Exit notes (#1)

Some notable attempts to dial back the NRx commitment to exit over voice, as inherited from Moldbug, have been seen recently. (I think NBS was crucial in advancing this argument, but I couldn’t find his post immediately — I’ll link to it if someone nudges me helpfully.) It’s undoubtedly a central discussion throughout the reactosphere at the moment.

Some preliminary thought-gathering on the topic:

(1) Exit is a scale-free concept. It can be applied rigorously to extreme cases of sociopolitical separation, from secession to extraterrestrial escapes. Yet these radical examples do not define it. It’s essence is the commercial relation, which necessarily involves a non-transaction option. Exit means: Take it or leave it (but don’t haggle). It is thus, at whatever scale of expression, the concrete social implementation of freedom as an operational principle.

(2) As a philosophical stance, Exit is anti-dialectical. That is to say, it is the insistence of an option against argument, especially refusing the idea of necessary political discussion (a notion which, if accepted, guarantees progression to the left). Let’s spatialize our disagreement is an alternative to resolution in time. Conversations can be prisons. No one is owed a hearing.

(3) In regards to cultural cladistics, it can scarcely be denied that Exit has a Protestant lineage. Its theological associations are intense, and stimulating.

(4) Exit asymmetries have been by far the most decisive generators of spontaneous anti-socialist ideology. The iconic meaning of the Berlin Wall needs no further elucidation. The implicit irony is that people flee towards Exit, and if this is only possible virtually, it metamorphoses automatically into delegitimation of the inhibitory regime. (Socialism is Exit-suppressive by definition.)

(5) Exit is an option, which does not require execution for its effectiveness. The case for Exit is not an argument for flight, but a (non-dialectical) defense of the opportunity for flight. Where Exit most fully flourishes, it is employed the least.

(6) Exit is the alternative to voice. It is defended with extremity in order to mute voice with comparable extremity. To moderate the case for Exit is implicitly to make a case for voice. (Those who cannot exit a deal will predictably demand to haggle over it.)

(7) Exit is the primary Social Darwinian weapon. To blunt it is to welcome entropy to your hearth.

June 24, 2014admin 56 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction , Philosophy

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

56 Responses to this entry

  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    My most capable (which is to say not very) exposition of my view on exit were (also) over at the Bloom’s Mitrailleuse here. I cannot, however, find a word of RiverC’s article with which to disagree.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    what we ought to be thinking about is the window of opportunity is closing for either how to slow down the beast how to freely communicate after the collapse how to enforce exit or voice and avoid compromise these would be things clever fellows would think about technically and politically all non PC thought could be shut down and prosecuted tomorrow whats your fallback
    they are using NSA server farms and the IRS and Drones for political use and telling Conservative inc congressional tribunals go fuck yourself my dog ate the emails you think there’s anything they would stop at now?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 4:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • peppermint Says:

    …and Exit is still retarded.

    The best that can be said for it is that it is a ploy not to be taken seriously in a democracy, permitting the person to avoid repeating democratic and socialist cant.

    As a means of convincing people, libertarianism is an abject failure, as Moldbug puts it, in the libertarian redpill, the active ingredient is sugar. But it’s okay to be completely incapable of convincing anyone, because E > V.

    What would happen if a US admiral decided to steal tens of billions of dollars worth of warships and nuclear weapons and take over an island somewhere? E > V, right? But the alternative is capital controls, which only turd-world communists use, isn’t it.

    In (1), Exit means “take it or leave it (but don’t haggle)”. In (5), “Where Exit most fully flourishes, it is employed the least.”, in fact, “Exit is an option“. Idiot.

    In (4), it appears that to stem the tide of Somalis fleeing to the United States, what we must do is ensure that the Somalis have the right of Exit and the United States has capital controls so no foreigner would ever want to do business here.

    Anyway, this post is great, because it proves that techno-commercialism is dead. All we need to do is wait for a big wave to wash its foetid corpse off the deck of our floating city.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Try to be civil Peppermint. Is it really that hard?

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    This rant is dangerously close to being wholly incoherent.

    What has theft got to do with exit? And by the way, if you need capital controls to prevent theft, you are already living in a communist country.

    “In (4), it appears that to stem the tide of Somalis fleeing to the United States, what we must do is ensure that the Somalis have the right of Exit and the United States has capital controls so no foreigner would ever want to do business here.”

    *Sigh* This immigration stuff is really difficult to grasp for some of you guys, eh?
    The reason there is a massive influx of low-skilled retarded immigrants from third world countries to western countries is that the latter have a massive welfare system which ensures that the low-skilled idiots will have a 10x higher standard of living than in their home country just by default, without even finding a job. Normally a country at aims at some development and not degeneracy tries to create incentives for high-quality immigration, which is a double win because it increases the quality of our own population, while draining the quality of the populations of other countries, and eliminate as much as possible low-quality immigration.
    The problem in the west is that the situation is almost precisely the opposite. I can see this extremely clearly precisely because I am someone coming from a more backwards country. Funny thing is that most westerners are completely blind to this dynamic. (some of them are not, but they pretend)
    So the only think you will ever hear is open vs closed borders arguments on immigration which is retarded.
    Seriously, you people are retarded if you think that is the problem.
    The problem is exit vs. voice.

    The reason you have retarded welfare systems that attract low-iq proles into your country is that you have a political system which ponders to low-iq proles.

    The mob in the democracy requires socialism. The mob gets socialism.
    However, whoops, they get an added bonus influx of low-skill immigrants coming to abuse the socialism. The mob gets angry that some random proles start doing that and it demands the closing of the borders, so that they can keep their socialism exclusive. And lo and behold a modern far-right political movement is born.
    In fact modern far-right political movements are not far and not right at all, they are democratic and essentially leftist as most of them simply want to pander to the home mob demand of exclusive socialism. Soon enough politics becomes mob-rule socialism for white people vs mob-rule socialism for black people (and other ‘oppressed’ minorities. Mob rule is of course always bad whether by white or black people, mainly because as I have just comprehensively explained mob rule by white people inevitably ends up in mob rule by black people. In a democracy those farther on the left always have the leverage as we all know. But I digress.

    To stave off the somalis you need neither capital controls, nor closed borders. You need to deal away with western socialism and to deal away with western socialism you need to deal away with western democracy. It’s actually pretty straightforward and easy to grasp for anyone who is not a socialist or a demotist.
    Which is why most nationalists never grasp it.

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    Even without welfare it’s still very, very easy to have a better life in the United States than in Somalia, in terms of material goods, creature comforts, etc.

    Our extreme material prosperity serves as a form of welfare in the sense that the Somalian faces no danger of starving if he is willing to make some minimal effort at scavenging junk that people throw away or doing odd jobs. And quite a few of these Somalians actually do hold down jobs at chicken de-boning plants or as taxi drivers or whatever.

    Plenty of Somalians would want to come to an America where they didn’t get any welfare. The problem is that they still make the country worse just by being here, because of HBD and the factors highlighted in Putnam’s “The Downside of Diversity”.

    Read about the history of Postville Iowa to see how ridiculous this can get, without welfare playing a large role; all the immigrants were brought in to work, so that the company could avoid providing the level of wages and working conditions that the locals demanded.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/magazine/postville-iowa-is-up-for-grabs.html?pagewanted=all

    Orthodox Jews open a new chicken de-boning plant, with low wages and poor working conditions, in a small town. Since nobody wants to work at these terrible jobs, they flooded the town with wave after wave of legal and illegal immigrants, some of whom are deported, some of whom also don’t want to work at these terrible jobs.

    Russians and Ukrainians –> Illegal Mexicans and Guatemalans –> Temps from out of state who immediately quit –> Native Americans from out of state who immediately quit –> Students from Kyrgyzstan who immediately quit –> Micronesians flown in on 72 hour flights from Palau –> Somalian Refugees and homeless people from other states –> owner finally arrested for bank fraud, leaving the Micronesians stranded in their shorts and sandals without return tickets.

    While there may be some validity to the points you raise the Dark Enlightenment must go beyond simplistic libertarian analysis of immigration and incorporate a comprehensive analysis of the many, many problems with actual, existing immigration. Otherwise it is just another blue pill.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    You are talking about both illegal immigration when I was specifically talking about legal immigration.

    In your anecdote, most of the imported workers were all illegals, who should obviously be deported. Duh, they are illegal. Normally a company should find it quite hard to labor from a third-world country en masse, because of the implied legal costs. On top of illegal immigration thing the actual business owner was later arrested for banking fraud. You give me an anecdote with a criminal importing illegal immigrants who are also de facto criminals and say that somehow disproves my analysis which was specifically applied to legal immigration. Obviously when I talk about immigration, I mean it in the legal sense. Try to differentiate between the two.

    My analysis is not simplistic at all, what I am saying is that it is not a question of whether to have open or closed borders (which IS simplistic) it is a question of how to design your overall incentive structure for emigration/immigration so that you only get immigrants who improve the quality of the population. And that I made very clear in my comment.

    Also, when talking about immigration we are not talking about exit, we are talking about entry. (that’s what immigration means)
    Now, Entry and Exit into a state are two different things. Even two different topics. Optimally you would like to have high or controlled entry costs/requirements and low exit costs/requirements. High entry costs mean only high quality people can enter and if they stay, that means they are motivated to stay and if they are motivated to stay despite free exit, this means the government is doing a good job at governing since it is attracting quality people. Which is a very desirable win-win situation and what you would optimally want to happen in a well-governed state.

    Lesser bull Reply:

    A lot of those immigrants were legal. And in an open borders world, there is nothing about that scenario that would be substantially better.

    It’s a disgrace that the US can’t control its borders, but the problems with immigration are only marginally fixed by legalizing it.

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    I got the impression that most of the immigrants were legal, aside from the Mexicans and Guatemalans (who seemed to have been the “best” workers because they were aware of their precarious status). Palau has a compact of free association with the US so the Micronesian apparently didn’t need visas.

    Certainly the Somalians were legal refugees, looking to work.

    Anyway, fair point about incentive structures, I just wanted to make the point that the incentives to immigrate to the West go far beyond explicit welfare and entry restrictions would still be pretty important even if welfare were abolished. But yes, that doesn’t translate to strictly “closed borders” in the sense of zero immigration. But I don’t think many are advocating that.

    When you phrase it the way you did in your last paragraph (endorsing high quality based entry restrictions) my objection goes away.

    admin Reply:

    As an account of what actually happened over the course of British history, this takes the immigration argument to a whole new level. (Not that anyone wants to hear this type of undiluted truth-telling.)

    Domestic prole-pandering –> collapse of immigrant quality –> demographic-ideological death-spiral –> cooked up nationalist panic allowing of only impractical authoritarian solutions –> arrival of the Potato Gods.

    [Reply]

    Lesser bull Reply:

    Welfare is a problem, but it isn’t the problem.

    I could make a long argument out of a short one, but I don’t need to. One thought experiment. Would Galt’s Gulch be unaffected by an inflow of Gypsies?

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    yeah except for reversion to the IQ mean. we could only let in the over 145 IQs from Somalia and Guatemala and India but their children and grandchildren unto the 10 generation will revert to the low IQ and as you point out Somalia Guatemala and India will suffer which is a two edged sword. This is the problem with DE the throne and alter thing really dont stand up no ones explained a workable Cameralism that leaves the science that dare not speak its name. So sure we are not haters we are scientists but the reality is how does a free economy work with genetically unequal citizens either they drag you down or take you over and who can blame them.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 5:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • peppermint Says:

    By the way, just so we’re clear, the average person neither deserves nor desires Exit or Voice. The first “right of man”, compared with which all other rights are as nothing – mere superfluities, corollaries which will follow of their own accord out of this; if they be not contradictions to this, and less than nothing – is that it is the everlasting privilege of the foolish to be ruled by the wise.

    And if the wise f*ck it up, as they have in country after country? There is no recourse.

    Once upon a time sharks used to bite humans and leave them to die. Today, humans swim around in giant metal whales, grab the sharks, cut a fin off, and release them to tell the tale. It is a greivous punishment that we impose on them. I would think that by now we have made our point; one can imagine a shark mother sadly petitioning our kings to that effect.

    Should the sharks Exit to Tethys? Or should they gang up on beach-goers, demanding that their Voice be heard?

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Peppermint,

    The Prime Requirement of a Master is that He be Stronger. It’s not negoitiable.
    Those who ruin us in the failed attempt to make themselves our Masters – ignoring more than a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon History in particular and European History for 2500 years on the subject of tyranny – fail this basic test.

    In fact they fail all the tests of “Rule.” As I suspect would you.

    What you may be saying is the right of the weak to be ruled by the Strong.

    They’re not wiser or stronger, they’re weak, venal, insane.

    As to the Wise ruling the Foolish – Folly even to mention it in the current context. If ever.

    I suspect you’re raging at Humanity itself, there is a solution: armed Nihilism. See – ISIS.

    Or the Maoists.

    Here we see the Intellectuals drive for power, and we see the raging futility of impotence.

    Power is Power. It’s not wisdom and never was. As it’s so dangerous and corrupts to madness even “The Wise” the most workable solution is usually to diffuse and distribute it. We call it “democracy” or “Republic” at present.

    Moldbug of course fears the Common Man – as should many. For the Common Man’s only sin was trusting those more learned in useless things than he as better to rule for their honeyed and two faced reasoning. It’s simply the Will to Power, no different morally than a fist or gun. The difference being in practice far worse, for the Intellectuals aren’t well grounded.

    Now as to the Foolish and the less articulate: go and look at any old building or Church in America [or Europe]. You will see the Common Man often an otherwise illiterate stonemason reaching for God and succeeding more brilliantly than any Intellectual ever did, and doing far less harm if a thousand people died on the work site. How many that built the Pyramids were literate? And they weren’t slaves. Myth. All but the scholars have long forgotten the Egyptian gods, they see the Common Man’s pyramids. Yes an Master Builder planned it and directed the work. How do you think Man built to Master Builder? Because so many built before him and taught their progeny.

    True Wisdom learns Humility along the way.

    As to rights we have like all creatures only the rights we can defend, in America the people are quite ready to “vote” accordingly.

    [Reply]

    peppermint Reply:

    psst – that was a Carlyle quote, you retard. Read the Latter-day Pamphlets or go home.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “psst – that was a Carlyle quote. Read the Latter-day Pamphlets or go home.” — Any information loss there Peppermint? Thought not. Right now, I’m asking you to stop stinking up the joint with hooligan abuse (but the politeness is a finite resource). These comment threads are not going to become a chimp shrieking contest.

    VXXC Reply:

    @Peppermint,

    Carlyle never accomplished anything except to be all but forgotten, and my reply stands on it’s own.

    [Reply]

    peppermint Reply:

    Carlyle didn’t accomplish anything except be right, that’s why we talk about him. If you want to look up to people who accomplished things, try Mao.

    Your reply is that leaders must be strong, and wisdom is not necessary to becoming a leader. Which is true, and I think I said so (And if the wise f*ck it up, as they have in country after country?).

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Priests and pajama boys make for very poor rulers. They do not understand that power requires men to do violence (and spill their guts in the process) on their behalf.

    [Reply]

    peppermint Reply:

    that’s not the problem. Pajama boys love quoting Mao and talking about how best to employ violence. The problem is James Theory singularity style extremism, which I guess could be called fundamental unseriousness, but words don’t mean just one thing.

    R7 Rocket Reply:

    Except that pajama boys aren’t good soldiers and make for very poor leaders of men at arms. A pajama boy has to pay more to the troops than a natural war leader would. And the cost for the pajama boy is even greater when more powerful personal weapons become more common. A natural war leader, or even better, a tribal leader, is much able to cope with such a situation.

    The problem is James Theory singularity style extremism

    I wouldn’t call that a problem. I would call that an exploit. And so would 4chan.

    peppermint Reply:

    And the cost for the pajama boy is even greater when more powerful personal weapons become more common.

    this is backwards. more powerful personal weapons equalize – divisions of riflemen vs the bow of ulysses.

    And more expensive and even more powerful weapons, tanks and drones, put power in the hands of those who have the ability to procure them.

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 5:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • James James Says:

    Exit is very well, but there’s a lot to be said for staying and taking over. You can move to Siberia, where the land is cheap but there aren’t as many neighbours so network effects are low and living costs (except land rent) are high. You have to build all the buildings yourself from scratch.

    Or you can stay here and take over, which means you get to use already-built buildings, and *they* have to move to Siberia.

    Metaphorically.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    I Like James James Formulation.

    Let them fucking exit.

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    It’s numbers. As Glenn Beck put it, “We surround you.” That is why a modicum of white nationalism can prove useful.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    The left starts from the inside and takes over through revolution. Alternatively, start from the outside and takes over through conquest. Good luck thinking about conquest, not until after SITF, and it requires a seed state to start from. I suppose you can imagine thedes as buried dragon teeth, sprouting up to fight each other until they merge into a fully formed empire. Sea steading sounds easier.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 7:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Exit is a power. Voice is a power. They would seem to be at least somewhat fungible. It isn’t clear which is the more valuable power, nor, a fortiori, that they are uncorrelated. It does seem, however, that the people in the greatest need of exit, also have the greatest want of voice… and especially of power.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Moral legitimacy can be used to bolster exit. Direct the force that currently flows into ‘voting’ towards ‘exit.’

    As a natural consequence of sacralizing exit, voice becomes simultaneously empowered. Saying, “I’m gonna exit” usually provokes an audience. I hear this about restaurants all the time. The magic words, “I’m not coming back,” will usually summon a highly conciliatory manager. In other words, Land needs to be a lot more careful when phrasing,

    It is defended with extremity in order to mute voice with comparable
    extremity. To moderate the case for Exit is implicitly to make a case for voice.

    If we take ‘voice’ to mean ‘voting’ then yes, by all means this is true, but very much not for the general case.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    No Exit’s not power, it’s Flight.

    It’s not voice either.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Potayto, potahto, if you don’t have enough power, you can’t exit. Not like it’s FREE. It’s cheaper than it used to be, though. I’d say too cheap. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want it as an option.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 7:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    Exit does not have to mean a physical departure from the land.

    It can also mean radical disengagement. For starters, no reactionary should own a TV. That is mainlining cathedralist crap straight into your bloodstream.

    Too, you can control who you spend your time with, and where you live.

    As long as government isn’t appropriating land communist-style, you can own a good chunk and have your own culture. You have total power to exclude on your property and that is a big deal.

    Obama and Holder and much of the rest of the left directed all of their concentrated hate toward a single prole neighborhood watch guy for two whole years and they couldn’t even harm him.

    Total national hate toward Sterling and now he’s richer than ever, and continuing to indulge his fetish for black girls. National hate toward Cliven Bundy and he’s happy as a clam.

    The left may lose it one day and start killing its enemies and appropriating property, Communist style, but as of now, it isn’t happening. I don’t know how that can happen in America anyway, with such massive gun ownership.

    [Reply]

    Lesser bull Reply:

    You prompt a thought: internal exit may explain the success of Christianity and other mystery religions after Rome had non-nommed the world.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 8:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    First link is messed up, change the 3 to a 4 if you wanna fix it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 8:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Exit notes (#1) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 8:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser bull Says:

    Exit doesn’t scale. the possibility of exit at one level may mean preventing exit at another. if we institute the Patchwork, how do you exit the Patchwork short of shutting it down?

    If you want to preserve the possiblity of exit to sometimes that means curtailing exit from. Johnny Reb was quite consciously trying to preserve an alternative to the dominant anglo-western model, which meant fugitive slave laws and, as time went on. increasing limits on manumission.

    It’s true in reverse. Preserving a country as a place where people would want to exit to (or wouldn’t want to texit from) can mean drastically restricting who’ll you let exit into it. But for exit to be meaningful, there has to be someplace to exit to.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    The patchwork is a series of exits, so to talk about exiting the patchwork sounds a bit odd. Death maybe? Or death by (Cathedral) unity – shutting it down. That’s not to say you couldn’t try to create a patch entirely cut off from the rest of the work, if that’s your thing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 9:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    I actually like Land’s formulation here, this is the best case I’ve seen made yet.

    Exit isn’t a possibility ultimately for Americans – I mean peaceful Exit – unless the other side quits. Which it won’t do except out of FEAR . It might happen.

    Of course the other side has also set up an entire suite of cascading disasters as policy, the one that will unravel things the most is Fiat Fraud combined with fantastically high, many layered interlocking debts. Ultimately this will of course be resolved by repuidation, it’s a question of how much suffering is inflicted and endured first.

    Exit – by debt repudiation? Hmm.

    Try and understand the other side is motivated by Malice and an overwhelming desire to do Harm and Profit from the Harm. .

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    You can make yourself so unattractive that the other side doesn’t want you anymore. Take West Virginia.

    Alabama managed to rid its state of illegal immigrants by passing a law that was partially overturned. Ballot initiatives banning abortion, re-criminalizing sodomy, ban the teaching of evolution by natural selection, declare global warming/environmentalism a religious cult and therefore cannot be taught in schools. Have fun with it.

    It pays to be a bit Misean or Gretzkyian when thinking of exit. You don’t exit from your current position, you exit from your future position. When thinking of USA 2050, assuming current rates of political degeneration and absent a Diocletian, the pieces of the Southwest and California that are already ungoverned will grow into a large region. The most likely fight over union will occur against the Southwest. Would Southern whites really go to war to preserve their minority status in a decrepit union? Also consider the potential roles for China and Russia. The U.S. may be unable to enforce territorial integrity if foreign powers intervene.

    Exit is your voice. It is the credible threat. Exit is also 无为 (wuwei), as Dan explains above. One must first internalize the exit before it can be formalized. Getting rid of televisions and ties to popular culture is excellent. Homeschooling. Focusing on local community. Internet community counts as well. The Cathedral’s strange rulings will become increasingly bizarre, further and further removed from the local/regional thinking. I didn’t leave the USA, the USA left me.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 9:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Well if you’re a Silicon Valley Billionaire wanting Exit in place you can head on down next month to the Littlefield armored vehicle collection [200+ vehicles] and get yourself a Tank or armored scout car. Right there near Silicon Valley.

    http://www.autoweek.com/article/20140228/CARNEWS01/140229813?utm_source=DailyDrive20140228&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_term=article3&utm_content=20140228-Tank-auction!-Littlefield-military-vehicle-collection-to-cross-the-block&utm_campaign=awdailydrive

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 11:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    1. Exit is not specifically contractual. Contract is but a form of it, humans have ‘exited’ from various environments not due to contract with them, but due to human adaptability. Exit is more related to loose coupling and boundaries than to contracts, which simply try legally enforce boundaries and loose coupling. Humans are by nature more ‘loosely coupled’ with their environs, and thus, more free to Exit. (Take for instance the fact we can be naked, which means we can assume different clothing easily for different environs.)

    2. Agree with this completely. Take the final scene in Braveheart. No dialectic.

    3. This misunderstands history. The Protestants in fact were not trying to exit but reform; and they fought bloodily with each other because they *didn’t* want to exit. Exit if anything belongs to the Catholic and Orthodox, who instead of fighting simply split. Thus in the West, I would trace it through the Catholic clade and not the Protestant one, and in the Protestant one only as a loan from the Catholics (Anglicanism was a split among English Catholics.) And definitely not the Jews, who were more intent on Entry than anything else. The Jew and Protestant are most concerned with Dialectic, the Catholic and Orthodox with accept or be exiled.

    4-7. mostly agree, though like I said before it is my firmly held opinion that Exit and Voice are contrary but not contradictory; the teenager threatens to run away (Exit) to get his way (Voice.) Exit in the service of Voice is possible and is not Exit. Likewise, Voice in the service of Exit is Exit and not Voice. (democratic secession movements are thus, in a way, anti-democratic.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 25th, 2014 at 1:08 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    Exit as an idea is great, but how does that work exactly on the ground?

    What makes you think the states are going to allow any degree of Exit that might actually bother them?

    Seasteading is patently absurd. The Third World is not an attractive destination, and the Cathedral will not allow any colonial adventure taking over any piece of NAM land.

    Which leaves the only 2 arguably non-progressive polities on Earth, i.e. Russia and China. Russia is not starting the singularity any day soon, and China’s immigration policies are probably the harshest on the planet.

    So what is this Exit thing about, again?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Remind me where you’re writing this from.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Another country with very strict immigration laws! And more progressive trolls than I expected.

    Exit is great in individual cases, but surely not feasible as a more general concept. The vast majority of people are unable to Exit, which means Exit will never have much effect in the way the world is governed.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The whole point of this post was to try to anchor Exit back in its ordinary function — you take advantage of it every time you go shopping, or even browsing the Internet. Far from it “never hav[ing] much effect in the way the world is governed” it’s at work all the time. It’s a force of subtle but continuous erosion, like wind or water, which ends up shaping everything. The idea that we’re starting from zero, conjuring up speculative Exit mechanics as some kind of science fiction scenario, is a delusion that needs to be dispelled.

    It’s Exit that has driven every corporate bankruptcy in history. The only question is how precisely, and intensely, it can be directed against market-immunized targets.

    Lesser bull Reply:

    You just explained why Rhodesia had to go. Not only because it was making everyone look bad by succeeding, but because it recruited and was an attractive destination.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Yes this is what I keep thinking about: Where in particular does one exit TO if one is currently in the US? I’d say at this point my main beef with the US is female obesity and the disappearance of smart WASPy women through three generations of super-low fertility (as evidenced in the disappearance of the Episcopal Church as a serious force).

    Seems to me the logical place to go is East Europe. But then you’re a foreigner and the languages are rough. Russia would be ideal (much more useful language) but the visa situation there is permanent hassle. Ditto Kazakhstan and Belarus. Plus the winters are bad in Europe. So you’d be in Europe for the summers and someplace in South America for the winters. Could be an exhausting lifestyle.

    The problem with Asia is that it just exacerbates the negatives caused by excessive immigration into the US (i.e. too many people with whom one has nothing in common).

    The Justine Tunney article was quite good in making the case FOR exit — and she had a great list of the beefs of geeks. I’m not a computer person myself but the points were solid.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 25th, 2014 at 10:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    Internal exit is the first step – I no longer accept any of the prevalent views, I no longer accept democracy, I no longer accept your “truths”, I will not argue, I will merely disengage with you.

    interaction exit is the second step – using social media to communicate and receive information, refusing to listen to the news, conducting business outside of Government purview. (see black market ballooning).

    physical exit is the final step – moving to another country.

    The final step is not vital. Step two is potentially enough, but the key is to realize that the current paradigm is not salvageable, “the people” will not suddenly become enlightened and understand how bad things are -that’s some b*llsh*t that needs staking through the heart. Any change must be on a total Cathedral surrender basis – t.o.t.a.l.
    Anything else is compromise, and that always swims left.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 25th, 2014 at 2:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    Disengaging is fine if you’re a rugged individualist, but if you’re a rugged individualist you belong to the Cathedral. They want you to disengage. That’s the trap: They have you when you watch TV, but they REALLY have you when you switch the TV off in disgust. They have you when you vote, but they REALLY have you when you choose not to engage in politics at all. They have you when you live in a Western country, but they REALLY have you when you move to another country (nothing says “Product of the Cathedral” more than a white guy in Asia).

    This is the limitation of the religious analogy. “The Cathedral” is not trying to preach to you, it’s trying to take something from you: your culture. Surrender is not victory.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    What you call surrender, some might call a strategic retreat.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Escape is not surrender. Conflating the two is a tendentious debating point.

    I realize “we have to defeat them and rule” is a popular quasi-NRx position. Sadly, it’s rooted in sheer fantasy. The ruthless, confident authority required to make it work is gone, and no one has any realistic ideas about how to bring it back. After the scouring of a harsh dark age, perhaps there’ll be something to talk about.

    [Reply]

    scientism Reply:

    If your castle is under siege and you escape, you’ve surrendered the castle. Seems like a fair use of the term.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Not if you take it with you.

    Alrenous Reply:

    This is a market economy. You sell your castle. Liquidate. Then buy a new one at your destination. We basically have teleportation already, if you think about it, it’s just slow.

    Alrenous Reply:

    @admin

    Defeat is possible but a bad idea. I would give specifics but it’s not like it matters and it is like my paranoia might not be, because they are out to get me.

    [Reply]

    peppermint Reply:

    yes, the ancient question, do we refuse to vote, or do we vote for Hitler? We don’t vote because our votes justify the system. We vote for Hitler because if the king is weak or venal enough to ask us what we think, we should make fun of him, or, tell him what we really think.

    The question doesn’t matter, because a polity capable of electing Hitler will elect Hitler with or without our votes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 25th, 2014 at 3:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/07/the-great-secession/372288/

    Aaaaand … right on cue. This Atlantic author bemoans the desire of fundamentalists to exit-in-place.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 27th, 2014 at 5:28 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment