Doctor Gno

One thing has to be granted to Pein’s sub-adolescent article (casually dismissed here) — it has triggered some interesting anguish. This interpretation of (techno-commercial) Neoreaction as Bond villainy is especially notable. Unlike Pein, Izabella Kaminska demonstrates at least a little genuine wit. More importantly, she latches onto Silicon Valley Secessionism as a (scary) cryptopolitical project, of real significance. Her references are excellent (the story is built around a number of slides extracted from this landmark talk, by Balaji Srinivasan, entitled Silicon Valley’s Ultimate Exit).

dr no

The elegance of this project rests upon its combination of simplicity and radicality, captured in its essentials by the formula E > V (Exit over Voice). It advances the prospect, already in motion, of a destruction of (voice-based) politics through the techno-commercial innovation of exit mechanisms. It is beginning to drive progressives insane.

The fundamental point couldn’t be clearer: We don’t want to rule you. We want to escape you.

Of course, the whole Cathedral agenda is to drive this message back into unintelligibility, by swamping it in tedious leftist BDSM political dialectics, as if the issue were a struggle for dominion. In this regards, the monarchist memes prevalent within NRx play a distinctly prog-friendly role.

Among Srinivasan’s slides, there is one headed A continuum of valid approaches: From private islands to settling Mars. It contains the note: “And the best part of this: the people who think this is weird, who sneer at the frontier, who hate technology — they won’t follow you out there.”

Progressives know how to argue about kings (however ineptly). What they have no idea how to argue with — what cannot be argued with — is flight.

Silicon Valley Secessionism is the best battlefield we have.

ADDED: Urban Future record of a related Twitter kerfuffle.

May 24, 2014admin 65 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction , Technology

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

65 Responses to this entry

  • Porphy's Attorney Says:

    In some inchocate way I think the Progs recognize that – which is one reason their “High Frontier” enthusiasm for space exploration & development of technologies to expand into either space or sea took a dramatic nosedive around the same time as their enthusiasm for Multicultism and Europenance soared.

    They realized who would go into space.

    Thus I have a nagging….concern….that they will choke off with as much (but also as little) force as needed any developments that would make it truly possible for Western people to migrate into space.

    Seas, maybe (maybe) not so much. The idea that seasteads will be able to maintain themselves as enclaves independent (and proudly so) of the Tranzi grasp has never seemed plausible to me. Progs will countanance them only insofar as a seastead seems like a minor boutique project, or if seasteaders align themselves with Cathedral Values. But not at all if they do not.

    I wish seasteaders well, but my prediction is that even if they get some up and going, they won’t really have escaped the grasp of the reigning orthodoxies,


    Porphy's Attorney Reply:

    P.S. I’ve occasionally wondered if Mencius ever played the old FGU “Space Opera” game and read the flavor-text backstory for their “United Federation of Planets.”


    Aaron Reply:

    I wonder about this too. Whoever goes into space will be decided by the people cutting the checks and for the time being this would be people who have, at best, interdependent relationships with the establishment. I hope Elon Musk goes far but I’m just not seeing it yet. Any hypothetical cosmonaut space colony assembled with the backing of a western government will be “appropriately” vetted for diversity and politics.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The vetting doesn’t matter. It’s the structural incentives for separatism. Distance, time, gravity, and the rather different material basis for life will all prevent the kind of close cultural and economic integration that we have here below.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 1:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • SaturnIn Says:

    If there’s one common factor to almost everybody invested in Western politics, plebs and aristocrats alike, it’s the need to prevent exit. Few can even coherently envision it or dare to try it; when it forces itself upon them it is violently rejected.

    Psychedelic drugs are the test case for this. Amazonian cultures thought of them as, matter of factly, gateways to other worlds. Western academic authorities and power interests were always terrified of them, to the extent that they distorted our entire model of hormonal functioning (Serotonin’s the happy sanity drug right? Look into the history of that doctrine, and precisely what classical psychedelics do to seretonin) to move research and culture in precisely the opposite direction.

    This isn’t a leftist thing. It’s a human-ape thing.

    Civilisation is Saturnalian: it consumes the life of its young to fatten itself. That is the very core dynamic, and the most extreme Xenophobia is against whatever threatens the monstrous behemoth that is fueled by the engines of these crushed souls. Even aristocrats had to pay reverence to this, never revealing to publics just how dumb they thought they were, or what level they thought on. Many humans are disgustingly jealous little apes.

    Culling the stock isn’t really an answer to this. The Old Guard are as jealous and lacking in the relevant kinds of imagination as are their subjects. Practical creators– Silicon Valley entrepeneurs, like you said– are the kind you need, along with some artists if you want your alternate humanities to have a heart.

    But I’d say you have to go into this with a sense of the immense peril you’re in. Exit is hated. Truly hated. The fearful want everybody subject to their God. A good 3 Billion humans at least would think that Transhuman is literally satanic, just like anything else involving imagination and intelligence. A good majority of more enlightened elites see it as a power threat. People don’t get it yet, but if we get into their putrid minds they they will cogitate their voluminous grotesque little cogitations to no end, and revel in having something they can all truly, truly hate together and chatter about.

    My bet would be on staying quiet. Really quiet. Run from state to state. Hide yourself deep in government research, and be on the government’s side. Just keep the people’s minds on the bankers and the illuminati. Speak to the geniuses and entrepeneurs and sympathetic moneyed and to very few else. Quell and distract mobs, support this process going on and on, because it is actually going in the right direction right now. I would prefer to be hidden, whilst innovating, by all the fractiousness of the present than out in the open as some kind of government. People are never going to not hate you, but they might be too dumb to pay enough attention. Just seem like another part of the 1%, or rich ass-holes. People don’t just want you not to rule them– a lot hate the idea that anyobdy isn’t ruled by the same shit, and stuck in the same pathetic reality, that they are. They will kill over this, or, worse, vote.

    The process of technological advance is precious. The most precious thing in this world right now, for anybody seeking exit. What happens if some populist gets power by appealing to luddism, to machines taking jobs? What if there is a collapse and the intricate scientific research structure implodes? What if the US becomes more totalitarian and the geeks at Silicone valley are seen as an easy political target? There are many potential issues ahead, that require immense planning and forethought to prevent from fucking this all up.

    I guess that was a long way of saying that I agree. Your formulation here has always been my thinking. Strategy, though, has to be perfect.


    A Reader Reply:

    Your contempt for ordinary people with their “putrid little minds” with “grotesque little cogitations” (i.e., untermenschen) and your faith in technology and “transhumanism” (i.e. superhumans, the master race) smacks of Naziism as I mention below. I think you should step back and re-examine your attitudes towards humanity and what is worthwhile about life. The solutions to the big questions of what makes for a good and worthwhile life are not going to be found in technology, period. And I’m pretty sure that this kind of contempt for ordinary people struggling along like the rest of us is on the wrong track.


    Max Reply:

    “The solutions to the big questions of what makes for a good and worthwhile life are not going to be found in technology, period.”

    I was about to dismiss this statement as nonsense, but then I saw that you ended it with PERIOD, and that changes everything. Now I see the richness of this view and its importance in furthering our understanding of what makes lives “good and worthwhile,” which we can all agree is totally an objective thing and not at all the sort of transparently foolish bullshit that only people who haven’t accepted and embraced nihilism still believe.

    jk, gtfo r-tard


    excthedra Reply:

    Max, have you read “Sam Altman is not a blithering idiot”? Or, for that matter, Carlyle and Froude? As a proselytizer for Moldbug, your eager embrace of technology and nihilism appears somewhat intellectually dishonest.

    A Reader Reply:

    “I was about to dismiss this statement as nonsense, but then I saw that you ended it with PERIOD, and that changes everything.”

    You’re right that “period” was hyperbole and unhelpful (as were the Nazi analogies). Something I’ve not managed to eliminate yet from my writing.

    My point was only that the good things in life like joy, passion, love, beauty, peace of mind, and so on are not dependent on technological advances, but on one’s one state of mind, self awareness and wisdom. Regardless of what Silicon Valley comes up with.

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    A Reader says:
    “My point was only that the good things in life like joy, passion, love, beauty, peace of mind, and so on are not dependent on technological advances”

    Please put the blue pill down, and pick up the red pill.


    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    >smacks of Naziism as I mention below. I think you should step back and re-examine your attitudes towards humanity and what is worthwhile about life.

    I can’t believe I’m reading this blue-pill holier-than-thou tripe here of all places.

    I’m surprised our gracious host has only issued a warning, rather than banning. Too much mercy. Fast track the critical whiteness studies.

    The problem of how to maintain forum quality is difficult and somewhat analogous to the problem of civilizational quality. The problem might actually be too complex to solve; civilization can only happen in those happily accidental pockets of unknowably optimal conditions when the Gods look the other way. It’s all downhill form here.

    Fellas, it’s been good to know ya.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 1:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • A Reader Says:

    Exit is the cleanest, simplest way to escape progressivism but I haven’t heard of a realistic avenue of exit yet.

    What evidence is there that living a high-quality life in space is going to be feasible in the lifetimes of our great-grandchildren, much less our own? I want to enjoy earth, with its blue skies and shores and green springs and all the things about it that my genome is adapted to.

    Living in or on the ocean? No land? Does that sound like a decent quality of life? Not to me.

    Living among foreign people as an eternal outsider, always dependent on the good will of the hosts (which would surely evaporate if enough of my people tried to move there)? Nope.

    Retreating to cyberspace and conducting my business there alone? The government, with its men with guns, controls the physical world and the physical resources, and I need those. It’s a nice theory to use bitcoins and Tor to conduct business, but at some point I need to put cash on the barrel-head to buy that new car I want, and all the government has to do is make it a felony to sell anything for bitcoins, and no one is going to sell me that car unless I fill out the paperwork required to prove I acquired the money in government-approved ways.

    I’m all for the idea of exit but so far it just sounds like a nice idea that is impractical in the real world. These same ideas were put forward 15 years ago in “The Sovereign Individual” which predicted that encryption and the internet would force governments to their knees. Hasn’t happened yet and I don’t see it happening as long as we are physical beings living in a physical world where men with guns get the final say.

    Nope, I don’t think there’s any alternative to gaining control over a significant chunk of territory right here on planet earth.


    soapjackal Reply:

    Living life in space was technologically feasible at least 20 years ago, it’s just no one funded it.

    Probably because it would require neoreactionary style government for these frontier space arcologies.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Oh, bullshit. Nobody knows how to build a closed life support system that is smaller than the planet Earth. Nobody knows how to build practical extra-terrestrial in-situ resource utilization systems beyond extracting oxygen from Martian CO2. What we have are a bunch of ideas for experiments that people would like to run.

    It’s true that these experiments haven’t been funded seriously, but the reason they aren’t getting funded is because nobody has come up with a way to earn a living in space that makes sense given launch costs of circa $5000/lb., and no one has come up with a convincing story about how they can lower launch costs enough to matter.

    First, demonstrate that you can put cargo into orbit for under $100/lb. Then come up with a business case for building a colony on Mars instead of in Antarctica. Then come talk to me about funding research.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 1:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • A Reader Says:

    BTW I’m getting tired of hearing “Silicon Valley entrepreneurs” lauded as the great visionary leaders we should all look to for solutions.

    What are they, really? Atheistic nerds who are good with science, have made a ton of money, and think they’re a superior breed of human who are best suited to solve the world’s problems. Doesn’t that remind you a little bit of the Nazis, actually? The smugness, the certainty that they’re The Elect, the ones meant to lead society to a golden new future where all the usual human problems have been solved?


    admin Reply:

    Throw in one more stupid “Nazi” analogy and you’re gone.


    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Why would they want to solve “the world’s problems” (ie. Earth’s problems), when they can just say, “to hell with Earth”, and leave?


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 1:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • SaturnIn Says:

    Was going to say something similar to The Reader as a follow up.

    Obviously the ideal scenario is a civilisation so dispersed in space that no mono-entity can keep it contained and no lone military psychopath can wipe it out. A freedom from this earth, this humanity, and these Gods for anybody with the bravery to create or join something new. The more space, the better. The more forces hindering any empire having access to all the divergent strands of development and creation, the better. Either this in so far as humans still matter, or AI.

    But we don’t have either, or any short or perhaps medium term means to them. We have increasingly destructive technologies and lots of promising research, and progress that will make people lose jobs. Silicon Valley tycoons get rich and try and act like the Old Guard. And the publics vote for Reverse Dominance Hierarchy setups, in so far as they can. Wolves and sheep is the wrong model; it’s the hive and Goldsteins. Luddism is going to up the pressure on present systems dramatically if things carry on in the same direction and workers are replaced, and everything is going to get more and more extreme with no real exit available.

    A sympathetic national government somewhere might be an option. But few nations are really immune to the Western or SCO power blocks. And governments have been pretty good at slapping National Security orders on potentially socially disruptive technologies and either containing them alone or co-ordinating this kind of effort trans-nationally. It’s understandable. They don’t want chaos, and the public are a powderkeg of dumb hate and violence. They’re not going to risk that to going wrong to placate some emergent Silicon Valley political class. Everything has to be in their interests to survive.

    Thankfully, the technological process is pretty deeply woven into the fabric of global, post-Industrial Revolution society. It would be very hard to uproot, and everybody at least respects science. Hatred can be focused at specific technologies, whilst Science and Technology themselves remain hallowed. So long as nobody goes and starts openly transhumanising themselves before the relevant political safety is in place, there won’t be an easily presented target for demagogues.

    I like your old ‘substituting for trust’ post in that regard. Human politics are a terrible bet overall. They stifle potential, pump out limiting conceptions of what intelligent life is, and want to subjugate it all under their own judgements. Politics isn’t very different now than it has ever been. Culture and governments come and go, endlessly expressing the flaws of the cognitive apparatus they’re involved with. But technology changes forever. Invent the right technology, and you are de facto a greater influence on governance than any dictator. Takeoff velocity is what matters. Uncontainability. The single metric of good governance for anybody who envisages a higher form of life is facilitation of this.

    The issue is that conditions aren’t stable of far enough along. Both the precursors to any kind of singularity or the blocks on any kind of noticeable exit are at the mercy of governments vulnerable to their populations and unfriendly interests. The further things go, the less momentum be reversed. But it can still be reversed, and silly stunts or open political dictatorships of technocrats seem like a greater threat than a help. Same goes for exits. Nobody really has the power to exit right now. They have to play it like aristocracies have always played having a different culture: internally, and with ample distractions for the public.

    As I see it, we have to wait, build, store. Distract. Plan for the tensions technology will create ahead, and how to frame them. Conserve. Culture doesn’t matter, perspective on women and race don’t matter, whatever society has lost doesn’t matter. Only technological progress, wherever it is occurring, and its protection. Degeneracy is a friend, if it’s a demon that can fill people’s minds. Same goes for basically anything else.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 2:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • SaturnIn Says:

    ‘Your contempt for ordinary people with their “putrid little minds” with “grotesque little cogitations” (i.e., untermenschen) and your faith in technology and “transhumanism” (i.e. superhumans, the master race) smacks of Naziism as I mention below. I think you should step back and re-examine your attitudes towards humanity and what is worthwhile about life. The solutions to the big questions of what makes for a good and worthwhile life are not going to be found in technology, period. And I’m pretty sure that this kind of contempt for ordinary people struggling along like the rest of us is on the wrong track.’

    Well, by basic perspective is that I’m not in opposition to ordinary people except if they stop me leaving. Lifelong feeling.

    I want to create something different. I don’t want to stop you or your ordinary people doing your thing. But I’ve examined it many times over, stepped back many times over, and it’s certainly not what I value. I think the threat the very continuation of life human politics poses is pretty terrifying, because I see so much more potential and so many more forms than the one we’re in now.

    Technology is a means to freedom, or to different modes of consciousness. I’m more inclined towards the freedom of the human form to take a hold of itself and diverge in many different directions, but the road there appeals to people looking for AI as well. This has nothing to do with Nazism, in that it was populist and aimed at control in a kind of moralistic and puritan way. Not my thing. Any control is just a temporary means to counteract the effects of the control most humans into politics feel justified in imposing on all other beings.

    Perhaps if people didn’t treat animals like they did, though, I’d be inclined to be a bit more sympathetic to them whilst I’m forced to live with them. Do you eat meat?


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 2:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    It might be the easier battle to win (ideologically, if not practically), but that’s because it’s the wrong battle. The point of reactionary monarchism is not (or should not be) that progressives are wrong and we’d all be better off under a despot, the point is (or should be) that progressives wholly misconceive of authority. It’s not that we want to live under a despot, it’s that we realise that social hierarchy is not oppressive or despotic to begin with, but is rather an organic and entirely essential component of human civilisation and hence human autonomy. Monarchism is at least aiming at the right target (ideologically, if not practically).


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 2:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artemisia Says:

    Hah! And just as I (drugged into near-senselessness by illness and Doctor Who episodes) was suggesting to people we think of some instances of hyperstitional activity (perpertated through you, among others) as acts of impersonal supervillainy, which is assembling together minds to form an AI system that’s not quite artificial, although quite intelligent.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 3:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Doctor Gno | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 3:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:


    Someone was kind enough to Storify your squabble with Wolfendale:

    The progs are unable to mask their fear that anyone might be allowed to escape.


    admin Reply:

    I’ve put up a more reliable version.


    Scharlach Reply:

    That was an outstanding dialogue. I wish all our opponents could move beyond pointing and sputtering (although I could tell that he really, really wanted to do just that).


    admin Reply:

    One good thing about arguing with the Left is the win-win potential — both sides come away thinking they ground the other side to pulp and flushed it down the can.

    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 4:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    The problem with SV is that it is an incubator reliant on thousands of life giving umbilical cords connected to the physical real world—its very existence depends on phantom carrying capacity and ghost acreage [SV represents the height of an energy hungry complexity]. From an anthropic-probabilistic perspective, the idea that some sort of endogenous take off from their Malthusian trap will save them is a laughable fantasy. When the shit hits the fan, even as things unravel slowly, YouTube, facebook, Netflix, iTunes, Twitter, cloud computing etc……and the interwebz, in general, will do fcuk-all for anyone.

    Just my 2 cents..


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 4:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • MW Says:

    Rejection hurts.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 4:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stan Says:

    Balaji Srinivasan, from literal Shudra to virtual Brahmin, life in America is good!


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 5:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erik Says:

    “Of course, the whole Cathedral agenda is to drive this message back into unintelligibility, by swamping it in tedious leftist BDSM political dialectics, as if the issue were a struggle for dominion. In this regards, the monarchist memes prevalent within NRx play a distinctly prog-friendly role.

    Progressives know how to argue about kings (however ineptly). What they have no idea how to argue with — what cannot be argued with — is flight.”

    While you have a point, you’re also tripping one of my warning flags – selection of argument based on what plays better over what’s true.


    Erik Reply:

    On the one hand, taking “this argument/position is better for getting me what I want” as acceptable justification is IMO one of the main ways progs have ruined stuff, but on the other hand, “does it work?” is reasonable filter.

    Thinking about how to draw the line between those two.


    admin Reply:

    I’m not saying it’s a better argument. I’m saying it isn’t reducible to an argument.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 6:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • SaturnIn Says:

    I think an issue here is underestimating the power of ‘the paper belt’ and the forces behind it. You will not beat them for control of their population. It’s as simple as that. They are strong, and there is nowhere on this earth or in nearby space beyond the reach of the U.S-Anglo conglomerate on the one hand, and the growing Russia-China-India conglomerate on the other. Israel is pivoting.

    The financials/corporates who span these states, with these states, routinely invade countries all over the world who threaten them. Hundreds through the 20th century. South American democracies who challenged neoliberal-fronting cronyism, countries who threaten resource control or reserve currency hegemony. Technologies which dangerously alter consciousness– psychedelics etc.– are effectively demonised. Hundreds of new technologies have National Security orders placed on them, and disappear into a structure which is watching you, and that you are not watching.

    You’re not going to bitcoin your way out of this for long, I don’t think. A common factor the SCO govs and the NATO govs value is… governmental control. Threaten it, and both will act. If Singaporian entrepreneurs significantly threatens China’s governmental control, it’s gone. There might be some room for maneuver if you played the tensions between states, but that’s a perilous game and there are masters at it with far more training.

    The thing to do is to actually be in the interests of rulers. To actually develop technologies which will aid them. And, when the chance for an exit comes, to do it in a way which doesn’t threaten their power or (God forbid) start talking about overthrowing the power of the Federal governments of the world by technology. You can talk like that, but you’ll be defeated.

    The people at the top are not stupid. And they will appreciate genuine ingenuity and innovation, if it is conducted with the insight to see what is important to them and why that is valuable. You can want different things, have a different long-term vision, whilst still being allies. And in this alliance there’s a safety. Silicon Valley talks launching attacks on Washington are the last thing anybody needs. It’s like the Leary of Psychedelics, when new research is coming through showing massive therapeutic value, neuroplasticity increase etc., and then some loudmouth starts touring the nation using them as his crzy1ntense new political philosophy to overthrow the old guys in Washington. Turn on, Tune in, Drop out. Sounds like an Exit to me. Sounds like history about to repeat itself.

    *That* is the threat. That is what will get technology shut down, the system shutting its doors against you, the internet restructured to support corporates, your home raided, and whatever land mass you think you’re exiting to invaded. They are better at propaganda, the know more about human psychology, and they have control of physical space. You have already lost. It’s just not apparent yet.

    Psychedelics are illegal basically everywhere, now. Threaten government power. Same thing will happen with unbridled technological innovation not approached sensibly and diplomatically and non-confrontationally.

    The tragic thing is that the Valley does have the Faustian power it thinks it has, and can hack and upgrade human society and provide exits. And that change can continue, accumulate, become irreversible. But push too hard, be too undiplomatic, and it could all be shut off. Especially if power interests who still have the power to shut it down, and are *made* to fight by fighting talk like that in the video, understand that that is what they have to do to maintain their power. If change starts to scare them too much. The Reformation’s genius never stopped running from Catholicism, and Globalism could become a kind of Catholicism if threatened. And then we’re in the Dark Ages, after a looting of Alexandria.

    See you in a few thousand years, if we’re very lucky, etc. Meanwhile a few guys in the hallowed heights of the worlds’ Military-Intelligence complexes might have a good time living a few hundred technological years ahead of you; but no further than that.

    If I were a statist planning to shut down Silicon Valley, I would start by getting an internet loudspeaker and shouting about NRx.


    R7 Rocket Reply:

    “whatever land mass you think you’re exiting to invaded.”

    Nuclear weapons can solve the invasion problem for small states quite handily.


    Steve Johnson Reply:

    “The people at the top are not stupid.”


    They are not selected for intelligence – in fact the opposite – they weed out intelligence whenever they discover it. They are selected for ideological conformity and bureaucratic infighting.

    They have huge structural advantages that allow them to be unintelligent and still remain on top and those structural advantages should not be underestimated.


    SaturnIn Reply:

    What you think of as the top… isn’t.


    Ganesh Reply:

    It seems to me that the tip of society is brilliant and enlightened, but the broader top is decadent.

    Take this video. This is a discussion amongst the top of 21st century American society. Of course, Elizabeth Warren understands Econ 101 and is intelligent. Yes she isn’t very important. But isn’t there still a sense in which, come on, something has gone wrong and you can’t just blame the proletarians.

    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 6:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Every government for which we have non-obfuscated data has been a parasite primarily in the business of self-aggrandizement. Of course the parasite’s apologists are against the host exercising ‘exit,’ i.e. delousing.

    It helps that most proggies are power-crazed power-addicts that cannot fathom it’s possible to have a relationship other than dominator or dominated.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 6:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “It is beginning to drive progressives insane.”

    Wait a minute.


    R7 Rocket Reply:



    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 7:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Rough Beast Says:

    With the WA governor whining about businesses pulling out of his state and saying it’s “unfair”, it’ll be interesting to see if there’s a push to undermine the current free movement model which at least allows for some level of exit between states of the union.

    There have been a couple articles written recently about purges and how to avoid them. Having networks ready to reach out to capable individuals who have gotten purged would be a fantastic way to gain talent and experience for any sort of social or business network. Silicone Valley has a possibility for exit because it has wealth and talent and a culture of innovation. For the vast number who cannot or don’t want to migrate, building tribe can at least let you develop on a smaller scale some of the social capital which gives SV its clout. It’s not full exit in the sense of packing up and moving, but there’s a hell of a lot to be said for not having your business and social networks depend entirely on fragile systems bent on undermining themselves. If real get up and go exit becomes harder (tight borders for the Republic of Silicon Valley?), it might be a more worthwhile alternative to pursue.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 7:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    When you see this you have their answer.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 7:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    I don’t think Exit is much of an option, perhaps for a few.

    If you’re American I think you’ll discover it’s just not.

    Then there’s the matter of running. Sooner or later you’re out of room, we’re actually out of planet.


    Aaron Reply:

    It seems implausible today but perhaps in the future the working class conservative version of exit will be moving to eastern Europe.


    This Rough Beast Reply:


    There was a time when several working class folks tried to exit to Stalin’s Russia, thinking they’d have a better life. There’s a book on them called “The Forsaken”. Most ended up dead or in labour camps. The thing with eastern European countries is that they are still relatively conservative only because of the Iron Curtain. If westerners were to migrate in high numbers, there’s a high probability they’d start tightening their borders again once the migrants stopped bringing in money and jobs.

    I agree, ability exit is necessary but also limited for the majority.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Even limited ability to exit will give societies an incentive to compete. Even a patchwork with no exit would still spur competition, since having other societies that functioned would create internal unrest in any society that didn’t.

    The problem today is globalization–we are effectively becoming one big society. We’re not there yet, but we’re getting close.

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Running out of planet? Go to another one.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 7:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    @ excthedra: that is the limit of Molbug, the point he doesn’t take us beyond. For the outer limits of Xenoreaction we have a Nick. I see no contradiction.


    Rasputin Reply:

    Oh, and Mike for caravan holidays in Idaho.


    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 9:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Contemplationist Says:

    Dude, ‘Srinivasan’ is a Brahmin name.


    Posted on May 25th, 2014 at 3:04 am Reply | Quote
  • E.Antony Gray (RiverC) Says:

    Dunno, I think most prog arguments against kings are pretty weak too.. at the moment this is disguised mostly by the fact that they don’t have to take monarchists seriously. This was definitely the case for ‘silicon valley exit’ a couple of decades ago, “what, so the nerds are going to build a rocket and fly to the moon?”

    I am hoping our successor to the throne (Metropolitan Philip’s successor) is good; if things like monastic movements (one form of exit) gain more momentum here it will be beneficial to the progress of exit in general. Progressives do not know what to do with eastern monasticism not because it freaks them out and causes them to pull all of the alarms, but because they find it attractive and don’t understand why.

    A rough plan is like this: kings distract, monks attract, silicon valley prepares a tract.


    R7 Rocket Reply:

    “what, so the nerds are going to build a rocket and fly to the moon?”

    Looks like that’s the plan.


    Posted on May 25th, 2014 at 3:34 am Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » T-shirt slogans (#10) Says:

    […] Doctor Gno […]

    Posted on May 25th, 2014 at 10:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Little Hans Says:

    Is exit a problem – much of history is the story of people wanting out and resultant pressures caused? I don’t think there’s any less global desire for that now. Exit pressure takes care of itself, it’s always there.

    Entry must be the real issue – regulation of borders, being able to channel the ever existing desire to leave into some kind of ordered and stable state – which according to NRx would seem to be a protection of the people within the ‘entered’ state and their living conditions?

    When you say we went exit it seems a bit strange, as it seems like the political question is really about wanting to regulate entry. No on stops you on the way out, its the way in that gets tricky.


    VXXC Reply:

    Actually the way out is the Tricky Part with the modern tyrant.

    That’s the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall which were constructed by socialism to keep people in. And killed or imprisoned them if they tried to Exit. A wall, electrified fence, minefields, guards, towers, dogs, machine guns from the Baltic to the Adriatic.

    Little Hans may I ask if you are of a 1990 forward educational vintage? That is you were educated from 90s forward? I’ve noticed this anti-socialist history has been denied the young minds that is disappeared from the American curriculum. A serious question.

    The same thing happens today if one has money, that they desire at present above all else. It will proceed to skills they want doubt it not.

    Then there’s the question of entry, sane people don’t let strangers in unless it benefits them, and by them I mean the elites.


    Little Hans Reply:


    Yes, there are a few historical times when there has been a physical barrier against exit (though, the tightening of borders along the Iron Curtain was in response to the huge exit that was then occurring East to West, and it was never wholly impermeable).

    But as a citizen of the EU, I could, today, dissolve my moderate assets at quite a low cost (very few duties to pay) and send them anywhere in the world. The question is, could I follow them? I could go anywhere in the EU, but not become a citizen: all exit, no voice. I could go to the commonwealth where there are a few hoops to jump through, but citizenship is more attainable – however, the social system is similar there, and the climate less agreeable. China? Possible, but the social system there is not something I could ever influence. So it’s a take it or leave it situation, and I’d leave quite a lot of it.

    Let’s agree everywhere else is too corrupt or hot for my liking. So for anywhere I might want to go, I’m left with the problem of entry, not exit


    Posted on May 25th, 2014 at 11:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    So I guess if we’re going to use the geopolitical model of “land” and “sea,” this means that a secession organized on the basis of “sea values” is terrifying, which sets NRx secessionism apart from plain ol’ American (oh, I don’t know, say) “league of the south”-style secessionism.

    If I can put it very, very crudely (why not?), part of this seems like a game to say, “I’m more rootless than you, so there!”


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I’m against rootlessness generally, but there is a certain logic to taking the leftist position of uprooting everything and applying it to the leftist state too. Of saying, now that you deconstructed brotherhood, why do you expect me to join the brotherhood of man?

    The left is contradiction. The right works by resolving those contradictions, but there a bunch of different ways they can be resolved, so we’re all over the map.


    Posted on May 25th, 2014 at 1:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tinky Winky Says:

    Regarding Silicon Valley’s narcissistic cryptoprogressive “exit” talk, I guess one man’s dogmatic false positivist is another man’s visionary? Do they have the leverage to escape the Brazilification of the USA when they’re actually part of the featureless cosmopolitan fabric?

    I always wonder if you can even compare the bubbleiferous bottom-of-the-barrel (false/dysgenic?!) economics of facebook, google or even spacex to, say, the (eugenic?!) achievements of the manhattan project or the moon landings w/ the incredibly limited tech they had at the time.


    Posted on May 25th, 2014 at 4:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @Lesser Bull,

    “Even limited ability to exit will give societies an incentive to compete. Even a patchwork with no exit would still spur competition, since having other societies that functioned would create internal unrest in any society that didn’t.” Who Sir are you referring to? Certainly not the United States or the rest of Democratic

    If they need money they create it.

    If they have unrest that’s someone else’s problem.

    As to globalization that eliminates competition.

    They don’t want competition. It’s against equality. It’s racist, sexist, cisnormative and all those other nasty things.

    I don’t actually have a problem with secession or space colonization which I’m especially in favor of.

    As long as you are warned that they’ll follow you until you fight and either destroy them or hurt them badly.

    Maybe. Bundy Ranch encouraging. They caved.

    They cave on Molon Labe as well.

    G^ns BTW are getting as plentiful as weed. If you don’t use the g^ns it’s about that level of interest for law enforcement at best. It is after all Constitutional.


    Posted on May 25th, 2014 at 7:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    ” Just leave, White Man”


    Posted on May 26th, 2014 at 11:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2014/05/28 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] A revealing internet exchange. The communists won’t let others leave with bloodshed. Related: E > V. […]

    Posted on May 28th, 2014 at 5:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Doctor Gno – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on September 21st, 2016 at 12:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Mr. Gnobody: Exit Through Illegibility - Social Matter Says:

    […] the inspiring images of exit for neoreactionaries, especially Odysseus-types, is Nick Land’s Doctor Gno: the mad technologist who acquires enough power to destroy, so that he can successfully win […]

    Posted on January 16th, 2017 at 2:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Makemake mākou i kahi ʻāina hou

    Uuma Angutip tamaasa akilissavai


    Posted on September 26th, 2019 at 12:34 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment