Hell-Baked

There’s a potential prologue to this post that I’m reluctant to be distracted by. It’s introvertedly about NRx, as a cultural mutation, and the way this is defined by a strategic — or merely ornery — indifference to deeply-settled modes of ethico-political condemnation. Terms designed as pathblockers — ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’ most obviously — are stepped over, perhaps laughed at, but in any case, and most importantly, exposed as bearers of a religious terror. They are signs of a control regime, marking the unthinkable wastes where be dragons, effective precisely insofar as they cannot be entertained. ‘Satanic’ was once such a word (before it became a joke). These words cannot be understood except as invocations of the sacred, in its negative, or limitative role.

Is NRx in fact fascist? Not remotely. It is probably, in reality rather than self-estimation, the least fascistic current of political philosophy presently in existence, although this requires a minimal comprehension of what fascism actually is, which the word itself in its contemporary usage is designed to obstruct. Is NRx racist? Probably. The term is so entirely plastic in the service of those who utilize it that it is difficult, with any real clarity, to say.

What NRx most definitely is, at least in the firm opinion of this blog, is Social Darwinist. When this term is hurled at NRx as a negative epithet, it is nor a cause for stoic resignation, stiffened by humor, but rather for grim delight. Of course, this term is culturally processed — thought through — no more competently than those previously noted. It is our task to do this.

If ‘Social Darwinism’ is in any way an unfortunate term, it is only because it is merely Darwinism, and more exactly consistent Darwinism. It is equivalent to the proposition that Darwinian processes have no limits relevant to us. Darwinism is something we are inside. No part of what it is to be human can ever judge its Darwinian inheritance from a position of transcendent leverage, as if accessing principles of moral estimation with some alternative genesis, or criterion.

This is easy to say. As far as this blog is concerned, it is also — beyond all reasonable question — true. While very far from a dominant global opinion, it is not uncommonly held — if only nominally — by a considerable fraction of those among the educated segment of the world’s high-IQ populations. It is also, however, scarcely bearable to think.

The logical consequence of Social Darwinism is that everything of value has been built in Hell.

It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)

Crucially, any attempt to escape this fatality — or, more realistically, any mere accidental and temporary reprieve from it — leads inexorably to the undoing of its work. Malthusian relaxation is the whole of mercy, and it is the greatest engine of destruction our universe is able to bring about. To the precise extent that we are spared, even for a moment, we degenerate — and this Iron Law applies to every dimension and scale of existence: phylogenetic and ontogenetic, individual, social, and institutional, genomic, cellular, organic, and cultural. There is no machinery extant, or even rigorously imaginable, that can sustain a single iota of attained value outside the forges of Hell.

What is it that Neoreaction — perhaps I should say The Dark Enlightenment — has to offer the world, if all goes optimally (which, of course, it won’t)? Really, the honest answer to this question is: Eternal Hell. It’s not an easy marketing brief. We could perhaps try: But it could be worse (and almost certainly will be).

July 17, 2015admin 75 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Horror

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

75 Responses to this entry

  • Michael Anissimov Says:

    I think Social Darwinism is a good descriptive concept of what actually happens in the world, and something to adhere to in moderation, but it gets creepy when it becomes an object of adulation.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Making gravity an object of ‘adulation’ would be equally odd.

    [Reply]

    Michael Anissimov Reply:

    To be more specific, “Social Darwinism” per se does not uniquely specify a state of affairs. Instead there is a spectrum of possible affairs which can be described as Social Darwinist. For instance, the EEA was more Social Darwinist than anything after it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 5:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hell-Baked | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Hell-Baked […]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 5:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • woods Says:

    So…bring Sparta back?
    (Can I vote for the Federation of Starship Troopers?)

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 6:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Till now, what you say has been the iron law.

    But genetic engineering in the vein of CRISPR or IES promises a better future, no?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The ultimate dynamics can only be Social Darwinist, because experimentation and selection will decide what gets into the future. In your example, what will happen to neo-eugenics? Various things will be tried (by individuals, businesses, societies, cultures …) and the criterion for what works, i.e. survives, will — as eternally — be what prevails in a multi-level competitive environment.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    As long is there is selection with variation, then all the necessary consequences will obtain (“evolution”).

    But the carnage of selection and abomination of variation will be curtailed through genetic engineering.

    Is it Darwinism em>per se that is Hell, or is it only that the two have always perfectly coincided till now?

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Genetic engineering will only accelerate the red queens race, not eliminate it. Sure it will eliminate the blind biological carnage of selection and abomination of variation, only to replace it with an intelligent biomechanical carnage of selection and abomination of variation that will be exponentially grander in scale and horror.

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 6:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    The Devil is the Prince of this world. He gives you Hell on Earth and offers your paradise in exchange for your soul damned eternally to Hell.

    Another take:
    The “Faustian” alternative to “classic” civilization really is no civilization at all. Goethe’s tragedy remains the great modern epic. Faust has exhausted philosophy and science before signing up with Mephistopheles. At the end of his misadventures, his final hope is to live among a free people on free soil, on land reclaimed from the sea, an existence so precarious that it would rule out the cardinal sin of complacency. United against a sea that at any moment might rush in, Faust’s people would live in a state of constant mobilization. One wonders if Goethe would have recognized his ideal in modern Israel. Tragically, however, Faust employs tyrannical methods to advance his project, which turns out to be delusional. Because Faust never ceased to strive through all his failed projects, Goethe allows his soul to be saved. That offers scant comfort to the rest of us, who observe that Faust left nothing but ruin behind him in all his striving.

    Something more than Mephistopheles “creative destruction” must reign if the world is to be more than a plaything for a handful of Uebermenschen – a term Goethe invented for Faust.
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD06Aa01.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 6:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • OLF Says:

    Wouldn’t call it Hell, because it brings out the unnecessary religious connotations (in Christianity Hell meaning being outside of Communion of Saints; of course in less theologically sophisticated variants, as well as in non-Christian religions Hell is a place of eternal torments)… I don’t get what’s wrong with simply “The Natural Order”, or even just “The Order” or some such thing? Yeah, it doesn’t sound nearly as “cool” and “edgy” as “Eternal Hell”, but it’s probably more correct, and also a better recruiting line. I see the Left as essentially trying to bring about the heat death of the Universe, the Right to do the opposite, to maintain all the segregations and discriminations, and, in fact, further them, bringing about ever greater, ever finer discrimination… thus as the entropy of the universe tends to a maximum, it’s job of the Right to try to bring it to zero. Of course, it may be that I have misinterpreted something, but never have I heard that the purpose of NRx is to bring about the Big Rotisserie upon which All of Humanity will be roasted for whole of their lives over the Giant Lake of Fire. Fire doesn’t care for butchery and carnage, doesn’t care to maintain vile mutants, it just burns through everything, until all that remains is ashes.
    Of course, maybe I’m reading too much into this, maybe it’s all just an elaborate way to say that you support abortion, genocide, Gnadentod and Lebensborn… or maybe you prefer, a hands off, to my heart much closer “let it be” approach (but then I don’t get why would you need the Dark Enlightenment, when there’s already Anarcho-Capitalist movement?). Hm, you certainly are a thriller eaten by riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

    [Reply]

    pioneer american Reply:

    Re: Hell – ‘dark’ can be attractive, and I’d say it’s more of a memorable image, than being offputting for being taken as literal.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDGWr8kMBk8&t=1h8m30s – Jonathan Bowden on the alt-right’s rebellious, dark appeal.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    “Re: Hell – ‘dark’ can be attractive”

    A Dionysian, yea-saying attitude of amor fati seems to be called for –

    “My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing other than it is. Not merely to endure that which happens of necessity, still less to dissemble it – but to love it.
    Affirmation of life even in its strangest and sternest problems; the will to life rejoicing in its own inexhaustibility through the sacrifice of its highest types – that is what I called Dionysian … Not so as to get rid of pity and terror, but, beyond pity and terror, to realize in oneself the eternal joy of becoming – that joy which also encompasses joy in destruction.”

    – Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

    And as for the marketing brief –

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

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    I remembered that communists promise “Heaven on Earth”, but deliver Hell, so it does somehow follow that as the opposite of communists we would promise “Hell on Earth” but deliver Heaven.

    woods Reply:

    This. Why need processes of Nature be of Hell, should they not be of Heaven?
    (Am reminded of an old poem where “Man is described as iron forged by God in the fire and on the anvil, bent into many shapes, exhausted, but eventually lifted from the anvil as a better-shaped work than the one now sparkling there”)

    Aeroguy Reply:

    You have the thermodynamics backwards, order is created by consuming energy, that is turning it into heat. The underlying purpose of order in the universe is to serve the inevitable mission of turning all energy into heat. The greater the order, the greater it’s capacity to seek out new sources of energy so it can exploit it to produce ever greater order and thus accelerates production of entropy. Leftism is merely waste and unwanted friction. Intelligence itself is born out of maximizing the production of entropy. The measure of a civilization is how much energy it consumes. http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Yeah, except we are only using Thermodynamic analogies, but generally refer to people, not molecules, so when we say system of a higher order it means more inequality, more segregation, more hierarchy, and more… formalism, not less energy spending.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 6:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Darwinism in humans can’t be anything but social.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    By a sensible definition of ‘social’, agreed.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Yes well War is Social too. It is.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 7:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • 5040 Says:

    Joseph de Maistre had the right idea

    “The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes, perfect.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    Schopenhauer famously said something much the same:

    “If you imagine, in so far as is approximately possible, the sum total of distress, pain and suffering of every kind which the sun shines upon in its course, you will have to admit it would have been much better if the sun had been able to call up the phenomenon of life as little on the earth as on the moon; and if, here as there, the surface were still in a crystalline condition.

    “If the act of procreation were neither the outcome of a desire nor accompanied by feelings of pleasure, but a matter to be decided on the basis of purely rational considerations, is it likely the human race would still exist? Would each of us not rather have felt so much pity for the coming generation as to prefer to spare it the burden of existence, or at least not wish to take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?

    “For the world is Hell, and men are on the one hand the tormented souls and on the other the devils in it.

    “The conviction that the world, and therefore man too, is something which really ought not to exist is in fact calculated to instill in us indulgence towards one another: for what can be expected of beings placed in such a situation as we are? From this point of view one might indeed consider that the appropriate form of address between man and man ought to be, not monsieur, sir, but fellow sufferer, compagnon de misères. However strange this may sound it corresponds to the nature of the case, makes us see other men in a true light and reminds us of what are the most necessary of all things: tolerance, patience, forbearance and charity, which each of us needs and which each of us therefore owes.”

    When I first read those words, many years ago now, they had a profound effect on me. It would be fair to say that I’ve never quite seen the world the same way since.

    And yet… and yet… a sort of wary optimism is nevertheless possible. If technological progress can outpace social and demographic decay, a select few humans might manage to ascend to something better than this. We are already the Lords of the Air — that we can defeat the very last of the demons and conquer Hell itself is not entirely out of the question. (Just to get started, we’d need to become the masters of our own evolution, and immunize ourselves to memetic malignancies such as pathological altruism and leftist death-spirals. No simple tasks.)

    [Reply]

    Hanfeizi Reply:

    Beautiful. Should I ever start an esoteric order, “Companion of Miseries” shall be the first degree.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 7:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    Darwinism is something we are inside. No part of what it is to be human can ever judge its Darwinian inheritance from a position of transcendent leverage, as if accessing principles of moral estimation with some alternative genesis, or criterion.

    Yet you seem to imply we can imagine the scope of this “Darwinism?” LOL

    Isn’t your plea to your individually (as all are conceptions) created conception of social darwinism as organizing principle for NRx nothing more than another element Darwinism will chew up and spit out.

    This is reminiscent of Hurlock stating the goal of economics is “So that he lives better. With slightly more precise terms – people want to be richer so that they can achieve a greater satisfaction of their needs” yet in the same breath lambasting anyone who dare not produce (or with slightly more precise terms, own the means of production for) what they consume.

    What is it that Neoreaction — perhaps I should say The Dark Enlightenment — has to offer the world, if all goes optimally (which, of course, it won’t)? Really, the honest answer to this question is: Eternal Hell.

    And here I thought it was primarily three groups with certain distribution resentments wanting a different life. Tech-comms not wanting to share their products with those who do not produce; ethno-nationalists not wanting to share their lands with non-“kin” races; and Traditionalists not wanting to share with those who do not subscribe to the same moral codes. And then there is the segment that rattles off treatises about blah, blah, blah because “they are too weak to say ‘This is what I want for me and mine’ and are forced into arguing ‘This is better because of reason x, y, z, etc’ with those who are not similar.”

    But, hey; if hell-praise keeps away the cognitive dissonance…

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Simple sentiments along the lines of “This is what I want for me and mine” have lost the war. They were out-selected by a fitter memeplex. The “Neo” in Neoreaction means that the way forward is not the way we came: we acknowledge the inadequacy of what used to work, and seek a *new* direction. That new direction needs to be grounded in an understanding of how we got this far.

    Do pay attention.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    They were out-selected by a fitter memeplex.

    Or more virulent.

    we acknowledge the inadequacy of what used to work, and seek a *new* direction. That new direction needs to be grounded in an understanding of how we got this far.

    Sure, but do you acknowledge that you are simply playing the proggie game and open to similar mutations? And they are better at it than you.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    There’s only one game, and it’s neither “proggie” nor reactionary. And it remains to be seen who is the better player.

    Different T Reply:

    There’s only one game, and it’s neither “proggie” nor reactionary.

    No. This “define ourselves as the ‘true standard’ for social darwinism” is exactly a “proggie” game. It requires “proggies” to play. Weak people need to appeal to something outside of themselves to be the arbiter; in this case social darwinism. The weakness is further confirmed by the self-deception about the process that accompanies it.

    If NRx is aware that it is simply defining itself as “fit” and defining the “Cathedral” as “unfit” because it is trying (as you say) to find a “neo” way forward (ie, develop a more virulent memeplex) it would also be aware it will find its “neo” home in those with little self-awareness and a penchant for self-deception.

    And a more accurate interpretation than “Eternal Hell” of what NRx offers is a “discourse of distribution resentments.”

    The obviousness that an “Eternal Hell” that truly and viciously selects for those who can “survive the onslaught of human decay” is never going to take place in an NRx patchwork society should have been brought up by someone else.

    So what is the “Hell-praise?” The rallying of the weak to say “Look how strong we are! We desire hell!”?

    And it remains to be seen who is the better player.

    This statement has little to no value, as it can always be muttered by the current loser. You do see that?

    Different T Reply:

    Very relevant

    Similarly, “dysgenic” is a concept which only comes into force after one has agreed, a priori, on what is the direction one desires the course of evolution to take: after one has agreed on what shall be called the population macrostates (e.g., “low IQ/high IQ”, “k-selected/r-selected”). In darwinism simplicter, there is no such thing as dysgenia; what is adaptive is what is eugenic, and what is eugenic is what adaptive. This is a rephrase of the idea that in darwinism simplicter, while there is the concept of the population, there are no macrostates, which are after all idiosyncratic.

 -Kwisatz Haderach

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    This “define ourselves as the ‘true standard’ for social darwinism” is exactly a “proggie” game. It requires “proggies” to play.
    The thing about social darwinism is that you’re playing that game whether you want to or not. Darwinism is always-already in play

    Weak people need to appeal to something outside of themselves to be the arbiter; in this case social darwinism. The weakness is further confirmed by the self-deception about the process that accompanies it.
    Acknowledging the fundamental reality encoded by the phrase “Social Darwinism” is no more a sign of weakness than acknowledging that gravity exists and acts upon us.

    If NRx is aware that it is simply defining itself as “fit” and defining the “Cathedral” as “unfit” because it is trying (as you say) to find a “neo” way forward (ie, develop a more virulent memeplex) it would also be aware it will find its “neo” home in those with little self-awareness and a penchant for self-deception.
    Who said we’re fit? We’re a bunch of marginalized oddballs hanging out somewhere on the frontier of the internet. Nobody cares what we think, and that’s how we need it to be for our project (describing reality). These musings will most likely come to nothing, and I don’t think any of us are deluded about that. If they *do* come to something, it certainly won’t be the spread of Gnonism to the proles. We know that’s beyond impossible. Gnon is the anti-meme, it has negative sticking power. That’s why we constantly remind ourselves of it: we are trying to hold on to an anti-meme, because, in the beliefs we ourselves hold, we value truth above memetic sticking power.

    And a more accurate interpretation than “Eternal Hell” of what NRx offers is a “discourse of distribution resentments.”
    I’m having a hard time interpreting this as anything more than baseless abuse. If you think that’s what is going on here, you haven’t been paying attention.

    This statement has little to no value, as it can always be muttered by the current loser. You do see that?
    Maybe you’re right. Proggies are winning right now. They just handed us our asses in a best of 13 match. Now we’re going back to the drawing board and making an earnest study of the game. We want to get better, and we hope that one day, we will be. How about that?

    Different T Reply:

    The thing about social darwinism is that you’re playing that game whether you want to or not. Darwinism is always-already in play.

    Acknowledging the fundamental reality encoded by the phrase “Social Darwinism” is no more a sign of weakness than acknowledging that gravity exists and acts upon us.

    Gravity may “exist and act upon us;” but if “social darwinism” is something we are inside, what is the conceptions value other than as interpretive tool? Can humans alter the force of gravity in a meaningful way? Can they alter which humans survive or are incented/rewarded leading to survival (to say nothing of the actual process of Darwinism, which we agree doesn’t bestow favor or punishment outside of death/non-death)? Acknowledging “social darwinism” is not being discussed. It is the “social darwinism” as arbiter (something we are “inside”) claim in dispute. From your quote above, “dysgenics/eugenics” only comes into force after one has agreed, a priori, on what is the direction one desires the course of evolution to take. Normative claims do not flow from Darwinism. They flow from the “a priori agreement.” Without this very important distinction, you only get self-deception.

    Who said we’re fit?

    These are always the stupidest, yet humorous replies to implied superiority (hence, the stench of weakness). So who here claims they are unfit? Let’s get a list going.

    I’m having a hard time interpreting this as anything more than baseless abuse. If you think that’s what is going on here, you haven’t been paying attention.

    That is how it is interpreted. Again, “The obviousness that an “Eternal Hell” that truly and viciously selects for those who can “survive the onslaught of human decay” is never going to take place in an NRx patchwork society should have been brought up by someone else.”

    Now we’re going back to the drawing board and making an earnest study of the game. We want to get better, and we hope that one day, we will be.

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Normative claims do not flow from Darwinism.

    Yes, as I pointed out nigh-on a year ago (and it wasn’t a blazing insight even then). Nothing’s changed; we’re all well aware of it. Nevertheless most of us do have some normative claims to make. For instance, we all prefer intelligent, self-ordering, and self-comprehending social systems to preferable to stupid, wanton, and blind social systems.

    As long as we don’t claim that this preference is self evident on the basis of Darwinism alone, then we’re safe. Could you please explain how we’re running afoul, here?

    “The obviousness that an “Eternal Hell” that truly and viciously selects for those who can “survive the onslaught of human decay” is never going to take place in an NRx patchwork society should have been brought up by someone else.”

    Who the fuck is talking about patchwork right now? (It’s just you).

    I’m ignoring the rest of your post it’s both surly and stupid beyond recovery.

    Different T Reply:

    Nevertheless most of us do have some normative claims to make. For instance, we all prefer intelligent, self-ordering, and self-comprehending social systems to preferable to stupid, wanton, and blind social systems.

    Your claim is the Cathedral got to this point being those things…

    we all prefer intelligent, self-ordering, and self-comprehending social systems…As long as we don’t claim that this preference is self evident on the basis of Darwinism alone, then we’re safe. Could you please explain how we’re running afoul, here?

    You do realize this post is called “Hell-baked” and admin says NRx is offering “Eternal Hell” in context meaning very high “Social Darwinist” pressures to “tease from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages.” Yet you then state “we all prefer intelligent, self-ordering, and self-comprehending social systems.”

    Do you think life in “intelligent, self-ordering, and self-comprehending social systems” is “Eternal Hell.” Aren’t you the guy blabbering about paying attention?

    Again, this is reminiscent of Hurlock stating the goal of economics is “So that he lives better. With slightly more precise terms – people want to be richer so that they can achieve a greater satisfaction of their needs” yet in the same breath lambasting anyone who dare not produce (or with slightly more precise terms, own the means of production for) what they consume.

    Who the fuck is talking about patchwork right now? (It’s just you).

    Don’t know if he will answer, but…

    Admin, do you consider patchwork style of political organization as part of the “Eternal Hell” NRx honestly offers? (that was easy)

    I’m ignoring the rest of your post it’s both surly and stupid beyond recovery.

    You can’t say you’re fit; you imply that you are not, but won’t say it; and then you use the words “beyond recovery.” j/k

    admin Reply:

    “… do you consider patchwork style of political organization as part of the “Eternal Hell” NRx honestly offers?” — It surely wouldn’t be much of an ‘Eternal Hell’ if it ended at the doorstep of a little sensible geopolitical innovation.

    Different T Reply:

    It surely wouldn’t be much of an ‘Eternal Hell’ if it ended at the doorstep of a little sensible geopolitical innovation.

    And there you have it.

    So you can now compare admin’s claim that his “Eternal Hell” is going to generate even greater pressures towards “health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace” to…

    Different T Reply:

    To avoid the obfuscation charge:

    Do we agree the Cathedral actively dis-incentivizes what your average NRx’er considers “health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace?” Do we agree that admin’s so-called “Eternal Hell” or your “intelligent, self-ordering, and self-comprehending social systems” would be more likely to incentivize what your average NRx’er considers “health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace?”

    If so, which one offers more pressures “in the forges of hell?”

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Aren’t there pretty much a list of steps necessary for a darwinian algorithm and anything that sufficiently satisfies that list of necessary steps is a part of a “Universal Darwinian Process?”. I’m sure we can imagine the scope of it or at least get a bearing on it.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Then can you conceive of a process where the “progressives” are actively being selected for? And if you are in that iteration then…

    [Reply]

    Eternal Apparatchik Reply:

    There are two periods of time during which I can imagine a form of progressivism explicitly conferring a fitness advantage.

    The first is the early Roman Empire, in the first and second centuries, as the fragmentary and hyper-Evangelical (i.e. culturally subversive) early form of Christianity (Jesus is the Primordial Progressive). Rodney Stark gets the gist of the hows and whys in “The Rise of Christianity”. After that, it was not so much progressivism being selected for, as it was it being carried along by the ultra-natalist dictum of a firstly Pauline, then Germanised, Christianity

    The second is the early modern period, with progressivism expressing itself in various forms, but all different in the same way, as neo-Semitic and anti-Pauline Christian doctrines. Unlike before, come the end of the revolutions, progressivism has managed to stick around only in a thoroughly parasitic form, actively consuming human capital to maintain itself. Even more unlike before, and as with everything of note since the industrial revolution, the involved processes are uniquely rapid.

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 8:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hell-Baked | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 9:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    While even the only subtly deficient selfish gene is subject to that relentless and coldly mathematical pressure, sooner or later to be swept out of the pool into non-existence, the vehicle (that would be us, using Dawkins term) doesn’t have to suffer, but can live a long, fulfilled and happy life, free of carnage and blissfully unaware that one or more of its genetic passengers are not destined to see sol die.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 9:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Mercy has traditionally been destructive, yes. It is not necessarily destructive.
    When nature wants to kill you it’s often not particularly hasty about it. It’s content to let you suffer. When we want to remove someone from the gene pool, we can tie their tubes under anaesthetic. Or, at least, kill them swiftly. As long as the outcome is the same, it needn’t be excessively unpleasant.

    Humans are capable of understanding what needs to be done, and of taking the actions needed to do it.
    They just won’t. Instead we’re likely to see larger and larger bubbles of the bad kind of mercy, each ending in a greater cataclysm of suffering.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 17th, 2015 at 10:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Yves Vannes Says:

    “These words cannot be understood except as invocations of the sacred, in its negative, or limitative role.”

    Or as the labelling of a sacrificial scapegoat. The epic failure of diversity can only be redeemed by the sacrifice of the scapegoat. All of the failures and loss of goodwill in our civilization will be carried by the scapegoat into the abyss. Then the good and noble will be rejuvenated…until the need of a new scapegoat arises…

    Ever read the work of the anthropologist Rene Girard?

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    I keep seeing Girard mentioned, and I have to say, I’m getting addicted to occult theological thinking, be it Girard, Schmitt or Eliade. It’s as if there is a level of complexity which standard linguistic communication is incapable of expressing in sufficient detail for human understanding. The only resolution being for highly abstract images and packets of ideas to be synthesized and passed on in a manner that requires massive interpretation and unpacking.

    [Reply]

    Carl Jacob Reply:

    Girard well worth reading. Surprised to see such little engagement with him amongst NRx folk since his ideas resonate to a degree with Moldbug’s. I note that Peter Thiel considers himself a “Girardian”.

    Would be interesting to see more Girardian analysis from the right as most seems to be from v proggie circles. With the odd exception, Gil Bailie for example.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (Girard’s Hegelianism gets in the way for me.)

    Yves Vannes Reply:

    “It’s as if there is a level of complexity which standard linguistic communication is incapable of expressing in sufficient detail for human understanding. The only resolution being for highly abstract images and packets of ideas to be synthesized and passed on in a manner that requires massive interpretation and unpacking.”

    Could not agree more. Ideas that are pre linguistic or pre cognition (pre reasoning faculty). Like music. There is something Jungian about this.

    For more analytical approach to how cognition manifests itself read Edelman’s theory of Neural Darwinism.

    And yes, RG looks a Rodin sculpture.

    [Reply]

    Mechanomica Reply:

    Excellent resource (Edelman’s Neural Darwinism), thanks.

    Stored impressions of natural patterns that resist direct verbal explication are often more successfully communicated through myth, poetry, and stories of all kinds (in addition to music). Even modern anime, video games, and HBO series are full of such material.

    What’s especially handy about these forms is that valuable information can be spread easily by those unable to decode it at the conscious level (many of whom might not even approve of the memetic content if they could grasp it). But for those of you capable of such decoding without spazzing out, I highly recommend paying attention. Dynamical maps of this present hell, as well as schematics involving the bricks that will emerge from its fiery ovens, are already stored inside of you. If you know how to read these maps, you’ll have a much better time of it. At the very least you’ll be more useful.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    Edelman’s Neural Darwinism is not strictly Darwinism as it does not explain selection or evolution. Few attempts after him to create similar theories failed too. It is tempting to have something like that, but GNON does not give a shait about our brain and how it function. GNON want only ONE thing from us REPRODUCTION. Only humans (among other animals) managing to live without active reproductive function. we remember only because cells in our brain proliferate and replacing old cells. Most neurodegerative processes related to slow down in proliferation rate of neural progenitor cells in germinal zones of the brain. And this proliferation rate regulated by TESTOSTERONE delivered from the south or produced by brain endogenously. Considering these, and it is very unlikely that any such neural evolutionarily theory will be able hold for long in future too.

    Posted on July 18th, 2015 at 12:34 am Reply | Quote
  • Lucian the Mocker Says:

    The first obstacle is the inherited picture of Hell as a hot collectivity. Beyond that, a higher, unapologetic instrumentalism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 18th, 2015 at 12:48 am Reply | Quote
  • Stahlblau Says:

    But precisely, there is no way to escape nature. Some people, both inside NRx and outside of it, speak as if there were “natural” and “unnatural” behaviors. For instance, biologically (or evolutively, if you prefer) speaking, there cannot be a “good kind of mercy” and a “bad kind”. There is just traits and environment, and it’s the pressure of the latter over the former that defines Darwinism. And the thing is, there is no way to know which traits are self-defeating and which are not.
    For all we know, the “softness” of current Western culture is not necessarily a product of a lack of environmental pressure. It instead should be understood as the product of a different environment. The “sense of loss” that pervades some corners in the DE is understandable only from a moral point of view. It’s like saying that dogs are more evolved (“better”) than, say, sheep. Which is of course not true from a strictly Darwinian perspective. The fact that we are becoming more and more like sheep may disgust us, but it is not against any law of nature. NRx just expresses outrage at our (perceived) “degradation” to sheepness. We are not on the side of Natural Law anymore than the Cathedral.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 18th, 2015 at 1:23 am Reply | Quote
  • peter connor Says:

    Yes, Rev. Malthus has only gone for a smoking break, and in that short time we are already suffering from rapidly growing mutation load, dysgenic breeding, and population growth that is wreaking havoc with natural systems necessary to feed the human race. The unanticipated secondary effect is the disappearance of a social darwinist meritocracy…

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 18th, 2015 at 1:23 am Reply | Quote
  • blankmisgivings Says:

    This post has an odd view of evolution over eons, as the filtering and ‘purifying’ of certain traits, as if ‘for the future’ ,as it were (hence admin’s inherent mysticism, not realism). I thought evolution was about the banality of ‘traits fit for their environment’ at any particular juncture. Evolution is not searching design space for something of ‘value’ as judged (and here admin IS contradicting himself) from a transcendent point of view outside of the process; it simply ensures that genes that code for traits that ensure the replication of those genes IN A PARTICULAR NICHE will reproduce as long as that niche doesn’t change. Those same traits may be entirely useless a few centuries down the line. Hence biologists’ fondness for pointing out that bacteria are likely to be far more ‘successful’ than we are over the long term given the relative stability of the niches they occupy (e.g deep water trenches) and the rapidity with which they can adapt to variables. Social Darwinism is and has always been a transcendental valorizing of random and meaningless processes; it is (in disguised form) the return of the ‘human security system’, desperate to project some of its ‘values’ (‘complexity’ ‘intelligence’) onto a flux that contains none.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    We have a pretty good idea that the most productive niche in the future is going to resemble neither the African savannah nor Detroit.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Among the traits sieved out from natural chaos are local, self-affirming values, which cannot account for their own genesis in their own terms. Social Darwinism has far less essential baggage than you suggest. It is scarcely a metaphysical error to begin from where we are (as creatures guided by values we hold to be authoritative), and then to realistically explain how we got there. Intelligence is under no compulsion to devalue itself, merely because the generative machinery it derives from is ultimately indifferent to it. Also of special note here is the peculiar, abstract feature of intelligence as a trait, that its niche-specificity is — by definition — abnormally low. Sweat glands have little prospect of perpetuation into robots, or propagation in the Kuiper Belt, but to hold that this applies equally to general intelligence is implausible, at best.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 18th, 2015 at 4:48 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    only, I would not call Hell eternal. It exist for very long time, but eventually as everything else, compressed and swalowed by nearby balck hole.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    ‘Eternal’ only in the sense of exceeding and enveloping the horizon of inhabitable time.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 18th, 2015 at 7:34 am Reply | Quote
  • chris b Says:

    “the way this is defined by a strategic — or merely ornery — indifference to deeply-settled modes of ethico-political condemnation. Terms designed as pathblockers — ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’ most obviously — are stepped over, perhaps laughed at, but in any case, and most importantly, exposed as bearers of a religious terror.” My observation of the nRX sphere is that this is not the case. Constant weeping and barely disguised inferiority acceptance by virtue of pleading for progs to change their minds or passive aggressive snark seems to be the order of the day. That and race terror.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 18th, 2015 at 9:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    Great post. I find it impossible to disagree with.

    Ties in nicely with: http://www.xenosystems.net/meta-neocameralism/
    (A masterpiece, which sorely deserves to be followed up, imho)

    [Reply]

    Slumlord Reply:

    WTF?

    Born in Hell my arse.

    It’s either True or it’s all bullshit.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    WTF?

    Is this your first (failed) attempt at reading?

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 18th, 2015 at 11:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    The thing with social Darwinism is that you need to establish the level on which the selection is taking place or you are operating with an abstraction every bit as silly as equality. Yves Vannes mention of Girard is interesting above in that if the rejection of scapegoat is accepted as a part of Christianity and Judaism, then it can be seen as a very much a community creating theological system which allows for greater co-operation. This co-operation makes the participating individuals fitter in respect to other less co-operating groups. European people via trust can develop super-organisms (for lack of a better description) which makes them extremely successful. Their only threat is in fact the perversion and cannibalizing possibility of these super organisms. Blacks and Muslims for example do not fuck western civ – partas of western civ bringing blacks and Muslims into society and then weaponising them fuck western civ.

    [Reply]

    Amon Khan Reply:

    Presumably you’re referring primarily to Jewish agitators like Alinsky. When you trace the subversion and ethnic destruction of the West to its source, you generally find members of the Tribe. Maybe some Jews are having seconds thoughts and have begun working to atone for their vast crimes against our people? Not gonna hold my breath…

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Jews used the black thing like crazy in the 60/70’s onwards, and it was clearly a vector by which to attain power. But, the bigger players were not all jew – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peters_Humphrey

    [Reply]

    Eternal Apparatchik Reply:

    The more sensible point being made is not that certain merchants are solely to blame (or even form a majority of the guilty) but that they have a peculiarly disproportionate role in such dealings, isn’t it?

    Since Charlemagne, institutionalised discrimination of the Apparatchiks has pushed them into cognitively demanding financial professions, which, according to some, was the key driver of their intellectual advantage. I see little reason to believe the theory is wrong, modulo some “minor” errors: it wasn’t discrimination, it was human farming—

    since the whole brain is made of flesh, not just the part that crunches numbers, selection can act on any cognitive trait, thus… the gentiles must have evolved a proclivity to treat the Apparatchiks as scapegoats, which is why they bred them for it.

    Posted on July 18th, 2015 at 3:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael E. Says:

    Modern Darwinian evolutionary theory is proud that it has cast off the quaint Aristotelean notion of teleological cause, causa finalis. Instead, it sticks to the strict scientificity of efficient cause. Or so it claims. Evolution is said to proceed via natural selection that selects the successful living species that are generated by chance mutations of genes. The criterion of success is simply that a species survives, for there is a so-called ‘struggle of survival’ among the species.

    Teleological explanation, by contrast, is said to ‘explain’ the successful features of living beings that allow them to survive in terms of their purposeful design by some maker or other. For instance, the beaks of certain species of finches would be designed to be adapted specifically to a certain environment, thus enabling the finches to successfully survive to the point of reproduction. (If you don’t believe this is how teleology in evolution is thought about, listen to the reputable philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, in his recent lecture on the Gaia Hypothesis.) Evolutionary theory pooh poohs the ‘ridiculous’ idea of teleological design.

    But is evolutionary theory too quick to assume airs of superiority?

    First of all, its claim to stick to efficient causality is shaky, since the mutation of species relies essentially on chance, i.e. contingency. In Aristotle’s thinking this is change _kata symbebaekos_, i.e. change that just ‘comes along’ (from _symbainein_ ‘to go along with’). Mutations just ‘happen’, without any cause at all being able to be named, let alone any efficient cause. Contingent being, i.e. the mode of being _kata symbebaekos_, is opposed in Aristotle to being _kath’ auto_, i.e. being according to itself, or being in itself, intrinsic, essential being. Thus e.g. human being is ‘according to itself’ being that ‘has the logos, language’, whereas whether a human being is white is contingent; whiteness just ‘comes along’ as an accidental attribute to human being.

    Second of all, and more importantly, that life has a _telos_ does not boil down to the notion that each species were purposefully designed. Purpose (_hou heneka_) in Aristotle is not to be equated with _telos_, since it is only one kind of _telos_. The scientists miss this. Furthermore, they overlook that they already unwittingly name the _telos_ of life, of course, without thinking at all about it, for they say there is a ‘struggle for survival’. This means life is essentially a will to live. According to Aristotle (and today, modern science is by no means beyond Aristotle, but abysmally ignorant of his thinking), life is that mode of being characterized essentially by _metabolae kath’ auto_, i.e. by movement/change from within itself. Living beings move/change by themselves, rather than having to be moved by something else. Aristotle has four kinds of movement/change according to i) where (locomotion), ii) how much (growth and decay) iii) how (qualitative change, such as when a dog learns a new trick or a tree’s leaves change colour) and iv) what (reproduction). The last named is a synonym for survival of the species. Life is that mode of being that strives to perpetuate itself.

    Now, the evolutionary scientists’ next move is to pooh pooh the idea that life could be characterized as essentially a will to live. Where’s the will? they ask. Have you asked a plant lately what it wants? But there are different levels of will. Will that sees what change it wants and strives to get it is purposeful will. Wishing is a will that doesn’t strive. Urge or drive is blind will, but nevertheless directed toward some end, some _telos_. Living beings are essentially characterized by the urge to survive. This urge includes the drives to flee or otherwise avert life-threatening danger, to nourish themselves, to reproduce.

    So scientific evolutionary theory, albeit implicitly, smuggles in from the outset the _telos_ of all life: the urge to survive. Life is that mode of being with the urge to perpetuate its own self-movement. All living beings strive essentially to bring themselves into presence and maintain this self-moving presence for as long as possible. One aspect of life’s self-movement is reproduction itself, through which the species itself is propagated.

    Evolutionary theory is at a loss to account for the essence, the nature of life itself as self-movement. Its apparatus of efficient causality must capitulate before this self-presencing of life itself. This does not prevent it, however, from blindly and vainly seeking the efficient causes of life itself through, say. molecular biology, thus maintaining the efficient causal hierarchy for the ultimate scientific explanation of the cosmos from physics through chemistry to biology (and then on to explaining human consciousness itself as some complicated kind of neuronal processing).

    Modern science is in its essence wedded to efficient causality, i.e. to effectiveness, and it will defend to the bitter end this betrothal to the will to effective power — that is, until there is an historical occasion for an alternative way of thinking to make inroads against its dogma. Modern science’s arrogant over-self-confidence is the present-day form of superstition that reigns in the universities right through the media to everyday prejudices.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 19th, 2015 at 6:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2015/07/19) | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] This one from Land was very important: Hell-Baked. […]

    Posted on July 22nd, 2015 at 2:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • akarlin Says:

    We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)

    Lovecraft worthy.

    Which brings up a possible reason why NRx is innately rejected by many people though a (ironically Darwinian?) psychological defense mechanism:

    The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 25th, 2015 at 9:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Albert Brenner: Chan Island | praag.org Says:

    […] at all those GOP `racist/Nazi-screaming` sell-outs, it has instilled the fateful dystopian fear of Freud and Darwin in the hearts of both the un-based left and right-wing, alike […]

    Posted on August 15th, 2015 at 11:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Cozido no Inferno – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on June 22nd, 2016 at 10:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Visible Order – ossipago Says:

    […] (capital “C”) is destruction.  That we are (in some inescapably clever sense) in Hell.  (You know those nice universes?  This isn’t […]

    Posted on August 30th, 2016 at 12:28 am Reply | Quote
  • A Gentler Interpretation Of Natural Selection Says:

    […] Land writes about how rigorous external pressures produce the best things, arguing against tolerance and […]

    Posted on June 15th, 2017 at 3:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Marxismo, darwinismo e a coerência do progressismo – LIBERDADE POPULAR Says:

    […] anti-progressita, tal como Nick Land, pensador neorreacionário que utiliza as ideias de Darwin em favor de uma interpretação despropositada da história que passa à largo de qualquer […]

    Posted on June 26th, 2017 at 7:38 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment