Institution Building

Anton Silensky initiates a structured discussion on the subject.

If the Neoreaction is not a popular movement, a political party, a church, an organization, or even in any strong sense one thing, what is it? I’m assuming that if it is more than a fight over a name, it is at least a coalition, integrated by a shared enemy, and some common references.

The only canonical scripture I am able to identify is the Unqualified Reservations corpus. This is certainly not ‘gospel’ for anyone, but it constitutes the distinctive intellectual heritage of those who identify positively with the neoreactionary current. Neoreaction has to be at least tenuously ‘Moldbuggian’ if it is not to dissipate entirely into noise. There are, however, already many Moldbugs, and there will be still more.

Silensky writes: “Splitting will happen. People will disagree. And they will leave.”

Leave what? (That, I think, is his question.)

And if splitting is intrinsic to what the Neoreaction is? (That is mine.)

November 28, 2013admin 117 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , ,

117 Responses to this entry

  • rogueacademic Says:

    My guess would be that “Moldbuggian” neo-reaction is a political criticism only in its method ‘cause finally its ambitions are fundamentally ontological. If this political criticism is in anyway directed to a political program, then its power is completely lost. I always try to remember Foseti here (http://foseti.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/the-progressive-reaction/).

    These ontological ambitions are deeply a-human and intensely rational in a way I’m still trying to formalize. I’ve not seen much of these ontological consequences being discussed by the neo-reaction blogs, always too interested in proving they are the Political and Ethical True, so my bet is that it’s a fertile path.

    Sorry for my dumb English. Spanish speaker here.

    [Reply]

    Thos Ward Reply:

    Agreed. This is why Latour and Harman are always accused of being reactionary despite that the former’s politics are explicitly leftist and the latter rarely discusses politics. Their ontologies are object oriented. You can feel that tension in Levi Bryant’s writing a lot- his politics just don’t match his ontology and I bet he knows it.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    This is a very interesting suggestion. Anything you have in the way of concrete illustration would be gratefully received.

    [Reply]

    Rogueacademic Reply:

    To write all my ideas in my retarded English would be a nightmare, so I’m gonna try to give you something of a blueprint here.

    – The Dark Enlightenment is, fundamentally, a criticism that reveals the religious roots of the – supposedly – secular politics. With this, it proves that every political ideology and political program is basically religious at its foundations.
    – So, if we accept that politics=religion then it would be obviously illogical to posit some kind of positive political program from the critic of neo-reaction. At the end, we will just have a new Cathedral, but this time like a pre-reform Cathedral. The political line of the neo-reaction only wants a new Master, they just love to be the slave kind.
    – Then, ¿what can we do? First we need to formalize the ontological consequences of this critic.
    – The core here is meaning. Meaning is indistinguishable from humanity itself. Where bodies and languages exists, meaning co-exist. This is because the collision of meat and words generates a formal space of absolute negativity (something like the lacanian real, but this need more philosophical work) that never ceases to exist, but can be temporarily pacified with meaning. The basic form of articulated meaning is religion. And, also, now we know that there is no fundamental distinction between religion and politics. Both make a living from meaning.
    – If the three-dimensional dynamic of meaning, politics and religion is an ontological consequence of being human, ¿how can we have a real atheist politics? ¿Do we need to stop being human? Maybe.
    – This is were I think your ideas about Capital and the way you related them to Omohundro’s drives become important. ¿Could Capital entity be some kind of evolved being that has suppressed the need of meaning? ¿Could its ways of taking action in the world be a hyper-rational, strictly formal atheist politics (I know the term “politics” is all to human, but it serves for rhetorical purposes)? ¿Is the acceleration of capitalism the route to true atheism?
    – Finally, the way I see it, the Dark Enlightenment is just a critical spark that lights the fuse of a more extensive ontology and, then, an inhumanly pragmatic and hyper-rationalistic atheist political program. This opens the doors for a new world in which having a necessity for meaning could be a serious evolutionary disability. Also, that’s why I find so boring the pity attempts of the enthusiasts of neo-reaction for always being ethically and politically more right.

    This was really tough! Next comment is gonna be in Spanish and it’s your turn to do the translation.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    As an atheist, I find the priority allotted to “a real atheist politics” and “to true atheism” puzzling. Can’t the non-existence of God take care of itself quite satisfactorily, without us having to get programmatic in its defense? Still, if going in this direction, subsumption under intelligence escalation seems the way to go, assuming we trust an entity with a four-digit IQ to arrive at more authoritative opinions about reality than we are able to. (The underlying question of the importance of doctrinal commitment to political purposes is an important one that I’m sure we’ll get to nag at further, a lot.)

    One thing I agree with very strongly: De-moralization of theoretical arguments is always to be welcomed, from the philosophical perspective. The stilling of moral twitches is almost philosophy itself.

    Thos Ward Reply:

    Hmmm. This is more challenging than I thought. I haven’t formally studied this. My claim on Bryant is the intuition of longtime reading of his Larval Subjects blog- he seems to protest too much. I’d have to dig a bit to pull out the specific stimuli for this impression.

    Regarding Latour, he was pretty much called a crypto-reactionary sentimental Catholic at the American Anthropological Association meeting last month at his panel. MIT’s Fischer ominously suggested that Latour’s perspective should make one worry about what’s coming in Europe. (Latour has been a longtime advocate of the flat ontology between humans and things – a social symmetry)

    Harman is accused of being reactionary by way of his anti-politics. Here’s one example: http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-marginalia-on-radical-thinking/

    Here’s a choice quote from that link:

    “Harman and these others in OOO often take pride in calling this a “democratization.” But now let’s be clear, it is actually an anti-democratization, in two ways. First because it removes the point of decision from people (the demos) to the object world at large. So the word simply doesn’t make sense in the context of OOO. In fact the closest English word we have for Harman’s cosmology is “bureaucracy” (rule by office furniture), but “pragmacracy” (rule by things) or “hylecracy” (rule by stuff) are probably closer to Harman’s intent. And second because it allows certain objects to have more natural “gravity” than others, thus in essence letting their “votes” count double or triple.

    So despite their protestations OOO still doesn’t have a reliable way to distinguish between “good” and “bad” objects. In other words OOO doesn’t make much room for a theory of judgment, since it’s busy kneecapping the human. And this is why we’ve seen that OOO can’t seem to produce the two things that philosophy has always grounded in a theory of judgment: an aesthetics and a politics.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 28th, 2013 at 5:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    I’m not sure that “splitting” will happen so much as neoreaction will come to be represented by a number of loosely affiliated institutions. cf. the libertarian tradition and how it is represented varyingly by organizations.

    And if splitting is intrinsic to neoreaction, I think this will have the actual effect of pushing us more together. Insofar as there are “splits” they are splits as according to different reasoning and values, which makes neoreaction stronger than modernism as long as it respects this pluralism.

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    Now that I’ve read the More Right post this is related to, I have more thoughts.

    It’s curious that there is this sort of convergence on similar solutions, as this implies that we share a fundamental agreement in principles which, given the same general experience and awareness of reality, only naturally leads to the same solutions. “Splitting” is a sign of victory. There will be cults within neoreaction, just as there are cults of the Saints. Those who are introduced to neoreaction will latch on to particular thinkers as being stylistically more akin to their own personality. I have my favorites, I can only assume everyone else does as well. The question is whether these cults are tribal or local. Does having a favorite mean disliking another? That would be tribalism. If having a favorite has no such effect, then cults may not be merely okay, they may be preferable.

    As to the construction of an “institution building institution,” I think this illustrates the relative detachment from politics of neoreaction. As I say at the end of the section on anarchism in my book:

    The ultimate hope is not in the “right state” but the “right institutional structure of society.”

    Or, to put it another way, social philosophy has a priority over political philosophy. Hence insofar as one is inclined to view neoreaction as involved with politics, it is more a philosophy of political philosophy.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    “The ultimate hope is not in the “right state” but the “right institutional structure of society.”

    Agree.

    Politics needs to be confined to a few people in a back room, and I’ll fight for a world where gangsters come and go by the back door, and most people never see one.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Reaction may be the first original thinking in a century. That alone would justify Moldbug’s existence…

    [hate this term but true] The more buzz the better.

    As to intellectual productivity vs real world status seeking…as long as we have corporeal form and our loved ones have the same corporeal limitation, we should prefer real world anything.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 28th, 2013 at 8:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    The only splitting I see is that some christians believe they can coexist with progressivism.

    They will be assimilated, as the rest of “right wing Christianity” already has been.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Mr. Jim,

    The essence of Michael Colllins method was financial, working in the London City Banks taught him to write people off.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 28th, 2013 at 8:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ambacti Says:

    I am relatively new to NR and it seems to me that the movement is at best a literary coterie and at worst a club of particularly perceptive geeks who fall into the intellectual trap of circuitous flattery. Improbable though it may be, if the Cathedral was forced to accept HBD, the remainder of the neoreactionary movement may be revealed as an excess vestige. Does a Cathedral excised of belief in HNU have any teeth? Wouldn’t simply restricting suffrage within the current political systems stem the deterioration of western civilization? I have not read any neoreactionary responses to these sort of questions and would greatly appreciate if someone would point me in the right direction.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Wouldn’t simply restricting suffrage within the current political systems stem the deterioration of western civilization?” — It’s the “simply” there that makes it hard to digest. If contemporary Western society were capable of restricting suffrage (rather than struggling endlessly to expand it) we would be in such a different cultural and political environment that — I agree — many of our animating problems would already have melted away.

    [Reply]

    Ambacti Reply:

    A Lysenkoist strain has taken over socialism, largely as a response to the excesses of National Socialism. It is its espousal of human neurological uniformity that makes modern socialism so caustic and pernicious. I am actually quite sympathetic to the eugenically inclined strain of early 20th century progressivism. We are confronting a folk belief system with science, this is our greatest strength. When I articulate HBD ideas within a socialist framework and deride HNU as a pseudo-scientific anti-Darwinian doctrine, I generally get positive responses from otherwise traditional leftist hipsters (so long as they are males and not directly employed by the Cathedral).

    Would you agree with the assertion that the apolitical diffusion of psychometric research into the wider culture is the most profitable Neoreactionary exercise? Would you agree with the assertion that reform of the Cathedral is a more desirable outcome than a potentially unpleasant ideological discontinuity (a circumstance which will very likely necessitate some posters here having bullets put in their napes by other posters)? What do you think the likelihood is that a Neoreactionary regime will eventually gravitate toward a system that will look very much like our contemporary political arrangements with restricted suffrage?

    I bring these questions up because, as a neutral observer, I am thoroughly disheartened by the character of the recent discourse at Techcrunch. The rejection of all substantive responses targeted at their HBD weak-point combined with the grandiose and esoteric title of the movement, which lends itself well to ridicule, resulted in a rather fruitless exercise. The Cathedral has a strong and effective immune reaction to any ideology that orients itself against it, breaking through its frontal defenses is an unenviable task. Taking a hint from Derbyshire, I enjoy success with term “Dissident Progressive”, it appeals to the leftist vanity for distinction and victim-hood, while allowing penetration past its first stage defenses. Neoreaction is hardly reactionary, it has strains as utopian and proactive as any progressive movement, therefore I feel it is not entirely disingenuous to explore this angle of attack.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Wouldn’t simply restricting suffrage within the current political systems stem the deterioration of western civilization?

    Wouldn’t a society capable of restricting suffrage have already stemmed the deterioration of western civilization.

    [Reply]

    peppermint Reply:

    No. Europe didn’t have racial minorities until they chose to import them; minorities in many European countries are still not significant enough as a vote bank that if we could get a small majority of Whites on one side the democratic-socialist revolution could be rolled back.

    Russia never had any significant minorities. Communism lasted for 80 years.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    yes but if it were still european I dont think we would see it as such an existential threat, socialism can not go on forever so it will not, feminism is fighting nature its a fad,But demography is different much different, and the timing is bad for the white race, Asia is not going to be vulnerable for long all of our productivity is squandered and co opted. This is the ugly truth of reaction it all comes down to the HBD and the demographics of massive immigration and suicidal altruism. The truth is too ugly for even us to contemplate the implications so we divert ourselves with dungeons and dragons and scifi

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Sorry. This entire 4 century melodrama is a white thing. Blacks in America for instance got the vote 32 years after Democracy died in 1933. The Constitution ended except for the Bill Of Rights* in 1935 when the Federal Register came into being.

    *Ask most any American about the Constitution and they’ll refer instantly to the Bill of Rights. Unconsciously and exclusively.

    This is a White thing with some Jews and others tossed in for accounting, lawyering, and flavor…also distraction.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    to clarify – democracy is not to blame. Jim. Admin. Everyone.

    when you’re 80 years absent the scene of the crime, it’s exculpatory evidence.

    Further – the intellectuals are blaming the people for their own sins.

    That alone BTW is proof of unfit to rule.

    And we already have rule of the Intellectuals.

    To the person who said this is a book club – NO. These are mostly Cathedral employees who have had the moment of clarity. This is self interest you are looking at, they see it’s ending. They fear the people because they fear revenge, and the party ending.

    DEC/NR is a splinter faction of the Court Party, the King is sought to keep the party going….for the ruling bureaucracies of the West are a rudderless court with no King. Democracy cannot elect one as it did with FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Reagan, Bush the Elder…because the Court has become so large and voracious since Clinton [a criminal] that anyone who would utter the dread cry of solvency threatens millions of paychecks. The fiat money and endless regulation deathspin motive is simply making payroll. The media court assassins exist to keep honest government as far away as possible, even Alaska was too close [cue Palin hate].

    You’re not looking an Intellectual exercise at all. You are looking at self-preservation.

    James A. Donald Reply:

    As with communism, they need the votes. They rule in the name of the people. Democracy really is to blame. Without elections, they would not need race replacement, would not need to expand the underclass.

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Does a Cathedral excised of belief in HNU have any teeth?

    Well, I suppose that instead of claiming that all men are created equal, they could claim that all white anglo saxon males are created equal, making them nazi instead of commie, but if they admit that people are in general not equal, not much left.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 28th, 2013 at 9:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    The way I see it the neoreaction is, not without some irony, the fulfillment of the promise of the enlightenment. Basically, neoreactionary thought acknowledges the limits of human reason without marginalizing it. By doing so it transcends the ideals held by certain primitivists who promote an asceticism of the mind and the progressives who have exaggerated the merits of our minds to the point where they believe that the human mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, or a hell of heaven. Progressives have removed the institutions that had evolved to protect ourselves from our imperfections and ignorance, because they happened to get a glimpse under nature’s veil and thought that we now could do without such institutions, we disagree.

    I don’t think the fracturing of our community is inevitable The branches of our trinity do not conflict, they synergize. It is difficult to be virtuous, in a religious sense, on an empty stomach or when you are surrounded by people you find it natural to be distrustful of. In the same way markets work better in a high-functioning, high-trust community with a low time-preference. It is difficult to protect one’s own and be fruitful without having access to the material means required for the fulfillment of those purposes and having something that unifies even when practical considerations can make it highly appealing to defect.

    So I basically consider the neoreaction’s reason for being to be the incorporation of the scientific method and it’s fruits(neo) into an outlook that cautions against hubris(reactionary). There may be some friction on certain issues, but overall I don’t see a break happening, since a certain degree of pluralism follows naturally out of priors we all agree on, hbd and the primacy of exit in particular, and to a certain extent our diversity strengthens rather than weakens.

    [Reply]

    Konkvistador Reply:

    “The way I see it the neoreaction is, not without some irony, the fulfillment of the promise of the enlightenment. Basically, neoreactionary thought acknowledges the limits of human reason without marginalizing it. ”

    I like this perspective.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    well I dont see how Christianity does not have the same problem with reaction as it poses to conservatism, its not that it couldnt be toleratedin a reactionary culture but the revealed vs reasoned dichotomy and the individual vs the Body of Christ What I see is Religion is part of the ethnic specific evolutionary feedback loop and we have not yet selected out of it so its not something to be suppressed but our technology has changed our environment faster than our genes and if we are to survive we must have our wits about us at the decision making level.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    The optimal value for in-group racial, religious, or ethnic preference is almost never 100% or 0%, corresponding to tribal barbarsim and universalist socialism respectively. Traditional Christianity has, can, and ought continue to coexist reasonably well anywhere between those two extremes.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    Im sympathetic to religion but I really dont see how Christianity it wouldnt deconstructing watever level of ethno state you find optimal all over again. after all we started the last time with some fairly good controls

    Posted on November 28th, 2013 at 10:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • peppermint Says:

    I think Moldbug’s original idea of formalism, and the reason he took the namesake Mencius, is actually the true meaning and purpose of neoreaction.

    We are to reject political ambition, build the antiversity, and make a rectification of names.

    Splitting will happen because there are different perspectives in the community of scholars. Perhaps at some point there will be different names; so let a hundred flowers bloom. The rejection of political ambition means that those with different names do not threaten each other.

    One day, after the decent life for decent people is established, and goodness and greatness reigns again, some scholars may begin to try supplementing their lackluster ability with political ambition; some powerful people may forget their responsibilities to their inferiors; a new democracy and socialism may arise. But perhaps, if in our hope and faith, we can find a few hundred years of peace and prosperity, then we will have succeeded beyond any historical expectations.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 2:20 am Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    Wars of Exclusion

    Any regime that has relied on exploitation and conflict to further its interests is bound by the limit of a contradiction. This is the ineluctable way of war. I thought that I’d explained it before.

    “…any socio-ethnic-national structure that has engaged in such hostilities, has necessarily limited the scope of its moral code, as not applying to all persons.
    If this limitation is based on empirical boundaries, geographic, genetic, cultural, linguistic, etc., it can be subject to the vacillation of those boundaries, their variance. This would generate the need for logics of ‘purity’ to legitimate where the moral code applies.
    These logics of ‘purity’ would necessarily lead to idealisations that have no empirical instantiation.
    They would lead to scenarios of contradiction: where idealisations, stemming from the valorisation of empirical instances, themselves ‘impure’ hybrids, finally clash.
    All of this results from any morality that founds itself on its own selective transgression. The very selection of its location of inapplicability, becomes the fulcrum around which it unravels, the logic of exclusion and dissolution, essentially being one and the same.”

    ‘Neoreaction’ consists in the deflation of this idea, of its logic, sheltering in the hope that inflations of empirical circumstance can perpetually defer its course. Ordinarily, such tactics have sometimes worked, in limited fashion. But a ‘global village’ is less amenable to the modalities of prior exploitations, though new ones have, indeed, developed.
    With the onset of a ‘networked world’, bastions of privilege relying on anything other than innate merit are slowly becoming disenfranchised. They resent, they react…

    How ‘decent’ is that?

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    This seems to suppose that there are bastions of privilege relying on whiteness, maleness, etc.

    We have been affirmative actioning women into stem fields beyond their ability for over a century. Women are pushed into male activities to which they are ill suited and in which they do not enjoy participating.

    We have been encouraging black and female self esteem, and discouraging white male self esteem for over half a century, with the result that the exaggerated self image of the typical female employee has become profoundly disruptive in the workplace.

    Excessive black self esteem is the major cause of crime.

    In the period of Jim Crow, there were plenty of black professors, judges, lawyers, doctors, etc. On any reasonable evidence, bastions of privilege based on aristocratic birth, maleness, whiteness, etc, had disappeared by the late nineteenth century.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    yeah but if we think a singularity is imminent how far off can making blacks smart as Asians be. While I like the Idea of a meritocracy now its going to be a hell of an arms race

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    @James A. Donald

    “This seems to suppose that there are bastions of privilege relying on whiteness, maleness, etc.”

    I wrote: “bastions of privilege relying on anything other than innate merit are slowly becoming disenfranchised.” That could be interpreted in different ways.
    The extent to which a group consistently uses ‘negative’ tactics, such as sado-masochistic behavioural expressions, disingenuousness, deception, etc., in order to compensate for lack of ‘natural superiority’, in areas where others are not using these tactics, is perhaps a good criterion to identify demerit. Which groupings have consistently done this? Which groups continue to do this? Which groups promote this?

    “We have been affirmative actioning women into stem fields beyond their ability for over a century. Women are pushed into male activities to which they are ill suited and in which they do not enjoy participating.”

    Whose this “We”? You? Those in ‘power’? Who are they?

    “We have been encouraging black and female self esteem, and discouraging white male self esteem for over half a century, with the result that the exaggerated self image of the typical female employee has become profoundly disruptive in the workplace.”

    I’m not a therapist. lol

    “Excessive black self esteem is the major cause of crime.”

    Which ‘crimes’ are those? ‘Their’ mimicking the historical practices of the order into which their ancestors were forcibly enlisted? If you’re talking about ‘Afro-Americans’, it should be kept in mind that they incorporate considerable European genetic heritage. This could explain a lot?

    “In the period of Jim Crow, there were plenty of black professors, judges, lawyers, doctors, etc. On any reasonable evidence, bastions of privilege based on aristocratic birth, maleness, whiteness, etc, had disappeared by the late nineteenth century.”

    You really believe that?

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    when I was a typical conservative I thought a lot about the relative success of blacks during Jim Crow compared to post welfare state, and more or less concluded that while perhaps blacks were somewhat ill adapted for a modern society without welfare they would be better off. and an accommodation could be reached.But later when convinced of the realities and extent of HBD my first reaction was utter despair when the implications sunk in, then for a while I thought again what if we had been realistic from the start and realized blacks needed a strong and confident paternal hand to survive in a modern world to dissuade any outbursts over uneven outcomes but a just hand cognizant that we had brought them out of the environment they were adapted for. But of course it would never have worked its more or less what was tried I learned that black crime and riots were with us from even slaverytimes that a separate but equal system is not sustainable,So I am back to hopeless

    Konkvistador Reply:

    “any socio-ethnic-national structure that has engaged in such hostilities, has necessarily limited the scope of its moral code”

    Emh Universalism is the anomaly that needs explaining in humans not the other way around.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    @Konkvistador

    “Emh Universalism is the anomaly that needs explaining in humans not the other way around.”

    If a “socio-ethnic-national structure” is a particular structure amongst others, others which it chooses to relate to according to an explicitly hostile mode, this necessarily limits “the scope of its moral code”.

    Such a limited moral code does not, then, apply to the ‘universal set’, if you like, of all “socio-ethnic-national structure[s]”.
    If such a limited moral code is based on an innate injustice, it would be difficult to promote it as a good, whilst simultaneously promoting ideas like ‘justice’, ‘fairness’, etc., all the ‘gingerbread’ that has been, and continues to be, used in favour of Eurocentric & Occidental modalities of ‘the political’ and ‘the religious’ (Christianity, Islam, etc. – [monotheistic ‘Universality’] )
    To do so, would be disingenuous. The tool used, ‘equality’, to ‘con’ the disaffected into joining the regime? But we know that.
    Notice, I didn’t say ‘Universalism’, that was your importation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 2:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Hawk Spitui Says:

    My take is that Moldbug’s political philosophy is a lot like his software – it’s a toolbox, not a specific tool. It’s not an ideology or theory of government in the same sense libertarianism or socialism are. Rather, it’s a set of insights your more pragmatic retail politician types might adopt constructing a theory of governance. I think of it as a meta-ideology.

    In a sense, it’s reminds me of the personal computer. In and of itself, when it was first introduced, it didn’t really do anything useful, it was a toy for geeks and developers. It became useful only after the early adopters began writing software to solve particular problem. Maybe another analogy would be the internet.

    I tend to view neoreaction as intellectual infrastructure, a prerequisite for ideology, rather than an ideology in and of itself. The tools are there, and eventually will be picked up to construct an ideology, or ideologies. I don’t really view the “splitting” as a problem, I view it as experiments in applying the insights of neoreaction. It should be encouraged, not feared.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 3:07 am Reply | Quote
  • Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Says:

    Splits have already happened.

    To quote admin:

    “Much to my dismay, radical anti-capitalism is probably a dominant tendency in the ‘reactosphere’ — if you run through my blogroll, you’ll come across plenty of it. If you really want the hot sauce (pretty much Left-Marxism with some of the most embarrassing stupidity clipped out) you could go straight to a European New Right thinker, like Benoist. Personally, I’d be in the trenches with the powers-that-be if I thought that was the alternative.”

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Then your blogroll sucks. I don’t see the anti capitalism, perhaps because I perceive anyone anti capitalist as a cathedral faction trying to be lefter than each of the other Cathedral factions. The Nazis were a branch of the progressives in the sense that the Marxists were, and world war II was over which branch would become the mainstream of progressivism

    As Handle says: http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/who-knew/

    America Is A Communist Country because it has been pursuing this dream, and spreading it by the sword, since it was born. For every two steps forward it takes a reckless action and tries for a bridge too far, stumbles, gathers its senses for a brief moment, and then reacts and takes a step back away from the cliff. The Pilgrims restore private property; Reconstruction ends, the country returns to normalcy; It’s morning in America.

    But some collectivist innovations become permanently part of each new foundation, and the space for restorative corrections shrinks and shrinks.

    Capitalism simply works. Anti capitalism just does not. If people don’t notice this they are as blind as those who think that women and men are equal.

    The market provides coordination. If you don’t have coordination through markets, prices, and private property, the state finds itself drowned in an impossible administrative task: you wind up with bureaucratic self strangulation in red tape as explained by Hayek, as exemplified by Soviet Russia, as dramatized by Ayn Rand.

    If you don’t have capitalism You get thousand page legislation as the state substitutes itself for markets, prices and the authority of the owner over his own property, which legislation is a bunch of headers for ten thousand page regulations. The regulations don’t work, so the president issues executive orders that they shall work.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’re obviously insulated from the Michael Anissimov wing of NR, which is primarily focused on monarchical politics, and roughly intermediate between Ortho-distributists and the European New Right. Other than More Right itself (which hosts some occasional writers that I like a lot), this spectrum isn’t strongly represented on my blogroll, but it’s twitterish as hell. The entire swathe is polemically anti-capitalist from end to end. Mentioning Ayn Rand to any of those people would be like throwing a Moldbug reference into a Prog forum — met with splenetic hostility, derision, and unacknowledged incomprehension.

    Of course, I could crop the NR section of my blogroll down to reliable pro-capitalists (and even add a few of them, which I will eventually). That would leave perhaps five or six blogs. It won’t be happening any time soon because the discord is too entertaining — and still educational.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Anti capitalist monarchists are perhaps neo reactionaries, but they are not part of the Dark Enlightenment, for the dark enlightenment is the real reality based community.

    And, I would also disown those Christians who think they can make peace with modernity if they hide Saint Paul in the basement behind the water heater. They may be race realists, but if not sex realists, not part of the Dark Enlightenment.

    Now I can understand a Christian not being a race realist while being a sex realist, but if he is the other way around, not only do I deny his Dark Enlightenment credentials, but also his Christian credentials.

    raptros_ Reply:

    excellent. the term “Dark Enlightenment” is now being recast to refer to a specific school within the neoreaction, and its definition is being set. i’m fairly confident in predicting that a variety of schools will emerge in response, e.g. a school of neoreactionaries influenced by Christopher Lasch.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Distributism has an unfortunate tendancy to be seen (and sometimes smugly see itself) as some sort of third way between socialism and capitalism. But if you press a distributist hard, who happens to know something about economics, you’ll usually find that what they are REALLY advocating, with modern lingo stripped away, is a sort of anarchism, a type which reigned throughout the Middle Ages. Score one for NR. Distributism is just a name given to what tends to happen naturally, given certain levels of social cohesion, without the modern liberal doctrines of socialism and capitalism.

    fotrkd Reply:

    I think I see where this is headed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 3:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    @AmbactiYes … Good point on Russia and its 80 years of communism. France is a similar example. I know the south is largely Muslim (particularly Marseilles) as are the suburbs around Paris and Lyon. BUT … if you go to Bordeaux, for instance, there are almost no Muslims. Everyone looks sharp and intelligent and quite attractive. And yet … France is a borderline communist country. It was so before the Arabs came and tilted the political dynamic further to the left (at least temporarily). So it’s not clear to me that booting out minorities would be a ball-advancer. If anything, we seem to be seeing a scenario in which the presence of minorities is actually generating a backlash and pushing the rest of the population to the right in a kind of assabiyah-amassing way.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Bryan Caplan makes that point regularly. It is not easily dismissed. (Sweden provides another obvious example.)

    [Reply]

    DB Reply:

    The point has some validity. However, vaccination involves controlled doses and neutralized samples. Greatly reducing the volume and virulence of incompatible groups *can* be a significant gain (for demographic reasons, if nothing else) even while total removal would be counterproductive.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Class war on private property was not moving us left far enough and fast enough. Unable to manufacture a big enough underclass fast enough, they proceeded to import a racially distinct underclass.

    Which made it kind of obvious what they were up to and what the end result was intended to be.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 4:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
    Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
    That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
    Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
    And Bitcoins for convoy put into his purse;
    We would not die in that man’s company
    That fears his fellowship to die with us.

    My best hope is that we are realists, Perhaps sentimental or romantic for ages remembered as virtuous but ultimately our heroics are to face bravely The Denouement

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 6:02 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Look!! An Exit Squirrel..

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2514936/The-incredible-mile-long-floating-CITY–complete-schools-hospital-parks-airport-50-000-residents.html

    Now as long as it has it’s own naval task force and nuclear weapons, it’s fine..

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Design not workable.

    The dock within a ship depicted is only workable in calm water. You don’t get calm water except in harbors, and the ship is too big to enter harbors. Need a very different docking mechanism, one that can accommodate very large movements between the two ships.

    Solar power and wave power is insufficiently dense to supply such a high density city. Such a floating city would need nuclear power.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    They have to know how ugly that monstrosity looks — what’s the excuse?

    Build something attractive, and it would at least be an option for multimillionaires with a canned sardine fetish … (yes, the drawbacks do rush in like high-pressure seawater through a smashed bulkhead).

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    “Visitors and residents would be able to leave the ship, either by plane or by boat”

    Hey, no problem, anyone can take a flight onto the Freedom Ship… as long as they’ve got a pilot rated for aircraft carrier landings.

    I get that it’s aiming for the elite here but how many private pilots have done carrier landings?

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 9:44 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Happy Moldbuggy Thanksgiving.

    Paris Society, 1788.

    “They conclude that the Revolution will soon be consummated, that superstition and fanaticism must wholly give way to philosophy, and they thus calculate the probabilities of the epoch and those of the future society which will see the reign of reason. The most aged lament not being able to flatter themselves that they will see it; the young rejoice in a reasonable prospect of seeing it, and especially do they congratulate the Academy on having paved the way for the great work, and on having been the headquarters, the center, the inspirer of freedom of thought. “

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 2:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Ah Democracy…how it brings out the savage beast of intellect.*

    There’s a lot here so I’ll take it in bites [I’m working from yesterday thru weekend, so do allow me];

    “As with communism, they need the votes.” This statement stands on it’s own merits, or lack thereof. Formal communism needed the votes far less than our very involved crypto- communism, but neither one needs the votes to survive. It’s an empty ritual.

    When CS Lewis imagined Hell he imagined an office, not elections, not a mob.

    Further your projecting sins of the elites onto the people again. This is the criminal blaming the victim, she was asking for it.

    *Don’t ever doubt the blood of Lucy the Hominid runs truest at the University.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Formal communism needed the votes far less than our very involved crypto- communism, but neither one needs the votes to survive. It’s an empty ritual.

    Not empty. Why do soldiers obey?

    The natural state of the army is for power to slide down to the lowest ranking officers capable of organizing logistics, who typically are colonels. Getting an army to cohere on a larger scale than this is a problem to which no one has found any good solutions.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Jim soldiers are people who want to protect their people, by killing other people.

    That’s the American soldier, and I daresay the above is timeless.

    The American soldier Jim isn’t exactly renowned for his obedience, which seems contradictory if you don’t know them, or the nature of war. The American soldier is a natural rebel. More so now than ever, for Gods sake our culture wants neutered puzzloids.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 3:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Paris Society, 1788.

    “They conclude that the Revolution will soon be consummated..”

    HEH HEHH EHH HEH LOL LOL LMAO HEE HEE

    Oh Mr. Curtis, what have you done?

    We’re at the beginning of the end of something, we may live to see the first rays of light of what is Next.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 4:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Says:

    “Anti capitalist monarchists are perhaps neo reactionaries, but they are not part of the Dark Enlightenment, for the dark enlightenment is the real reality based community.”

    Well Jim, if that is true (and I don’t think it is), it creates a strange sort of asymmetry,

    Presumably the “Dark Enlightenment” was originally called the “Dark Enlightenment” because it raises strong questions about many of the principles of the “regular Enlightenment”. Equality, democracy, human rationality, freedom of choice, individualism, rights of man, etc.

    The predominant ideological justifications for laissez-faire capitalism come from those same enlightenment ideas. Markets as a natural result of the exercise of human liberty and the free interactions of many individuals acting rationally, in their own self interest, etc.

    It would thus be rather strange if the Dark Enlightenment included not only a take down of the principles of the enlightenment, but a wholehearted endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism using the same old enlightenment ideas that it just discredited. After all, if the Cathedral can make people support open borders, change genders or marry Australian aborigines, it can certainly influence whether we choose Coke or Pepsi, should it so desire. Or influence what kind of mortgage we “freely choose” to sign up for.

    If the Dark Enlightenment is a set of ugly truths, then it seems to be rather silent about economics at the moment. Most people who self identify as neoreactionaries are, of course, strongly in favor of laissez-faire capitalism, but this isn’t based on a unique insight of the Dark Enlightenment, it is based on conventional truths that they share with conventional, pro-enlightenment ideologies like libertarianism.

    This suggests the possibility that there is a “Darker Enlightenment” with regard to economics that is still to come, something beyond orthodox libertarianism, something that more accurately reflects a world where people are not rational and do not choose “freely”.

    You may object that capitalism needs no ideological justification, because it works. Sure, but it works in the same way that evolution works. It’s not inherently progressive, nor is it “conservative”. It doesn’t care about preserving your way of life, your people, your religion (computer based or not), etc. If you want something from it you’ll need to impose your will upon it one way or the other. If you don’t someone with a conflicting vision may well do so instead.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    The predominant ideological justifications for laissez-faire capitalism come from those same enlightenment ideas. Markets as a natural result of the exercise of human liberty and the free interactions of many individuals acting rationally, in their own self interest, etc.

    The early advocates of capitalism opposed slavery on that basis. They were wrong. Slaves were, for the most part, people who had been enslaved because they did an extremely bad job of making their own decisions for themselves. When they were freed, disaster ensued.

    But some people, not very many, perhaps as few as Ayn Rand’s rational elite, perhaps as many as La Griffe du Lion’s smart fraction, are capable of acting with the required degree of rationality and long term time preference. Some people, considerably less than half of all adult males, how much less is debated, do deserve and can competently use, liberty.

    The proof is evident. Capitalism works. No other method of coordinating human action works on a large scale.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    You may object that capitalism needs no ideological justification, because it works. Sure, but it works in the same way that evolution works. It’s not inherently progressive, nor is it “conservative”. It doesn’t care about preserving your way of life, your people, your religion

    You will notice that the greenies are having problems halting natural selection, and similarly the Cathedral is finding that having smashed capitalism, it is drowning under the pieces.

    As the Cathedral attempts to substitute itself for markets, prices, and the private decision making of millions of private property owners, it finds itself operating without a budget, passing thousand page bills unread, where every header in the bill corresponds to ten thousand pages of unknown and unforeseeable regulation, which regulations prove unworkable, and so are supplemented ad hoc by executive decrees.

    Under present circumstances, it is as crazy to oppose capitalism as it is to think that women are equal to men.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    @Jim

    “Cathedral is finding that having smashed capitalism, it is drowning under the pieces”

    Well, they smashed something and replaced it with what we seem to be referring to as globalist crony capitalism. It’s hard to know for sure how the effects of globalist crony capitalism differ from the hypothetical effects of globalist libertarian capitalism. On some issues the two systems might have relatively similar effects, as China might, for example, have a comparative advantage in manufacturing in both systems.

    The claim that they’ve smashed Capitalism seems a bit hyperbolic, but I understand your point. Certainly the managerial state has gotten out of hand, although I suspect that at this point they can write ten thousand pages of regulations about almost anything, not just the instances when they try to manage capitalism.

    “Under present circumstances, it is as crazy to oppose capitalism as it is to think that women are equal to men.”

    Not convinced. Opposing free trade seems like a prime example of a situation where a state might wish to oppose (read: direct) capitalism.

    In the present circumstances, where China exists, it seems as crazy to wholeheartedly endorse free trade as it does to think that all your 90 IQ proles can be retrained to become lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so on.

    Historically, states have manufactured stuff and used tariffs to protect their industries and it doesn’t always seem to have caused them to descend into the kind of regulatory sclerosis that we see in the United States today.

    The public justification for free trade was actually based on egalitarianism; the promise of glamorous new jobs in the service industry. Turns out a lot of people aren’t smart enough to become professionals, so their service industry jobs tend to be stuff like retail, which is a big step down, not sufficient to raise a family and tends to result in a pretty quick degradation of proles to lumpenproles. See: Britain.

    Techno-commercialist city states may be able to exclude people with average / below average IQs, but regular countries are stuck with them. Countries run along ethno-nationalist lines may want to make an attempt at using tariffs, etc, to keep some manufacturing jobs, suitable for their citizens of modest talents, rather than simply allowing all those jobs to go to the third world.

    In libertarian parlance, that’s anti-capitalist.

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    Capitalism isn’t something you can be in favor of or oppose.

    Capitalism describes what happens when some entity enforces contract law and protects private property. “Capitalism” is a derogatory term for order and the absence of capitalism in some area is anarchy. Capitalism isn’t justified because it “works” – it’s a description of what people will do if you provide order. NR governments will provide order.

    Now, does this mean that every contract will be enforced? Of course not. If trading with China makes the realm a worse place then don’t enforce contracts to trade with China and use the security apparatus to apprehend and punish those who do trade with China. However, too much enforcement that costs money (in ensuring that the members of the security apparatus aren’t being paid to look the other way) and enriches enemies of the state (people who conduct trade in areas you’ve banned) destabilizes the realm because the most important fact of NR government is that it is stronger than all its potential opponents. Maybe this is a cost a government can pay to improve the realm and maybe it isn’t.

    But it has nothing to do with an ideological commitment to “capitalism”.

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 4:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Neo-reaction should strive to be a real Political Party—a Government… in Exile.

    Workable models include Hamas, Golden Dawn, and ???.

    US politics is designed specifically, moreso than Greece, Palestine, Israel, or even Brtain, to avoid giving any power whatsoever to a Government in Exile, but this should not be a concern. What is a concern is if you were, per impossible, to replace the current USG with the “NR Party”, it would work, and few people would die.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @NBS,

    See’s the Light. To an extent.

    Political Party without power is merely turning your existence into clickbait for Statists.

    HAMAS came into existence with a powerful sponsor [the chosen themselves] and is sustained by powerful sponsors [like USG and it’s front the EU].

    Golden Dawn should have skipped the Community Services model, it works for Cathedral sponsored organizations of the Left, not actual ordinary people. Like Greeks. Greeks like someone standing up for them…

    The lesson of Golden Dawn is focus on what’s important and who can get it. In Greece the only hope the Greeks have is the police and army, and veterans.

    I should mention that in collapse that’s what hope those that make it have. If you’re American Redneck you will probably be alright for awhile as well.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Oh, I’d say the Community Services Model is an excellent way to A) make us look like we care (we actually do, most of us); B) recruit; and C) build military style discipline… and who knows maybe some other stuff.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    well then work through the tea party Its a minority opinion around here but even buying time might save us stopping anymore nonwhites becoming citizens is crucial to ever turning this around without an ethnic cleansing situation

    VXXC Reply:

    If you’re going to take the community organizing model work through the Hezbollah model not HAMAS. All 3 are wrong but…

    HAMAS is FEAR and gangsterism, MB. It runs on fear, degradation, more than an acute strain of organized crime.

    HEZB with whom I’m not infatuated either wins by careful recruiting and grooming and above all the Inner Jihad [struggle with evil human nature] prior to other training. This is why Hizb succeeded where others failed.

    Now both are very wrong, but Hezb answer less wrong.

    And you completely missed my point and I daresay Moldbug on the same issue. Both of these organizations have Cathedral support or tacit permissions, and 3d party and country support. DEC will have neither. It will have the full force of self preservation monkey brained fury.

    @ Michael – ref the Tea Party. I don’t know about you but I don’t send My Mother out to do the dirty work. Mommy – To The Barricades!! NO.

    The Tea Party – which just had it’s Health Care cancelled [individual health insurance plans] – is a stay at home Mom organized and led organization by a bunch of Mommies sitting round the kitchen tables and realizing they were looking at national and household bankruptcy. And household penury across the nation.
    That’s not metaphor or allegory, that’s literal.

    That’s what happened. Your average “tea party terrorist cadre leader” literal/actual profile is “stay at home mom.” Please forget all this shit about Koch Brothers and astroturf. That’s the professional Dems and paid professional leftists best guess about what they were looking at. They couldn’t accept it or believe it, the victim rose and resisted as it was having dirt shoveled on the corpse.

    If by Tea Party you mean organize American style around hearth and altar, with the open Air Revival – sure. The actual organization itself and it’s gatherings should be avoided. Unless you want Mom to storm the barricades. Not a mom task.

    Konkvistador Reply:

    No No No No.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Have to agree (strongly) with Konkvistador. Government in Exile? — OK (possibly). But why the hell conceive it as a political party?

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    I didn’t say political party simpliciter, but a Real Political Party—an actual sovereign corporation that, while it remains out of power, governs only itself.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 5:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    @Saddam Hussein’s Whirling Aluminium Tubes
    no as ive been saying its all down to HBD and that excludes the christian and the socialist legs because they are not compatible capitalism is evolution. while we can acknowledge we have evolved a little lopsided and that culture is a balancing mechanism and to be accommodated in the short run long term we seek greater efficiency. For the same reasons that an ethno state will be most efficient and in my opinion the only sustainable form while we are still reproducing sexually the average IQ citizens will produce the next generation of Musks only if they have the economic security and dignity whites require for family formation. I would think if we were not spending trillions on non white accommodation to say little of the cultural capital expended this might be all that was needed.And while I am a hard core Randian capitalist in my head I will go only this far if the race dividend proved to not be sufficient some market friendly devices ought to be found to encourage the production of future generation as they are needed by all.
    Ill say one other thing somewhere between the 2001/2008 crash and the discovery of dark thought I opened my mind to re examining my Ayn Rand stance.Lets stipulate that we all agree the that friendly environments for the John Galts/ Elon Musks benefit us, we trade the effort of our society to capitalist for their efforts as well as a negotiated royalty, as other countries do the same our environment loses its value though probably costs less to maintain and we accrue value from it independent of great mens ideas. Great men may have been instrumental in guiding us to such a position. but never the less bill gates isnt going to sell windows in somalia Musk isnt going to drive his cars on dirt roads Soros cant speculate without the rule of law. This is worth something technology has I hope temporarily created a situation where some of these entrepreneurs can escape that cost. They can be just as short sighted as the community organizers, We can not allow them to use us then escape taxes and sell technology that could destroy us to known enemies. this neednt be a socialist or market wrecking mechanism but some distinctions could be made between corporations that are international vs national technologies that are existentially important are rarely born whole out of some geniuses mind our infrastructure incubated them and negotiated restrictions can be part of contractual pricing, If Zuckerberg want to go it alone we not care and simply tax him on what he does here if has some secret sauce that could hurt us to that degree we trade access to our markets infrastructure workforce schools etc for accommodations. Perhaps our state department treats some corporations like foreign entities

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @michael,

    Do you really think that Musk or any number of them** would not like China’s economic policies implemented as protectionist policies in America? With our advantages? We’re quite worth the extra wages and they know it . What drives them out is our Government and it’s Cathedral. Of course they take their dirty money and leave if that’s the price of survival and profit.

    Are you kidding? America’s system of Capital Finance and entreprenership, rule of law, and the same Protections that allowed us to rise as a great nation restored? A predatory government removed?

    The Capitalists are not the problem. Low Grade Statist, rapacious moronic government motivated by an intense hatred of our people is the DIRE PROBLEM, not jobs for eggplants.

    Until you understand that the last 50 years happened in America because our elites HATE AMERICANS you understand nothing. Turn on MSNBC. Who do you think is watching? The Eggplants? Mexicans? The Mexicans are here for ethnic genocide. Not votes, not welfare. That’s malice Mike. We are flooded with porn and drugs because our elites hate us, not because their “liberal”. Prisons are emptied, insane ayslums emptied because THEY HATE US.

    China succeeds because Chinese elites don’t hate Chinese . I imagine there’s plenty of snobbery, but I doubt they loathe and hate their own.

    This is why BTW until they got sucked into our Housing scam, the social democracies of Europe ran well. Their governments don’t hate them.

    You won’t ever have good government under any model with a government that Hates, Fears, and Loathes it’s people, and is motivated by endless malice towards all, and considers Justice to leave none not ruined or destroyed.

    **[soros is a vile exception, he only ruins and builds nothing, he is a Jew who colloborated with the Nazis as a child for fucks sake]…

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    yes I agree they hate us actually for most of them I think its more contempt I dont speak to my own brother for this reason. They have been indoctrinated they think we are stupid and mean and greedy and superstitious; they really do, they have politicized absolutely everything from food to toilet paper but will be outraged if you point this out or disagree, but they must these things are settled they are simple and to disagree is to be absolutely moronic or evil or both.But they dont think very deeply though often are well educated here moldbug is right its a fashion a status thing and could be changed.It will be changed because they system is not sustainable and the mothership can not save a tenth of them not a hundredth they have burnt all the bridges and will suffer with the rest and that will change them. The question is will it be in time to re take our territory back and if it is and we rebuild then I wonder about how to proceed

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 5:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    bill gates isnt going to sell windows in somalia Musk isnt going to drive his cars on dirt roads Soros cant speculate without the rule of law. This is worth something technology has I hope temporarily created a situation where some of these entrepreneurs can escape that cost. They can be just as short sighted as the community organizers, We can not allow them to use us then escape taxes and sell technology that could destroy us to known enemies

    Soros is a crony capitalist. He bets against governments, while using political influence to get governments to make taxpayers take the other side of the bet.

    Tax payments are of negative value, because the more money actually existent governments have, the more damage they do. Thus if anyone evades taxes, he benefits me.

    Most US Government money is spent on mugger spawn, and on financial incentives for the Mexican Indio underclass to come to the US (During last months of the housing boom, the major buyers of million dollar houses, damn near the only buyers of million dollar houses in california were no-hablo english illegal alien indios with no income, no job, and no assets. The housing boom was, in the end, entirely welfare housing. Do you want Bill Gates to contribute to that?

    We are exporting technology to China because it is increasingly impractical to implement technology in the US. If you have a cool advance, you are going to go to Asia because the capacity and will to build it here no longer exists. Video disks are based on blue light lasers, invented in Asia. Smartphones and kindles are based on screen technology that was in substantial part invented in the west, but which could never have been built in the west.

    Consider, for example, the environmental impact statement. No one has ever honestly passed an environmental impact statement. The only way you could ever legitimately pass an environmental impact statement would be to dig a shallow grave and then roll the dirt on top of yourself. The only way to pass is bribes and pull. If you have an existing factory and existing business, not a problem, but if there is some new kind of physical thing you want to build, a new enterprise, you are hosed. So off you go to Asia. It is not Bill Gates exporting technology to Asia, it is small time people that you have never heard of, like Barrett Comiskey. The big guys canpass environmental impact statements.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    I agree with everything you write except Id need more info on the tax thing. Obviously Im a hard core capitalist and I thought said it was a given that most government would be privatized or at least outsourced. Still it takes some money to run a society as large as our imagined one.
    what im trying to say is maybe we shouldn’t dismiss the other side of neo reaction as crypto socialists too quickly. My first reaction to the banking fiasco was it was a result of ACORN loans al la Clinton , but then Bush became more than implicated then we see all sorts of malfeasance that make crony capitalist an understatement its like a unholy alliance between banks and sovereign debtors.OK fine we assume we will stomp that shit out but theres something about zuckerberg and co I dont like and its definitely not that they make money. And I dont know how to say this without it sounding socialist but I can only say if thats the only explanation I take it back. Our ideal of economic and genetic survival of the fittest just might have some consequences we want or intend. Remember both have an element of luck its really survival of the luckiest, and the luck is dependent on a large enough pool to draw from, Ok so the payback is the overflow im not talking about social justice im talking about sustainabilty, the other aspect is the arms race we 130 ish IQs are pretty cocky what about when we can create a biological singularity how does that end, I write elsewhere of the only good being to survive and reproduce so on one hand i get if youre on of the lucky 185s the answer is tough luck and perhaps once we no longer need to sexually reproduce thats fine but the transition will be a bitch.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Jim nails it, we can’t build here anymore because it’s vehemently hated that we would build anything to improve ourselves.

    We’ve had the Morgenthau plan implemented against America by Americans.

    That’s America’s Industrial policy. With Green thrown in as the excuse instead of World War II and the Holocaust.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “We’ve had the Morgenthau plan implemented against America by Americans.” — There’s been a lot of superb commentary on this thread. This line is certainly among the best of it. Since you’re not on twitter (?), I guess I have to steal it.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Please sent Twitter again, I will follow you from web. I’m not on Twitter…or likely to be.

    I consider plagiarism my serial sin and best practice. Steal away.

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 7:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    I learned that black crime and riots were with us from even slaverytimes that a separate but equal system is not sustainable

    There were riots and black crime under slavery and separate but equal?

    When James Froude wandered the west indies, he wandered areas that were entirely black, with never a thought that he might be in any personal danger.

    The lefties went looking for slave revolts. The biggest they found was Nat Turner, who had sixty men at the peak of his revolt. The reason he was able to kill such a large number of whites was that he murdered women and children in their beds, and he was able to do so because the whites did not expect any trouble from blacks.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    I think Radish and those who can see are a good place to start on that, also you could look at hunter gatherer indigenous societies mortality rates.But more importantly I think the unsustainability of multicultural societies may come from the character of the ruling classes

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    The Character of the Ruling Classes: GOD.HATES.YOU.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 7:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Distributism has an unfortunate tendancy to be seen (and sometimes smugly see itself) as some sort of third way between socialism and capitalism. But if you press a distributist hard,

    Try pressing them on the Pilgrims. They will, like Scott Alexander, deny that the Pilgrims were socialists.

    Why the denial unless they want to try what the Pilgrims tried all over again, no matter how many times it has ended in famine and mass die off?

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    no doubt the pilgrims socialist tendencies almost got them killed but of course their authoritarian tendencies did as much harm many thinking themselves above work. One thing I have enjoyed is thinking of those colonies as America being founded by the first corporations,even if the subscribers were if not under duress had another agenda.Are not all Christians socialists small c sometimes large C? yes besides the race dividend we should be able to expect a inverse race dividend in increased social capital.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 29th, 2013 at 7:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Let us avoid political ambitions and build the AntiVersity of Truth and Beauty, and enjoy [while somehow escaping] the decline and collapse.

    Then you should have remained silent. If this was an exercise in masturbation it should have been kept private. It’s rather too late.

    Do you have “political” ambitions of not being destroyed? Know that you’ve been seen. . You are a threat that is no longer being ignored. A mortal one.

    Frankly if I didn’t think DEC had potential of being mortal to them I wouldn’t have given it a second glance.

    Moldbug’s real name is quite out there. This is only the beginning. If you think this is going to be the best idea wins you’re in for a shock. Richwined? Most of the people here if given the mild treatment Richwine was given may want to consider it.

    They are already cornered by their own terrible decisions, bankrupt, and here appears a vigorous mortal threat that calls them by their True names…

    Your choices are simple and stark. You will prevail and utterly destroy the Cathedral, or they will crush you to the level of the groveling and broken Winston Smith.

    Unless they are so near the end they can’t muster the will or strength. That is possible. It’s a shit plan, never mind groundless assumption. Dear Hearts – you are at War.

    I’m in if it’s not clear, but not for talk or the Intellectual Version of the Confederacy – the noble cause lost. Really…it’s quite moving past words soon. The formal bankruptcy will be the leveler as they always are…

    Most can probably run. But some of you are committed.

    You’re at War. This is the Fabian stage, the feeling out…it’s predictable the Press Buzz will increase for a showdown. I don’t think the usual methods of raychiss, marginalization and the rest will work. That means an open conflict. Get ready to be the next Osama Bin Laden…or whatever version. So many are quite talented…there’s more than a chance.

    May I suggest attacking as soon as combat is openly declared. Remember they have the entire world to defend, and it’s all built on lies, corruption, betrayal. Very shaky ground.

    They have a farm and a house, ye have horses and whips. Destroy them and leave.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 2:27 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    DEC has the best chances of any party in the last century, if not longer.

    But you better recognize you’ve started a war however just or necessary.

    If C.Y thinks he wasn’t starting a conflict, he’s truly deluding himself. And he isn’t the type. Those were the words of a man raising the Black Flag of war to the end.

    All the lies of centuries laid bare, the betrayals, the complicity in treason and genocide in other lands, the entire intellectual framework laid bare. Call it what you will, call it Cathedral, call it Democracy, whatever ye call it You’ve have called it OUT.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 2:33 am Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    If the DEC needed a public, a la sincere interview with Charlie Rose face and temperament–which face & temperament I have actually met in person, I could think of none better than Handle. This is more than a little ironic.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    OK and if Handle impresses Charlie Rose the result is?

    The result is more danger for no gain except ..more danger.*

    *when one attacks by definition one is open to attack.

    Of course scratch Handle… probably a waste of Handle.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Well, if Handle impresses Charlie Rose, i.e., by not being ya know a Nazi, the Cathedral goes into a Loop of Infinite Fairness from which it cannot recover. Like programming a computer to find the two integers whose ratio will multiply out to 2 when squared.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Hey it sorta worked like that on Star Trek…compute to the last digit the value of Pi.

    They believe in fair like they believe in diversity, democracy, law, paying bills, manual labor, facing danger. That’s for other people.

    Handle needs to stay under his Handle…as we all should…

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    “You cannot have a rational discussion with a man who prefers shooting you
    to being convinced by you.” — Karl Popper

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 2:47 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    My first reaction to the banking fiasco was it was a result of ACORN loans al la Clinton , but then Bush became more than implicated then we see all sorts of malfeasance that make crony capitalist an understatement

    Your first reaction was sound. The number one criminal was Angelo Mozillo, who is pure essence of affirmative action.

    In the last months of the housing boom, every house sale over a million dollars was to a no-hablo-english mestizo or indio with no income, no job, and no assets, usually an illegal immigrant, which is to say welfare housing, though ACORN was not involved in most of them.

    That is personal observation, not official statistics, but the racial background of the defaults, though reported by the banks, and known to the government is top secret, with like an attack by a gang of “youths” should tell you what you need to know.

    When the music stopped, we saw piles of government corruption, but this was primarily to spare some bankers, but not others, the consequences of making dud loans.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    well I was surprised how bush was more to blame than Clinton,and you realize each of the major banks in the world now has about 75 trillion in credit default swaps on things like interest rates and sovereign debt so financial Armageddon is a surety they have had the laws to changed and plan a bail in and nationalization of retirement accounts. They are likely committing fraud in the gold markets and are at least as complicit in the fiat money debt for votes scam as the politicians.the dark pools and millisecond front running are as bad as any scandal I can think of. to say nothing of the scams like LIBOR Greece etc. The industrialists and technologists are no better. Its not that I haven’t read Atlas Shrugged half a dozen times its just that isnt the reality.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Nothing wrong with credit default swaps. When Iceland went bust, credit default swaps saved the world.

    If the governments had been successful in regulating credit default swaps, Iceland would have brought the world financial system down in flames.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    no in theory nothing is that different about CDS than other futures though not having physical delivery option is significant. But one bank having 75 trillion in bets is an existential threat to the world economy. I couldn’t believe some of this until I started finding primary source accounts and docs. Google the recent changes Bank of international settlements got from all the western countries any money you have in a bank is now considered an unsecured loan exchangeable for its stock this will be the bail in when a 75 trillion tsunami hits.And how can it not the leverage on these CDOs are more insane than forex. the money printing and QE that these bank accommodate the cathedral with may give them free trillions but they are never the less responsible for losses. So sure if they were gambling their own money and it was fully disclosed so I couuld stay away from them and if they were not so big my govt felt bailing them out with my money was moral hazard they had to swallow then sure and no i havnt seen a regulation yet that addresses the problem im not sure they could be unwound without triggering

    VXXC Reply:

    Yes.

    Finance is an arm of government now, trust me. The slightest whiff of slightest Taper on the Fed’s free money machine throws the market into tailspins. There is no market, no more than there was a Housing “Market”.

    Mike it’s not $75 Trillion at stake. It’s over One Quadrillion, in a range of $1.2 Quadrillion to $1.6 Quadrillion in shadow banking. Which BTW Bammu in one of his off hand remarks said USG would cover…

    Quadrillion = 1,000 Trillion.

    Quintillion if you’re wondering. What comes next.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    75 trillion per large bank is what I said, yeah obamas line is one I here in the hood all the time-” I got this” Unfortunately SIPC and FDIC have only a few billion they are not covering anything they plan bail ins

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 2:48 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    Well, they smashed something and replaced it with what we seem to be referring to as globalist crony capitalism.

    We are well past crony capitalism and entering full on socialism.

    In capitalism, the marketplace decides.

    In crony capitalism, the cronies decide

    In socialism, government bureaucrats attempt to decide, though but are overwhelmed by detail, events, and micromanagement, and freeze up, as depicted in “Atlas Shrugged”

    When we have laws thousands of pages long giving rise to regulations tens of thousands pages long, which regulations are rendered irrelevant by events and superseded by presidential decree, it is government bureaucrats attempting to decide, no longer crony capitalists actually deciding.

    If we got back to crony capitalism, it would be a huge improvement. Stuff would actually get done.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    I don’t live in America, I live in Japan. And you’re telling me protectionism is leftist? That it’s bad? Please. Come visit and I’ll show you how it works.

    Hell those Chinese that you love so much are *very* for protectionism. And it suits them quite right.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Protection is working fine for China, because they use it to transfer wealth to people who bring modernity to china.

    Protection really sucks for Japan, because they use it to keep zombie businesses undead.

    When considering protection, you have to ask Stalin’s question: Who whom.

    Because you are not helping people in country A at the expense of people in country B. The major effect is always to help some people in country A at the expense of other people in country A.

    So who are we helping in country A.

    I am not saying it is always a bad idea to help some people in Country A at the expense of other people in country A.

    I am saying it is a bad Idea to help the people who ran General Motors into the ground and got themselves ethnically cleansed out of Detroit.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    @Jim

    “When considering protection, you have to ask Stalin’s question: Who whom.

    Because you are not helping people in country A at the expense of people in country B. The major effect is always to help some people in country A at the expense of other people in country A.”

    Let’s grant this for the sake of discussion.

    It follows that the reverse is also true; by ending an established policy of protectionism you are helping some people in country A at the expense of other people in country A.*

    Which makes it a political issue; groups competing to set policy in a way that benefits them, rather than a simple matter of capitalists (free traders) good, protectionists evil.

    There are probably a number of viable settings for the free trade v.s. protectionism slider. But it is important for the sovereign to keep in mind who is getting screwed and who is reaping the benefits, rather than believing the propaganda about a society where everyone works as a highly paid professional in the service industry.

    * A rising tide may well lift all boats, but it works slowly and humans only have a few prime years to create families, so the rising tide will lift a lot of individual boats far too late for it to matter to them.

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 3:39 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    Opposing free trade seems like a prime example of a situation where a state might wish to oppose (read: direct) capitalism.

    In the present circumstances, where China exists, it seems as crazy to wholeheartedly endorse free trade as it does to think that all your 90 IQ proles can be retrained to become lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so on.

    Historically, states have manufactured stuff and used tariffs to protect their industries and it doesn’t always seem to have caused them to descend into the kind of regulatory sclerosis that we see in the United States today.

    Indeed, the US, one of the most successfully capitalist countries, was one of the most protectionist – which protection squeezed the South to very successfully industrialize the North, squeezed the losers to enrich the winners.

    Remember that when you restrict free trade, the main losers are not external, but internal.

    It was the white factory worker that supported General Motors leftism, which wrecked Detroit, General motors, and led to the white factory workers being ethnically cleansed from Detroit. Many of them subsequently switched to Reagan, but that was way late.

    I find La Griffe du Lion’s smart fraction theory convincing. That substantially less than half of the working population produces most of the wealth. Do we really want it redistributed?

    To hell with the 90 IQ proles. Indeed, to hell with all below the smart fraction.

    Let us suppose that overnight China goes all the way free market capitalist, and that the US also overnight goes all the way free market capitalist.

    BANG! A horde of poor Chinese workers willing to work for the smell of an oil rag are available to compete on equal terms with white workers. This alters the balance between entrepreneurship, capital and labor in favor of international capital, against white labor, in favor of Chinese labor, and in favor of entrepreneurship. American workers get hosed big time. Entrepreneurs and investors make out like bandits.

    If a polity composed in substantial part of American workers was a viable and healthy polity, this would be a very bad thing. If American democracy had not died and America not headed for collapse, this would be a very bad thing. If America was not undergoing race replacement, this would be a very bad thing.

    If you think that this is a very bad thing, you are envisaging a polity that represents and is composed of, most whites, including 90IQ proles, and are asking what is in the interest of that polity.

    But we do not have such a polity. Near as I can figure, the tea party is the smart fraction, and reflects the interests of the smart fraction, while republicats represent the overclass underclass alliance, and the workers are split. On the one hand,the workers hate the overclass and the underclass, on the other hand, every few days Obama says “free stuff”, while the killjoy tea party says “no free stuff”.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @ Jim,

    To Hell with the Smart insane degenerate traitor cowards who got us all here. We cut their heads off and put them on sticks, then burn every school to the ground. It’s quite just and fair all things considered. And Hell we can bring.

    One Plunkitt worth a thousand brains.

    What Mike may want, what I want is Plunkitt’s world morphed and teleported into the 21st century. Plunkitt knew what he was doing, and the word “model” and “paradigm” do not clutter his insights. Plunkitt could rule and master politics because he rolled up his sleeves and went to work at it…

    Neither Taleb nor Stalin would have a problem with Plunkitt BTW.

    Now if anyone is interested in something other than the Hell with everyone who’s got an IQ under 130…as if these people can do anything practical or anything but harm…read
    Booker T Washington’s “Up From Slavery”. Read the chapters on Reconstruction and Education if nothing else.

    Booker wasn’t a brainiac and WEB Dubois was, but Booker had been a slave and knew how to bring people up from degradation and ignorance, and Dubois only wanted to burn the world down.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    I don’t see why I should agree on having billions on Chinese compete with me. I have a standard of living I’d have to keep, and I’ll like to feed my children something else than tofu and skinny meat flakes with noodles.
    I know them better than you do, and I don’t want them close to me.

    Why should I exactly? So the smart fraction can get richer? Fuck the smart fraction.

    But think again, it’s not the smart fraction who is getting richer. Some of them are of course, but a lot are just extroverted snake oil salesmen of the kind I’ve always detested. I don’t think you like them either. They have a way of getting money though. You want me to compete with the Chinese so they can get richer? That’s a tough sell Jim.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Agree.

    Mind you competing with billions of smart Chinese is bad enough. We’re competing with the Chinese elites that have hundreds of millions of smart laborers to order to destroy us. We’re competing with China, INC. Not Chinese.

    It’s not the same thing.

    Fuck the Smart. They’ve fucked us.

    Elites may or may not have their position due to merit. They certainly do if we expand the definition of merit to success, even if by racketeering.

    But a government that does not protect is predatory, and needs destruction and replacement both.

    Government’s only function is protection, and over those it governs and taxes. Not just the smart.

    Or the Rich.

    do you wish for instance the constable to enforce the law equally against the laborer, the smart, and the rich?

    That doesn’t mean one man’s property is anothers because they are under the same government.
    But you see..the property of my physical and mental labors isn’t your property either because you have higher test scores. Some think it does, and that’s now they govern.

    Anyone who advocates essentially genocide for the weak is unfit to govern. Or at least should be decent enough to stop collecting taxes, enforcing laws and all the rest as regards those it’s written off.

    You might be smarter than Mike Tyson, but absent enough force to stop him Mike owns you….see how it feels?

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Protectionism is always sold on the basis it helps fellow Americans, and harms far away people who are not like us and do not much like us.

    But the main effect of protectionism is to transfer wealth from some Americans to other Americans.

    So who, exactly are we trying to help. Which Americans?

    Typically, General Motors, or some company like General Motors, and white auto workers, or some workers like white auto workers.

    General Motors is leftist, Union owned, and crony capitalist, and back in 1950 it was leftist and crony capitalist, though not yet union owned.

    The white auto workers voted left, because the left promised them free stuff. Then the left ethnically cleansed them out of Detroit, which damn well served them right.

    Michael Reply:

    if by 90 IQ proles you mean immigrants yes im with that they’re children will be 85-90 but 90 white proles will revert to the white mean of 102 and because of population size will produce the new crop of 130-180s so I want to find a way that does not harm capitalism that gives the white proles the economic dignity and security they require to start forming families again not because its just because its smart. Now it may be that the race dividend will cover it in a white country not only would we not spend a trillion a year on welfare because their would be no minorities but because we would be free to shame whites. we also would regain 75% have the criminal justice costs police courts prisons etc we would probably be able to cut the cost of government in half not only because all the money spent on race hustles like mortgages small business farms etc etc etc but productivity would soar without the AA hires and corruption would plummet. Corporate America is not only saddled with affirmative action which I can attest even in construction reduces productivity 65% but the pay massive shakedowns in the hundreds of billions every year in set asides lawsuits arm twisted donations to minority charities etc.And currently the majority of our cognitive elite spend all or a good part of their time accommodating supporting defending multiculturalism people in media arts science government social sciences academia and education government all freed up to do productive work. it would make america very attractive to the cognitive elite of other countries and we would like ly have room So I dont really think any uncapitalist mechanisms would be needed in fact I think it would unleash a economic tsunami the likes of which the world has never seen. But if that were not the case I think that we must find a way to maintain the feedstock of our people. I love capitalism like from an Ayn Rand extremity even. But her deal and capitals is based on reasonable actors we are learning through HBD we are not a;ways reasonable markets are not always efficient. I dont think its a question of competing with third world labor markets or being rolled over .First because not all jobs can be exported so those jobs should be preserved next I would argue triangulating third world economic dysfunction for the oligarchs is not capitalism and its a temporary situation china is fast running out of labor.But I will come right out and say I dont love capitalism for its own sake i would not love it if it left most of my people destitute and served a few cognitive elites so yeah im not going for a system where my cousins are getting $12 bucks an hour because some mexican or chinaman will work for that.Its a false choice though they cant work here for that without the massive welfare stipend i provide and the so called capitalist doesn’t pay taxes to support- again not capitalism. Also a happy worker is a productive worker may be simplistic but i dont think china’s sleight advantage in IQ or even nose to the grindstone culture will beat the culture I think of as American, I think a workforce that is backed by our culture can afford to pay a higher standard of living because it will invent more things it will buy more things it will innovate at work rather than follow orders it will have the support system to tinker in garages and it will continue to siphon off the smart people of the world

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 4:40 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    soldiers are people who want to protect their people, by killing other people.

    Then why are they not already killing the Cathedral?

    Answer: Because of votes.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Oh nonsense.

    Votes have nothing to do with it. Almost.

    The most important vote in the history of the American 20th century military was the 1940 election. The most important vote in the History of the American Military was the 1860 election. The most important vote in our lifetimes was the 2006 mid terms, because an Army 7,000 miles away suddenly realized that we’d be left to die if only they dared.

    I was there and it was a sea change believe you me…

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I keep thinking that “Afghanistan” is the Pashtun word for “Corregidor”.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    It’s the Pashtun word for province of Iran. or the Punjabi word for strategic depth.

    Listen there’s nothing there we couldn’t settle in 18 months or less. That’s with ground war.

    The problem is Progs, Conservatives, Lawyers…the problem is post 1945 Cathedral War.

    Astan isn’t the graveyard of Empires. It’s a speed bump.

    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    “The most important vote in our lifetimes was the 2006 mid terms, because an Army 7,000 miles away suddenly realized that we’d be left to die if only they dared.”

    I’m really not sure what you’re talking about here. Could you expand on this (a lot)?

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Congressional Mid-Term elections 2006 put the Dems back in power, and they spoke of cutting off funding for the Iraq War. With 130,000 of us [and me] there…

    You notice things like that…

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 5:47 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    But one bank having 75 trillion in bets is an existential threat to the world economy

    You cannot have a 75 trillion net bet, because there are no 75 trillion dollar items to bet on. If betting on icelandic debt, you can have 75 trillion gross, but not 75 trillion dollar net. Your maximum net is the actual value of icelandic debt. When the dust settles, most of your bets cancel out, and you have won or lost a rather small amount of money – well, small compared to the total value of icelandic debt.

    Meanwhile, the effect of all these bets sloshing around is to give a live moment to moment report on how soon Iceland is going bankrupt.

    This becomes a problem if the government twists the arms of some bank to fix the market to predict that Iceland will not become bankrupt, whereupon it would become possible for George Soros to make unlimited bets that Iceland will become bankrupt.

    Now as it happened, the government did not intervene to fix the market for icelandic bankruptcy, which in consequence worked fine, but did intervene to fix the market that was betting on mortgages to become worthless.

    So, a bunch of rich people (not me alas) proceeded to bet that most mortgages would soon become worthless. If the government had allowed that to keep on going, it is likely that bets that mortgages would fail could well have exceeded the total value at stake.

    The companies whose arms we being twisted to bet that mortgages would be just fine ran to the government screaming that horrid nasty people were betting that reality was real, existence exists, and A=A. The government then froze the markets so that those bets would not have to be paid off in a timely manner, and the Credit Default Swaps on mortgage backed securities (synthetic mortgage backed securities) went to hell. Much lawsuit flinging and lobbying ensued.

    If, however, the credit default swap market on mortgage defaults had been allowed to run its course as the credit default swap market on icelandic debt had been allowed to run its course, we would have had our financial crisis sooner, in 2005 November, and it therefore would have been less destructive.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    This analysis of the Housing Crash Icelandic Chapter is correct.

    It’s not $75 Trillion at stake in the US now, with USG as the CDS underwriter.

    It’s easily over $1,000 Trillion dollars, and the final bust.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 6:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    and then he became secretary of the treasury?

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 7:10 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    An official religion is pretty much unavoidable, short of anarcho capitalism. If you have a state, you will have an official religion.

    The problem with our existing official religion is that is wrong, insanely and self destructively wrong, about the things of this world.

    We need an official religion that is sane and not self destructive.

    The enlightenment is based on subjecting the world to reason, that people should think for themselves rather than accept authority, which is all well and good, but reason has limited value unless you start from what is real.

    The enlightenment proposes good news beliefs, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.

    The Dark enlightenment, however, starts with the bad news, that all men are not created equal, that rights are entirely alienable, and observes, among other things, that most people cannot think for themselves and do not wish to do so. The Dark enlightenment focuses on the bad news, as this is a lot more important than the good news. The Dark enlightenment proposes to subject the world to reason, that superior people should think for themselves rather than accept authority, starting with the bad news about the nature of man, which leads to bad problems, for which all solutions are unsatisfactory. However, most people should accept authority, because most people are stupid.

    But if the superior people quietly do not accept authority, then the inferior people will not either, and trouble will ensue, because inferior people will be licensed to believe stupid things. Therefore authority, official truth, the official religion, has to be compatible with the senses, may not be obviously falsifiable

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Best summary ever

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 9:11 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment