As argued here before, Outside in firmly maintains that the distinctive structural feature of NRx analysis is escalation by a logical level. It could be described as ‘meta-politics’ if that term had not already been adopted, by thinkers in the ENR tradition, to mean something quite different (i.e. the ascent from politics to culture). There’s an alternative definition at Wikipedia that also seems quite different. This congested linguistic territory drives NRx to talk about Neocameralism, or Meta-Neocameralism — the analysis of Patchwork regimes.

From this perspective, all discussion of concrete social ideals and first-order political preferences, while often entertaining, locally clarifying, and practical for purposes of group construction, is ultimately trivial and distracting. The fundamental question does not concern the kind of society we might like, but rather the differentiation of societies, such that distinctive social models are able — in the first place — to be possible. The rigorous NRx position is lodged at the level of disintegration as such, rather than within a specific disintegrated fragment. This is because, first of all, there will not be agreement about social ideals. To be stuck in an argument about them is, finally, a trap.

Is this not simply Dynamic Geography, of the Patri Friedman type? As a parallel post-libertarian ‘meta-political’ framework, it is indeed close. The thing still missing from Dynamic Geography (as currently intellectually instantiated), however, is Real Politik (or Machiavellianism). It assumes an environment of goodwill, in which rational experimentation in government will be permitted. The Startup Cities model, as well as its close relative Charter Cities, have similar problems. These are all post-libertarian analyses of governance, at a high logical level, but — unlike NRx — they are not rooted in a social conflict theory. They expect to formulate themselves to the point of execution without the necessity of a theoretical and practical encounter with an implacable enemy. ‘Irrational’ obstruction tends to confuse them. By talking about the Cathedral, from the beginning, NRx spares itself from such naivety. (Sophisticated conflict theory within the libertarian tradition has to be sought elsewhere.)

Some initial points:

(1) Meta-Neocameralism — or high-level NRx analysis — opposes itself solely to geopolitical integration. This means, as a matter of historical fate, to the Cathedral. An alternative social ideal, however repugnant it might be found at the level of first-order political preferences, is only elevated to a true enemy by universalism. If it seeks to do something — even something that revolts all actually existing NRx proponents to the core of their being — within a specific territorial enclave and without practical mechanisms for universal propagation, it is as likely to be a tactical ally as a foe. Anything that disintegrates destiny is on our side. (Immediately, therefore, it can be seen that the preponderant part of NRx discussion is at best oblique to fundamental strategic goals.)

(2) Universality is poison. Whenever NRx appears to be proposing a social solution for all people everywhere it has become part of the problem. The ultimate goal is for those who disagree to continue to disagree in a different place, and under separate institutions of government. First-order political argument, insofar as it tends towards compromise (i.e. partial convergence) is positively harmful to the large-scale NRx project. The sole crucial agreement is that we will not agree. Better by far to make that harsher, than to soften it.

(3) Each thread of the Trichotomy has approximately equivalent claim to be the standard bearer of the disintegrationist position. The reason that this is formulated here with a Techno-Commercial bias is because it is being formulated here (there is no reason why it has to be).

(4) A Meta-Neocameral coalition, tightly focused upon effective hostility to the Cathedral, displays a pattern of tolerances and aversions very different to that found within a first-order reactionary movement seeking to immediately instantiate a social ideal of the good. Insofar as the latter tends to exacerbation of social tensions and geopolitical fission, it contributes* positively to high-level NRx goals, but it can only expect theoretical condescension in direct proportion to its concreteness, and therefore deficient apprehension of the disintegrative position. A movement of communistic localism that successfully pursued a project of radical geopolitical autonomization would be, realistically, a more significant tactical ally than even the most ideologically-pure concrete reactionary movement which spoke a lot about comparable goals, but gave no indication it was able to practically realize them.

(5) The world is already fractured and divided, to a considerable degree. This means that the disintegrative position has no need for utopianism, and is frequently able to orient itself defensively, in support of existing differences that are subject to integrative-universalist assault. Furthermore, there are numerous indications that general world-historical trends are favorable to geopolitical disintegration, in too many fields to fully enumerate, but which include political, ethnic, technological, and economic drivers. Incremental pragmatism is entirely practical under current geographical and historical conditions.

(6) In provisional conclusion, disapproval of some alternative mode of life is entirely irrelevant to high-level NRx goals, unless said mode of life also insists upon living with you. The objective is to divide the world, not to unify it in accordance with those principles best attuned to your preferences, however rationally or traditionally compelling such preferences might be. Universalism is the enemy. Don’t do it (and to make a scholastic objection out of the universality of non-universalism, is to have immediately started doing it — check your totalitarian Hegelianism). Exit is not an argument.

* Initially misspelled as ‘contribrutes’ — which works.

ADDED: I should already have linked to this. It starts off on a very promising path, goes along OK until falling apart horribly somewhere in Part V, then stumbles along, recovering a bit, ending on an encouraging note (but with the theoretical engine now mostly sheared off). It’s high on my agenda for a serious engagement.

August 4, 2014admin 19 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

19 Responses to this entry

  • Uncle Kenny Says:

    An extraordinarily helpful, clarifying article. Not exactly words of one syllable, but as close as any NRx post is likely to get. Thanks.


    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 5:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Count Nothingface Says:

    I believe Murray Rothbard once described libertarians/ancaps not as anarchists, but “non-archists.” If anything we as meta-neocameralists can maintain a greater claim to the name “non-archist.” We either don’t care what type of political system we live under or we have our political preference, but don’t think that preference is best for everyone.

    The problem is that we live in the city of Sodom and we can’t leave. We’ve stated our grievances on numerous occasions, and the powers that be haven’t listened. Instead of trying to save the city from itself, we’re better off trying to fight our way out. The fire and brimstone are coming and Gnon isn’t going to spare Sodom for the sake of a select few.


    admin Reply:

    I’m surprised our Theo-traditionalist comrades don’t refer to the Sodom and Gomorrah story more. It’s a fantastic Exit parable.


    drethelin Reply:

    It’s a perfect parable about how prog universalism would rather destroy soddom and gomorrah than just have Lot Exit.


    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 6:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Disintegration | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 9:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    This sounds like regular libertarianism. The stock response of libertarians to socialists/communists used to be: “Well, in a truly libertarian society, you can go set up your commune wherever you want.” So, basically, the meta-politics of NRx is libertarianism and any reactionary content (the politics) is essentially an aesthetic preference.


    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    I think the difference is both that a post-libertarian will tell the communist not ‘everyone has a place in the market’ but rather ‘well if that’s what you want you better get some power, money and some guns’ (like what ISIS is doing currently). Basically, if the right is going to reserve a place for itself on the patchwork its only going to be achievable through a ‘neoreactionary’ not libertarian society. Its like that old (mis)quote ‘soccer is only made difficult because of the other team’. Well, ‘dynamic geography’ only becomes difficult because of the same reason.

    Also, one could bring up the issue of ‘living space’ as another subversion to the libertarians. If a population succeeds it spreads… ‘conflict theory’ is basically the opposite of the ‘non-aggression principle’.


    admin Reply:

    @ Scientism — You’re defining ‘libertarianism’ so broadly it encompasses everything on the Right that isn’t explictly totalitarian. If aversion to world government — however ‘right wing’ — is going to be described as ‘libertarian’ then absolutely I am one. (The clear difference between libertarianism and NRx, however, or at least the main one, is clearly noted in the post.)


    scientism Reply:

    If you just mean different traditions should be left alone, then it’d be aversion to world government, but it reads more like “anyone with different preferences can have a state.”


    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    “anyone with different preferences can have a state.”

    Only if their preferences are preferred by Gnon. One can desire a commons without its tragedies but people (and populations) are incapable of living in completely mutually beneficial relationships. ‘Free love’ just doesn’t cut it.

    admin Reply:

    The key point is achieving geopolitical exteriority in relation to those with strongly divergent preferences, such that what subsequently happens to them ceases to be your problem.

    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 10:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    You do write well.

    However, is it really necessary to run the limiting operation on anti-crypto-calvinism? Which is what I assume that you mean by universalism. This anti-enlightenment fetishism while cute in that it represents a willingness of the new intellectual class to engage new strands of thoughts still is vulnerable to Gurri’s critique. It is proposing wild fragility introduction in hopes of securing a fabled exit just to destroy universalism that is easily sidestepped.

    The crypt-calvinists are not some supreme enemy as mentioned, but more like an imagined monster under the bed. An “exit’ can be introduced that can possibly be sustained under the auspices of the old systems, while manufacturing enough empirical repute and results we will be able to manufacture.

    It seems to me so far to ‘destroy universalism’ and proposing dis-integration is merely manufacturing black swans that will not go in the direction that every one hopes. Much destruction of capital, the neoreactionaries that pose this are hardly in any position to re-organize and lead in a position of chaos.

    We do not need to be “anti-enlightenment” as much as post-enlightenment, or rather “Structural empiricists proposing the plurality and multiplicity of effective governments/anti-goverrnments/organizational methodologies via possible emergent phenomenon in line with the observed realities of the observed biological condition/post-biology(MIRI) “


    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 11:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    “(2) Universality is poison. Whenever NRx appears to be proposing a social solution for all people everywhere it has become part of the problem.

    “(6) In provisional conclusion, disapproval of some alternative mode of life is entirely irrelevant to high-level NRx goals, unless said mode of life also insists upon living with you.”

    Doesn’t the singularity have universal effects or at least effects that would extend far beyond the boundaries of any given piece of territory in the patchwork?


    admin Reply:

    Sure, but Singularity isn’t a political project, or regime. At least, insofar as it is (FAI Singleton, etc.) I’d expect NRx to do whatever it could to subvert it.


    Hurlock Reply:

    Speaking of which, I’d rather have no singularty than have the singularity some famous “transhumanists” desire.


    Posted on August 5th, 2014 at 12:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    I get what you’re going for but the way it’s articulated is off. You do put some qualifiers in there at the begining regarding where universalism is to be opposed, at the geopolitical level, and territorial enclaves. While this is useful in communicating your intent, it’s an arbitrary location. Even as stated as intended it opposes Ares, empire building through conquest and assimilation is a form of universalism that would be opposed (even if the goal isn’t total conquest, just preying on weaker neighbors). Barbarians on the other hand that might help destroy empires and fragment them back into tribes are to be supported. Extended beyond your arbitrary limit it goes back into individualism and the disintegration of the family unit.

    Isolating the choice of limit as individual vs the collective would be a false dichotomy, it could be extended to 4 general categories, the individual, the tribe (the limit you put), the empire (or certain types of big tent), and the universal. If the goal was to be neutral about the form collectives might take, you have failed. It’s like trying to create a diverse ecosystem by banning predators (empires) rather than banning invasive species (universalists). Even then the opposition to universalists as a category could be dependent on threat to realize their goal (like being able to use Islam to help fight the Cathedral so long as Islam doesn’t replace the Cathedral). To use the animal analogy further, cats and rabbits aren’t completely bad, they can exist in diverse ecosystems, calling them an invasive species is situational.

    I think universalism and big tents are different. Anti-universalism is meta-Neocameralism but anti big tent is NRx. I liked how you recognised the need to account for geopolitics, but what’s the point if we can’t support groups that take over their weaker neighbors? I think the iron fist of conquest is different than the coom by ya of a big tent.


    Posted on August 5th, 2014 at 3:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    On your points regarding universalism, I’ve seen very little much mentioned regarding Carl Schmitt on this. At the heart of his work is a great concern that genuine difference was being supplanted by liberalism and its culturally relative softness, and its (near) total indifference to civil society. First-order politics, to him, were what kept the nomos intact, and its geopolitical boundaries well defined.

    Theologically, he believed that it was the anti-christ who was kidding man into thinking there was a one-fits-all mould for the world (fully forgetting that we’re essentially confrontational, ‘fallen’, and fundamentally defined by difference-as-identity). I think Peter Turchin’s work grounds this in reality. Schmitt really believed that ‘fragmentation’ was the natural order of things, and the only way in which the second coming would arrive, is if difference was preserved, that real conflict was always a possibility (not a certainty), and not be reduced to internal cathedral-like squabbling/status wars.

    His concept of the Katechon is of relevance here too, because he found that the crucial geo-space of the nomos (the roman/christian centred one), kept the anti-christ from arriving before the second coming. So your disgust and distrust for universalism is (deeply) shared by him. The Schmittian Anti-Christ is really the end-game of Jim’s Left Singularity thesis.


    Posted on August 5th, 2014 at 11:56 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2014/08/06 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] NRx is about dividing the world. […]

    Posted on August 6th, 2014 at 5:01 am Reply | Quote
  • We’re all Atlanteans here | The Mitrailleuse Says:

    […] Nick Land’s also on the level here: […]

    Posted on August 7th, 2014 at 1:03 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment