’ before your comment, but when I was a little boy my favourite book and the favourite of my father’s to read to me, was Br’er Rabbit. Supposedly many of the stories have their origins in West African trickster tales. One good thing that came out of West Africa, at least.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I didn’t recognize that description of NRx, but it sure sounded like a lot of fun.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 6:15 am Reply | Quote
  • neovictorian23 Says:

    The “Black Sun” thing is a horrid mishmash without any real point, but since I’ve brought up Crowley a couple of times, “Who am I to judge?” 🙂

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 7:06 am Reply | Quote
  • Dazed and Confused | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 9:25 am Reply | Quote
  • hb Says:

    The top comment on the Gawker article is fantastic:

    “I suppose there’s an argument that ‘Political Correctness’ has been terrible for the talentless corporate sludge of white maleness, given their previous elevated slots in society are now being given to far more talented non-white and non-male candidates that previously where shut out of the roles their ability warranted.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 12:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Harold Says:

    I read the BoingBoing piece.
    It was great.
    I had a smile on my face throughout the whole thing.
    Own up, which one of you wrote it?

    “They want you to lift the veil pulled over your eyes by the progressives who secretly control society.”
    Worst kept secret ever.

    “The term “taking the red pill,” to refer to coming around to that way of thinking, comes from this community.”
    Closed-minded bigots, coming around to new ways of thinking! In other words, it’s about time they stopped calling us bigoted, or started amending the dictionaries. By the way, the first example of a use of ‘bigoted’ in the dictionary on my computer: “a bigoted group of reactionaries”

    “While these so-called “racial realist” views aren’t mainstream in science, they are common in the Redpill universe, especially its most militant and regressive regions, such as the Neoreaction movement.”
    Which suggests the question: why don’t we just call ourselves regressives?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 12:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Harold Says:

    That fnording is also great.
    It’s like bad poetry.
    Someone should read it at a poetry slam.

    New Right techno-futurist
    unorthodox Nazi cosmologists.
    National Socialist party
    power Nazi occult
    bizarre Hollow Earth occultists
    “Jewish abstraction Aryan conception”
    anti-Semitic Nazi cultural regression

    [Reply]

    Harold Reply:

    Or set it to techno music?

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    Billy Joel, We Didn’t Start the Fire

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Or this –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsxavPANO8s

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 12:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    The New Inquiry article wasn’t so bad in spots. It simply recast certain NRx motives/ideas in a negative light, which demonstrates how impossible it would be to find common ground between people like us and people like the author, which in turn, demonstrates precisely the need for Exit mechanisms that the author finds so hideous.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    “We can’t let those Evil White Males exit because we don’t need them!!!”

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    Now that’s brilliant, my friend.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 2:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Adair Neto Says:

    I am trying to understand better NRx and Dark Enlightenment, but I have to say:

    – People give historical/scientific facts and arguments and you respond with offenses. Which makes sense, in some way, because NRx is irrational, anti-scientific (you use the same pseudo-science than the nazis presented in the New Inquiry article). The article doesn’t pretend to be a proper critique to NRx, but it presents facts and you just respond with offenses.
    – NRx main principles are simply wrong. People just believed in these things in a superticious era. NRx principles are incongruent with reality.
    – admin talked about populism some posts ago. But this dichotomy between Right and Left (NRx wrongly calls Left somethings that are simply against most fundamental Left beliefs) is simply “us versus them”, i.e. populism. This dichotomy encourages irrationality, disrespect and beliefs bad fundamented (see Mill, On Liberty, ch.2).
    – NRx is epistemologically autodestructive. Denying Enlightenment, you don’t know much about epistemology anyway.
    – Enlightenment was needed in that time of history. Without it, we wouldn’t have the scientific developments that you guys use to “prove” that whites are superior. In any way, Enlightenment was already overcome. You are stuck on time.
    – NRx uses bad data (NRx also don’t know how to read data) and believes that specific cases are sufficient to support a whole ideological system.
    – NRx is intelectualy dishonest. Distorts data and facts.
    – You talk about superiority. But you forgot that nothing is superior a priori. A group is only superior to another by an arbitrary point of comparison.
    – NRx talks a lot about “natural”. Well, but there is not “true” or “pure” or “natural” family or hierarchy, for example. These are constructs (see Hegel, history, Foucault, et al).
    – For fun: Marx himself thought that communism is(neo)reactionary (see Communist Manifesto).

    Neoreaction is like a snake that bits its own tail.

    I hope you understand my comment. As I said, I’m trying to understand this whole thing. And please, irrational talking and offenses wouldn’t lead anywhere. You need arguments and facts. In any case, I’m a white male with high IQ (laughs).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    [I’d trash-bin this comment for obvious reasons, if it wasn’t so far gone that I suspect it’s some kind of ironic trolling exercise.]

    [Reply]

    Adair Neto Reply:

    Please, if NRx is right, prove me. I’m here for listen to your ideas. I’m saying my doubts and critiques about it and, instead of facts and arguments, you’ll trash-bin it?

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    You should better understand the Bible first.

    admin Reply:

    If you’re cunningly impersonating a retarded person, you’re some kind of genius. If not, you’re not.

    Adair Neto Reply:

    @admin

    You are proving my point! I’m asking you for answers to my critiques and you give none. You are just using an ad hominem. Or maybe you are only joking.

    Adair Neto Reply:

    @Orthodox

    Why do you say that? If you think Bible supports NRx, you are doing a pretty modern/enlightenment reading of it, not understanding its original intents. Coincidentally, I’m a theologian.

    [Reply]

    Hattori Reply:

    It’s not trolling. He was on Jim’s talking about how the far right is a real danger in Brazil.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s sad. Probably need to take out the meat axe …

    Adair Neto Reply:

    Consequence of what I said above:

    “This dichotomy between Right and Left (NRx wrongly calls Left somethings that are simply against most fundamental Left beliefs) is simply “us versus them”, i.e. populism. This dichotomy encourages irrationality, disrespect and beliefs bad fundamented (see Mill, On Liberty, ch.2).”

    The party has clear Right-wing orientation, does what Right — by definition — does, is completely opposed to the Left’s most fundamental beliefs and you say that it’s Left? This is dishonesty.

    ||||| Reply:

    @admin Do you see what I have to deal with on a daily basis?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    NL, please give Adair Neto a chance. Some of his points are good.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    I really shouldn’t even ask, but…..

    -“NRx is irrational, anti-scientific (you use the same pseudo-science than the nazis presented in the New Inquiry article)”
    -“NRx uses bad data (NRx also don’t know how to read data)”
    -“[NRX] distorts data and facts.”

    You repeat yourself. What, specifically, are you referring to?

    The rest of your points are such utter nonsense that they’re not worthy of any response at all. You shouldn’t be surprised with your reception here.

    [Reply]

    Adair Neto Reply:

    Yeah, I repeated some things. But what’s the problem? Does it prove that my saying are without value? Obviously not.

    You are not arguing neither showing facts, just saying “nonsense”. Are NRx averse to a healthy and constructive discussion?

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    You say: NRx distorts data, uses bad data, etc.

    …Without knowing what “data” you’re referring to, your statement is indeed entirely without value. So let’s see it. What data, specifically, are you talking about?

    Adair Neto Reply:

    I’m talking about data in the academic meaning of the word. Data as result of researches, as, in some way, “reality translated to words and numbers”. E.g. black people suffers more violence than whites, etc. Get it?

    Erebus Reply:

    Stop dancing around the question. Let me simplify my question to you: You say that NRx misinterprets data and uses bad data — what brought you to this conclusion? What examples have you seen of distorted/misinterpreted data? This is obviously the starting point for any debate, and you’re doing nothing but evading it.

    Thales Reply:

    I’m talking about data in the academic meaning of the word. Data as result of researches, as, in some way, “reality translated to words and numbers”. E.g. black people suffers more violence than whites, etc. Get it?

    I call bullshit. You neither presented data over on Jim’s blog to back your assertions, nor countered with data when data was presented to destroy your blank assertions. Now you’re following the same pattern here, making the exact same blank assertions. You’re a liar projecting your own dishonesty.

    Adair Neto Reply:

    @Erebus

    I’m not dancing with the question. You asked me what I meant by data and I answered that. Now you asking a different thing.

    I’ve talked a little about it here: http://www.xenosystems.net/dazed-and-confused/#comment-177689

    More specifically: White Genocide says that the fact that Brazil has 20% of public sector jobs reserved to black people is white genocide[1]. But the majority of Brazil’s population is black!
    White Genocide [1] also says that Brazilian white people are decreasing. This is misleading. Because here we call “white” someone who has both parents white. If you have one of your parents black (or pardo) and the other is white, you are considered black by population and by researchers. So, the decrease is simply result of miscegenation. There is no Genocide.

    I could (if necessary I will) show more examples. But I have work to do (laughs).

    PS: Look at how everyone is using ad hominem against me.

    1. http://whitegenocideproject.com/brazil-20-of-public-sector-jobs-reserved-for-blacks/

    Erebus Reply:

    I don’t think that the “White Genocide Project” is a truly valid NRx source.

    In any case, your argument with the WGP is over semantics, not data. “This constitutes genocide” versus “there is no genocide here” is merely an argument over the definition and use of the word “genocide”. You and the WGP appear to be in agreement with respect to the demographic data.

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines genocide as “the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group.” Let’s accept that definition. Therefore, if one believes that there’s a planned, deliberate, top-down effort to reduce and eventually exterminate the white population of Brazil, then what’s going on is genocide. If one believes that genocide must imply murder — or that miscegenation is voluntary and natural, and that there’s simply no agenda behind the decline of the white population of Brazil — then it’s not genocide.

    I won’t bother to debate this semantical issue any further. It’s simply important to note that you haven’t presented us with any real data. What you’ve linked to is nothing more than an editorialized news article from a source that has little to do with NRx. A poorly-sourced anecdote. I expected more from one who spoke about “data in the academic meaning of the word”!

    I’m with Thales. Your “NRx uses bad data and is anti-scientific” generalizations are invalid, to say the least.

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    In addition to the items of your most excellent, is somewhat repetitive list:

    –NRx leaves the toilet seat up just like the cisgendered heteronormative white male that it is.
    –NRx probably has a very small penis, because it reads “Game” sites.
    –It’s also probably a closeted homosexual (same reason).
    –NRx wants to destroy all life on the planet because it thinks maybe we ought to have some children, and children destroy the rainforests and spew greenhoiuse gases so that they can eat meat.
    –NRx thinks some things are better than others, which is really the ultimate sin, and should pull itself by the scruff of the neck to the gallows (sorry, I mean the fatal drug injection table).

    There:

    What a beautiful day
    For an auto de fe!

    [Reply]

    Adair Neto Reply:

    You are again just proving my first point:

    “People give historical/scientific facts and arguments and you respond with offenses. Which makes sense, in some way, because NRx is irrational, anti-scientific (you use the same pseudo-science than the nazis presented in the New Inquiry article). The article doesn’t pretend to be a proper critique to NRx, but it presents facts and you just respond with offenses.”

    I tried to understand this whole thing but NRx can’t argue and has no facts to show. If you tried, could convince me.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Persuade me that NRx can’t argue and has no facts to show. Persuade me that you can and do.

    I’m super smart, so obviously persuading me is the litmus test of who is right.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    @ Adair Neto,

    Not good enough. What else you got?

    anti-hermetic Reply:

    Which “historical/scientific facts” against NRx do you seek to have addressed? Nazi rocketry? Black sun theories? Please be specific

    You allege a pompous, self-congratulatory pretense of white-man-superiority. Can you point to examples of this?

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    You did say that you’re new and from your comments you haven’t read enough to have a proper understanding of where we’re at. Unfortunately this does take a bit of research since the best place to start is Moldbug’s open letter to open minded progressives (I recomend reading through at least part 10, ~100,000 words). Go look through the HBD blogs and tell me that stuff doesn’t follow actual scientific principle. Go look through (and apply, I would have never believed if I didn’t see it work with my own eyes) the game blogs of the manosphere like Heartiste, Rollo and Roosh and tell me that stuff doesn’t work or isn’t everything you need to know to affirm the need for patriarchy. Our beef with the enlightenment is specifically with the moral side of it, which is why many like Nietzsche, you don’t find us attacking guys like Hume, we like Hume.

    “A group is only superior to another by an arbitrary point of comparison” Our favorite arbitrary things include complexity (especially as it relates to increasing intelligence), order, and stability (especially as it relates to civilization since it’s one of our favorite things). You don’t hear us talk about happiness, I’m not aware of any hedonists around these parts.

    When we speak of how hierarchy is part of the natural order, we speak of things like the Pareto principle. We speak of how inequality (when you actually sit down and pick some arbitrary quantifiable attribute you like, how fast something can be trained, how productive something is, how well something can fight) is as much a part of nature as the imperfection of man. As such hierarchies form naturally as those who are better at arbitrary things like production, fighting, and social interaction make them and Gnon rewards them with better odds on some of his favorite arbitrary things, survival and reproduction.

    If you want to get the gist of what we are so you can hurry up and dismiss us go read the rational-wiki article. If you want to actually understand how we tick enough that you can pass an ideological Turing test, it will take many months of dedicated reading, you’ll also find that we’re not actually an ideology (we have many ideologies and enjoy breaking ideologies) but a still forming school of thought. Come back after you can speak to NRx intelligently, Scott Alexander did that and wrote the anti-reactionary FAQ which has been a launching point for much arguing and discussion (which you’ll also have to read up on, since we’re still in development).

    [Reply]

    Adair Neto Reply:

    Thanks for your good answer, Aeroguy!

    I’m reading some things about NRx and I’ll continue to do so. Even if I don’t agree, it will be a nice exercise for thought.

    When you talk about complexity as related to intelligence, I remember taoist thought, who says that simplicity is related to intelligence. NRx mixes social constructs with natural law.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Being able to execute the same program with 5 lines of code is more elegant and probably smarter than using 20. But the limits of what you can program with 5 lines of code is far smaller than what you could do with 20 lines of code. Being able to formulate strategy 5 steps ahead instead of 2 steps ahead is an example of a more complex intelligence. “NRx mixes social constructs with natural law.” We try to untangle the mess modernity has made, look at the mess they made of sex by creating gender. You want to talk about pseudoscience, look no further than the denial of human differences.

    anon Reply:

    It’s hard to respond to Adair Neto’s comment since he’s basically starting from zero. Your comment is good, but it’s asking a lot for someone to come back after they read hundreds or thousands of pages. We need some brief summaries.

    NRx makes a number of scientifically supported factual claims–most notably much of HBD. What ties NRx together? Universal Darwinism, anthropomorphized as Gnon, is in my opinion the essence of NRx, and HBD is its most relevant expression. After understanding a little bit of evolutionary psychology and HBD, including the evolution of clannishness and morality, I think it’s reasonable to move on to the political implications. This is where Moldbug, Bryce Laliberte, etc. come in.

    I’d start either with some basic HBD stuff (Jayman’s blog is an approachable place to start) or some of the intro posts on Gnon.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    Now I sympathize a little more with progressives banning people for “demanding to be educated”.

    Nth-ing “read moldbug” (start from the beginning), as someone who generally disagrees with NRx I can say that if you want to find any common ground at all it will be there. Although that doesn’t really cover the traditionalist/nationalist stuff so much it’s a pretty good jumping off point into more radical ideas like “traditionalists are not disgusting sub-humans”. And honestly, life is better when you don’t spend it believing a good chunk of the planet is inhabited by monsters.

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    The reason no one is taking you seriously is that you don’t give examples — you just make statements with no reference to what in particular they’re about and expect everyone to sit down and listen.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Adair Neto]: “People give historical/scientific facts and arguments and you respond with offenses. Which makes sense, in some way, because NRx is irrational, anti-scientific (you use the same pseudo-science than the nazis presented in the New Inquiry article). The article doesn’t pretend to be a proper critique to NRx, but it presents facts and you just respond with offenses.”

    {AK}: Are they ‘neo-offenses’, though, that’s the question? lol

    [Adair Neto]: “NRx main principles are simply wrong. People just believed in these things in a superticious era. NRx principles are incongruent with reality.”

    {AK}: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RRWI6O57IE “There’s yer ree-a la- tee!”

    [Adair Neto]: “admin talked about populism some posts ago. But this dichotomy between Right and Left (NRx wrongly calls Left some things that are simply against most fundamental Left beliefs) is simply “us versus them”, i.e. populism. This dichotomy encourages irrationality, disrespect and beliefs bad fundamented (see Mill, On Liberty, ch.2).”

    {AK}: Politics is for stupid people, don’t take it too seriously. lol

    [Adair Neto]: “NRx is epistemologically autodestructive. Denying Enlightenment, you don’t know much about epistemology anyway.”

    {AK}: This is problematic. Neoreaction is basically simple reflexive considerations of a religio-Modernist morality, as inflected sociopolitically. But you’re right, to what extent Neoreaction’s selectivity is both vitiated & located by universalist conceptions of knowledge is another open question.

    [Adair Neto]: “Enlightenment was needed in that time of history. Without it, we wouldn’t have the scientific developments that you guys use to “prove” that whites are superior. In any way, Enlightenment was already overcome. You are stuck on time.”

    {AK}: Whether, or not, the “Enlightenment” cult is so easy to historically locate as a definite & autonomous system of values is an open question. I think one should be careful not to always conflate sociohistorical emphases with the more reified categories that are used as ‘shorthand’ for them. Those categories are ‘conveniences’ of particular modes of interpretation, that are not discursively final. There are other routes.
    NL’s ” Dark Enlightenment” is contingent on the contemporary sociopolitical hegemony of “Enlightenment” values. Such “Enlightenment” values may have been consciously problematised in specialised areas, & in actual social practices, but they continue on as tacit presuppositions whenever the verbal talismans of ‘rationality’ are invoked.

    [Adair Neto]: “NRx uses bad data (NRx also don’t know how to read data) and believes that specific cases are sufficient to support a whole ideological system.”

    {AK}: I think it’s safe to say they are occasionally selective & ideologically biased, lol.

    [Adair Neto]: “NRx is intelectualy dishonest. Distorts data and facts.”

    {AK}: I don’t think that is necessarily the case, not with NL, anyway. I don’t have time to read the rest of the so-called “Reactosphere” – occasionally open links in OI, though.

    [Adair Neto]: “You talk about superiority. But you forgot that nothing is superior a priori. A group is only superior to another by an arbitrary point of comparison.”

    {AK}: Yes, could be a good point.

    [Adair Neto]: “NRx talks a lot about “natural”. Well, but there is not “true” or “pure” or “natural” family or hierarchy, for example. These are constructs (see Hegel, history, Foucault, et al).”

    Yes, another possibly good point. But it’s well-known.

    [Adair Neto]: “For fun: Marx himself thought that communism is(neo)reactionary (see Communist Manifesto).”

    Don’t know enough about Marx, really.

    [Adair Neto]: “Neoreaction is like a snake that bits its own tail.”

    NL is going to like that Ouroboros reference. lol

    [Adair Neto]: “I hope you understand my comment. As I said, I’m trying to understand this whole thing. And please, irrational talking and offenses wouldn’t lead anywhere. You need arguments and facts. In any case, I’m a white male with high IQ (laughs).”

    {AK}: They’re obsessed with “facts”; they’ve got “facts” oozing all over the place. They need to dream, without resentment. Then they will be able to think.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 4:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    I think we might actually have to man the entryist gates a little harder now. Before I think it was unwarranted, but now it has a potential to read critical mass.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    Eternal September notwithstanding, Admin runs a surprisingly tight ship here. I think he let this one in because, OMGNON it’s a batshit crazy road accident one can’t help but rubberneck. But I predict this one will soon come to an end for obvious reasons.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 6:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Inquiring Theo-Zoologist Says:

    The Hollow Earth could help solve the Exit problem, but where does NRx stand on the Buhlzwergefrage?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 6:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Adair Neto Says:

    That NRx can’t argue is result of my experience here and in other NRx groups. My comment about Hegel, Mills etc on the populism post wasn’t even answered, for example. Answers of @admin in this post also shows that. Pure ad hominem and name calling.

    I said that NRx has no facts to show because it is based on pseudo-science (like the Nazis in the article and slavery apologists) and bad (reading of) data. This bad reading of data is result of my looking in NRx sites, specifically about white genocide. NRx completely ignores research methodology, basic principles of biology and miscegenation, confuses specifics with generals (bad arguing), etc. To say that whites are under genocide when white people are killing blacks is simply absurd.

    [Reply]

    anti-hermetic Reply:

    Your comment on populism is not serious. NRx finds that the Left is attacking the traditional leaders of Western society. You belittle this as “us versus them” populism but never actually dispute the NRx finding.

    Why is it necessarily populist to resist the campaign against “white male privilege?” Why is it not simply enlightened self interest?

    [Reply]

    Inquiring Theo-Zoologist Reply:

    Never mind that dreck Adair-
    Buhlzwerge: pro or anti?

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Your comment is the fourth hit for Buhlzwerge.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    You’ll find the ethno-nationalist and techno-commercialist wings are very different, read Land’s post about IQ shredders and understand that in these waters we tend to talk more about r vs K selection (and concerns about long term demographic trends, in the case technology doesn’t fix it) rather than rhetoric about genocide which is the sort of populist rabble rousing NRx here avoids. I did in fact reply to you explaining why anarchy evaporates immediately, your arguments boiled down to government sucks (I agree completely) so lets do away with them (not an option, they come back immediately). It’s like complaining about inequality and wanting to do away with it, the problem is reality gets in the way. So instead of banging our heads against reality like a guy trying to build a perpetual motion machine, we make our peace with it and study human systems the way engineers study thermodynamics.

    Out of curiosity, specifically which sites are you referring to when you say NRx sites. Don’t pretend you’ve become an expert on NRx, it’s so squishy no one can really pin it down, my impression is that part of you does want to learn, so spend more time asking questions and getting directions to the best information we have available. It’s the difference between saying, oh look there are climate change deniers, they’re stupid of course climates changes, and actually talking with a scientist who says that the confidence placed in a particular set of computer models is overstated and certain assumptions should be reevaluated.

    [Reply]

    Marxist toady Reply:

    If you’re serious about “engaging” with NRx, then read Moldbug. All of Moldbug’s posts — that’s really not that tall an order. After that, some of Foseti’s debates with Moldbug and his other relevant posts, Jim’s essay on natural law, then some of the meatier posts by admin here or on his previous Urban Future blog. At this point, the reading list is still reasonably shallow.

    It seems to me that if there’s any hope for maintaining some civility and intellectual coherence among the NRx sphere (if such a thing even exists), there should be some indication that that commenter has actually read, comprehended, and can discuss, Moldbug, as well as a not insubstantial amount of his primary sources (Carlyle, Burnham’s book, etc.) Easy hand waving dismissals about cryptography, e.g., should not be enough.

    [Reply]

    anon Reply:

    Telling someone to read all of Moldbug is far too burdensome. You’ll get most of the ideas faster by browsing the recent posts on Social Matter and Moreright.

    [Reply]

    snorlax Reply:

    Moldbug is *by far* the best ambassador for NRx; the only place I’d ever send a prospective convert is his open letter or “How Dawkins Got Pwned.” If they aren’t hooked, they weren’t persuadable in the first place.

    Marxist toady Reply:

    Moldbug is not only the “best ambassador” — he’s essentially the only positive contribution NRx has made to political/economic thought at all (certainly the only decisive contribution). Everything after (e.g., Social Matter) just provides some variant of Moldbug diluted with another, typically more vulgar, aspect of conservative thought (hence, white nationalist “NRx”; hence, Evola, etc.)

    Obviously there are exceptions (Foseti, Hurlock, Spandrell, admin here) — but even they would likely tell you to read Moldbug first. I think Foseti’s indefinitely stalled attempt (last post: Jan, 2014) at comprehensively re-reading and thinking through the implications of Moldbug’s thought is emblematic of NRx as a whole.

    vimothy Reply:

    Moldbug isn’t really a neoreactionary, though, is he? Moldbug belongs to an older generation of, let’s call them secular, reactionaries — such as Carter Van Carter, Deogolwulf, Dennis Dale, Udolpho, and (eventually) Foseti.

    Our host is really the person responsible for the “neoreactionary” phenomenon, i.e., the group of bloggers (and related) who self-consciously call themselves neoreactionaries.

    admin Reply:

    On the conceptual foundations (setting aside marketing issues), Marxist toady gets everything right IMHO.

    Thales Reply:

    Zero: I’m tired, Trichotomy. I’m tired of this culture war. I’m tired of fighting. I’m tired of this blog, being lonely, reading the same damn Carlyle everyday. But most of all, I’m tired of that jack-off and all of his bullshit. *leaps* Surprise, asshole! I bet you never saw this coming, did you? Gnon, I wish I could be there, when they break you. I wish I could walk in just when it happens. So right then, you’d know it was me.
    Tri’tomy: You gave them Moldbug!
    Zero: He lied to us, Tri’tomy! He tricked us. If you’d have told us the truth, we would’ve told you to shove that “red pill” right up your ass!
    Tri’tomy: That’s not true, Zero, he set us free.
    Zero: Free? You call this free? All I read is what he tells me to read. If I got to choose between that and the Cathedral, I choose the Cathedral.
    Tri’tomy: The Cathedral isn’t real!
    Zero: I disagree, Tri’tomy — I think the Cathedral could be more real than NRx…

    Rasputin Reply:

    Moldbug isn’t a Neoreactionary in the same way that Christ wasn’t a Christian.

    Chris B Reply:

    @marxist toady

    Pretty much. It’s like you dragged the thoughts out of my head. NRx has stalled. The key points have been the rejection of capitalism, rejection of patchwork,, naked aggression toward libertarian influence (in the form of spon order in particular) and rejection of sov corp. Once you eject these, you have no core and NRx can be anything you want and now all you have to do is draw up a wish list – so lets see, I want a ethno-nationalist, non capitalist nation which is based on the family, and has a monarchy. OK. That’s great. Now lets whack up a couple of proclamations on a pole somewhere and demand everyone goes along with that. Sure that will work.

    I’m wondering what will happen first – NRx gets back to these things and cleans house, or the people in NRx that align with these concepts break away leaving NRx to become anglo-identarianism.

    [Reply]

    Wen Shuang Reply:

    Yikes. If NRx rejects capitalism and patchwork, I’m out.

    anon Reply:

    “white people are killing blacks”

    lol

    look at the interracial crime rates and come back

    [Reply]

    anti-hermetic Reply:

    Blacks are not killing whites because the New York Times et al does not report when this happens. Whites are killing blacks because the New York Times pretends it is so. Failure to believe the New York Times is evidence of malice or insanity.

    [Reply]

    Richard Reply:

    Gee, when Judith Miller wrote in the NYT that old Sadaam Hussain had massive stockpiles of chemical/nuclear/biological weapons of mass destruction, I should’ve sent my first-born son to fight and die in Iraq. Not to do so would make me insane with malice to boot. Therefore, not to swallow the MSM lies may be called insane, by those who print the MSM, but not to take a peek outside the box is not to see the malice directed squarely at us.

    Scharlach Reply:

    @Adair Neto

    To say that whites are under genocide when white people are killing blacks is simply absurd.

    The black population of America has held steady at ~12% of total population for more than a century, which, in turn, is a giant growth from the ~400,000 Africans ever imported to America in the first place. In contrast, whites have dropped from ~90+% of the American population to ~72% at the last census. So, yes, whites are being “genocided” compared to blacks, but ironically, that genocide is almost entirely self-inflicted, so perhaps “suicide” is a better description.

    I’m not on the racialists’ side, but I’m merely pointing these statistics out to prove that you are the one operating with absurd arguments and faulty data.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    “African Americans (Blacks) made up almost one-fifth of the United States population in 1790, but their percentage of the total U.S. population declined in almost every U.S. census until 1930.[”

    “Whites (including Non-Hispanic Whites) have historically made up the overwhelming majority (usually between eighty and ninety percent) of the total United States population.[5] The United States historically had few Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, especially before the late twentieth century.[5] Most Asian Americans[5] historically lived in the western United States.[11][12] The Hispanic and Asian population of the United States has rapidly increased in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the African American percentage of the U.S. population is slowly increasing as well since reaching a low point of less than ten percent in 1930.[5]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-census1-5

    fwiw

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    Adair: The reason everyone thinks you are a troll is because it’s typically bad form to say something like, “I’m only trying to understand this movement” immediately after you write out a bullet point list of why you’ve already decided that said movement sucks and how everything about it is flawed without listing hardly any specific examples to give people a sense of what you’re talking about.

    And you’re right, it has nothing to do with logic or good argumentation. It has to do with 4th-grade level social skills.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2015 at 6:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wen Shuang Says:

    My fav is this:

    “Through cult ritual, black suns, or wormholes these fascists expect to find shortcuts around the chaos of humans acting freely together.”

    Because Misesian Darwinist Patchwork advocates dislike the chaos of people acting freely together.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2015 at 4:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    I’m not sure what Marxist Toady even get’s right. If you read John Gray, moldbug seems the same to you. Curt is completely different because he derives property from Haidt, and has contributions that our more famous bloggers keep making direct contradictions of.

    The effective policy making of the judiciary, and the civil service, atheism via christianity is from John Gray. Moldbug’s legitimate contributions that are not contained in John Gray are completely overlooked. The replacement of the Lambda calculus.

    I do not see how your statement is sustainable.

    [Reply]

    Marxist toady Reply:

    You mean the John Gray that argues for a “green conservatism”? And whose primary political idea for the last decade is that, because of something something Darwin, we should be “values pluralists” and regard material progress as illusory? John Gray is vague and aphoristic, and resembles the sort of fuzzy humanist conservatism of Alasdair MacIntyre more every day — at this point, he is even explicitly anti-capitalist. That doesn’t sound very Moldbuggian. Insofar as he too is a “libertarian mugged by reality,” (as he is — his Hayek book is good) Gray is doubtlessly going to look somewhat similar to Moldbug. But the similarity is superficial. And Gray is hardly the first to blame Protestantism for liberalism, atheism and social decay — that has been in vogue since de Maistre and Chateaubriand. And that resemblance, at least, is not superficial: and Gray, unlike Moldbug but like his romantic forebears, doesn’t grasp that by throwing out the Enlightenment tout court, he throws out the possibility too of a Dark Enlightenment.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    Moldbug on Grey:

    “First, remember that Universalism is a mystery cult of political power. As John Gray puts it, “Modern politics is a chapter in the history of religion.” This is not to excuse Professor Gray, whose incredible legerdemain in skipping directly from the French Revolution to George W. Bush does much more to conceal than to explain. But, as Hunter S. Thompson used to put it, even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while.”

    Now, I like Grey. He’s a typical Geordie pessimist who learnt to read. And I think he is good of Humanism in particular, the cyclical nature of history (although the implications of AI for legitimating Progress / telos seem to escape him), etc, etc, but no way is he an origionally thinker of Moldbug’s caliber. You only need to read How Dawkins got Pwned vs anything written by Grey critiquing the God Delusion to see how much more penetrating Moldbugs insights are. And what’s more he systemises them.

    This is not to diss Grey – he’s worth reading. And when I first read Moldbug I certainly picked up on many of the aforementioned echos. But he takes things much further: The seed may be present in Cezanne, but the flowering is Picasso.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Let me help you.

    “Well, one possibility is that “chaotic good” just maps to evil, which maps right back to “chaos.” That is, the only practical definition of evil is that evil is the same thing as chaos. Since good is the opposite of evil, as chaos is the opposite of law, this answer also says that good is identical with law. Thus, “lawful good” and “chaotic evil” are tautological.” – Mencius

    vs

    When strong winds blow, don’t build walls, but rather windmills: there is a way to turn every bit of adversity into fuel for improvement. via New England Complex Systems Institute Executive Education:

    “The critical issue in both cases is the artificial suppression of volatility — the ups and downs of life — in the name of stability. It is both misguided and dangerous to push unobserved risks further into the statistical tails of the probability distribution of outcomes and allow these high-impact, low-probability “tail risks” to disappear from policymakers’ fields of observation. What the world is witnessing in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya is simply what happens when highly constrained systems explode.”

    “Complex systems that have artificially suppressed volatility tend to become extremely fragile, while at the same time exhibiting no visible risks. In fact, they tend to be too calm and exhibit minimal variability as silent risks accumulate beneath the surface.” – taleb via

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67741/nassim-nicholas-taleb-and-mark-blyth/the-black-swan-of-cairo/

    “Nor did the point escape Machiavelli, that in the midst of murders and civil wars, our repiublic became stronger [and] it’s citizens infused with virtues… A little bit of agitation gives resources to souls and what makes the species prosper isn’t peace, but freedom.” – Taleb

    Mencius directly contradicts this.

    nntaleb: The more I read him, the more I realize John Gray (the philosopher not the pop-psych) is the greatest and most lucid thinker on the planet. – via his twitter

    So hat happens when Moldbug’s movement directly catches the eye of Taleb/John Gray? I would love to see all your broken hearts. You guys are setting Mencius up for a loss that is not his fault, because you think you ‘own’ his body of work.

    I own all of John Gray’s books, and have read Mencius entire corpus. You are wrong. I’m sorry.

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    You directly said he regards material progress as illusory where he does not say that. He says scientific progress covers up lack of ethical progress & in politics. Wait for the public debate where Taleb/John Gray challenge Nick Land or Mencius outright. ???? It’s better to intercept them and offer some Machiavellian alliance.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    So instead of actually quoting Gray in order to disprove Marxist Today’s and Rasputin’ (and by proxy Moldbug’s) points, you attempt to contrast Taleb vs. Moldbug on a topic completely unrelated to what was previously discussed (Gray’s view and whether his writings really contain everything that was written by Moldbug) and then cover that up by quoting Taleb complimenting Gray, which doesn’t really tell us anything, as that compliment is far too vague. And, of course, if mere arguments from authority worked with people like us, we wouldn’t be calling ourselves ‘neoreactionaries’.

    In the end, after several paragraphs of red herrings you finish with this:
    “I own all of John Gray’s books, and have read Mencius entire corpus. You are wrong.”
    Which seems to be your actual (and only on-topic) point in that entire (pretty long) comment. So why didn’t you just write that to begin with?

    If you want to talk about Taleb vs Moldbug (on fragility and volatility and etc.), talk about Taleb vs Moldbug. But don’t start an argument about Moldbug vs Gray (whether Moldbug is simply a lite version of Gray) and then circle around it into a Taleb vs Moldbug (a totally different topic), while pretending that you haven’t really changed the subject by quoting Taleb on Gray in the end (which is obviously suppose to convince us to agree).

    And of course in the end your original (and final point, which frames the circular nature of your “argumentation”) “I have read both Moldbug and Gray, and you are wrong”, with which you started the whole thing, still remains unsubstantiated by actual (relevant) arguments and quotes.

    And all of this while unironically constantly complaining how much the intellectual level has declined amongst neoreactionaries.

    Ugh.

    Posted on January 31st, 2015 at 12:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Richard Says:

    “The Redpill Right is the new conservatism of a secular, internet-savvy generation, and its perceived enemies are legion”

    Nothing to see here, eh? How else is one to compare the effects of red pill versus blue pill without actually ingesting the medicinal tonic?. If ingesting the red pill means understanding the motivations of those “legions” leading us off the cliffs of destruction, I say, make mine two pills, with options to buy the bottle, in case I want to become a dealer of drugs which bring enlightenment.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2015 at 6:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    @Hurlock, no it’s obvious by know you all believe him to originate ideas,

    http://midnightmodernity.com/mencius-is-not-the-first-neoreactionary/
    http://midnightmodernity.com/john-gray-neoreaction/

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I will respond here because unsurprisingly comments do not seem to be allowed over there.

    1. No one has ever claimed Moldbug is completely original or anything like that. He himself has stated numerous of times that he is simply re-reading old books and authors and reiterating their arguments.
    2. We were reacting against your claim that everything that is contained in Moldbug is contained in John Gray. That is just false and you know it, but being too much of an intellectual poseur refuse to admit it. One very big thing: Gray never discusses American history at the length at which Moldbug did, both in his posts and his exchanges with other bloggers (like Foseti, etc.)
    3. I read one of Gray’s books a couple of years ago (responding to your claim that we have all ”apparently’ haven’t read Gray) – it was pretty good stuff, but nothing special, and you trying to pain Gray as the most original thinker in the universe is lol, because (as Moldbug will be the first to tell you) all of Gray’s arguments have been made a dozen of times already by men of the early 20th century, even by men in the 19th and late 18th centuries.
    4. With regards to my last comment you say: “What matters if what i’m saying is true, and instead of running the groundwork yourself you complain foolishly. I take it you must have missed this post.”
    Has it maybe crossed your mind, that we don’t have all the fucking time in the world to pursue every single overzealous recommendation of an author, because ummm, idk, we are busy with stuff like reading other authors? And that it would help if you could prove your grandiose claims? We got your recommendation some six months ago. Now chill.
    5. You refuse to admit your infantile style of reasoning, which still hasn’t made your point, you avoid my request for quotes with the “Simply read his books” which is quite silly, since 1. I’ve actually read one of his books and 2. You started the whole thing by trying to convince us that we should read all his books because MOldbug apparently ripped him off or something (lol), and you attempt to convince us to do that, not by quoting the guy, but by simply constantly reiterating “I have read him, you are wrong. You should read him”.
    6. At the same time you accuse others of being infantile, which is hilarious.
    7. Finally, I believe John Gray to be a good author. From the one book of his I’ve read: I didn’t agree with everything, but there is a lot of interesting stuff there although I believe nothing substantial (the style of the book was essayistic and semi-aphoristic so I don’t blame him for that). So I do agree with a recommendation. The guy is a good read, but there is such a thing as ‘overselling’ someone. If you want to prove your point that Mencius really just copied John Gray (who is the original ‘neoreactionary’ or whatever), point me to where Gray discusses American history at length, and also where he gives an as detailed account of modern progressivism’s american puritan origins as Moldbug does.

    “Nor do I enjoy extended and lengthy discussions over what would be simple decisions to otherwise thinking individuals, but the way some fools carry themselves here is unbelievable.”

    You seem to live with the mindset that if you tell people to do something, they should do it, and they should believe your claims without any doubt. Sorry to break it to you, this is not how the world works.

    Finally (2.0): The Taleb/Moldbug point you make actually is rather interesting so it will probably be worthwhile to look into that more (unfortunately, I am busy reading other stuff right now, so if you could flesh it out a bit more, especially from Taleb’s side on your blog, that would be great).

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2015 at 3:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    @SE,
    It’s possible that all you say about John Gray is true. I’m going to read up on him based on your recommendation. It’s also true that a lot of things Moldbug says are for to laugh. At the same time, you are turning into a one-note Johnny sycophant. Chill.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    @Lesser Bull, no i’m not. Sorry I’m gonna have to reject your nonsense. I believe plenty of stuff that neither of them do. I’m not going to let you reposition like that. This entire group of people have been putting on ‘neoreaction’ & the ‘dark enlightenment’ and missed some guy who has 10+ books and several of them are about the direct topics that they think are unique.

    Mencius had John Gray. John Gray did it himself. What’s the big deal about assigning proper credit. If this ‘movement’ wants to actually succeed don’t you think it’s a little important to get some basic stuff like that out of the way? You’re the sycophant if you think having to defensively maneuver around people who are such slaves to Moldbug’s opinions that they can’t even admit some guy in fucking print 10 years before he started writing touched on the same topic. I’ve been telling people this for like 3 monthish. I’ve given it enough time. It demonstrates that some people here advocate intense shit like slavery without having done the basic groundwork.

    Don’t give me pussy comments like yours.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    First it was Anissimov with Evola, now SanguineEmpiricist with Gray…

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    “Don’t give me pussy comments like yours.”

    Neoreaction goes HipHop! lol

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Well, I tried. Reminds me of C.S. Lewis, the Problem with X.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Look at how hedged my entire posts and comments are. It didn’t warrant your little comments. I’m probably minimum 10 years younger than you. My tone was related to the people I am arguing against. It’s impossible to maintain any sort of composure when people will take any cheap-skate comeback.

    Posted on February 2nd, 2015 at 5:51 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment