Mash

Among the very many reasons to revere Jim is that he doesn’t mess about.

There’s a sizable constituency on the ‘alt right’ whose self-understood differentiation from the Marxist left is entirely reducible to its own heightened appreciation for authoritarian hierarchy and racial solidarity. Since actually existing Marxist-Leninist regimes have been, uniformly, authoritarian-hierarchical ethno-nationalists, this isn’t in fact the basis for any real difference at all.

ADDED: What I’m seeing —

June 28, 2014admin 89 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , ,

89 Responses to this entry

  • Imperfect Humanoid Says:

    ‘more right proposes communism’

    The good news is this doesn’t in any way disprove Jim’s left singularity model.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 8:57 am Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    The communistic tendencies of some of our, ahem, friends, have been noticed and pointed out by a lot of us already.
    I do not know about the rest, but Evola’s thought on economic matters is profoundly ridiculous. Since people with profoundly ridiculous ideas on economics tend to have profoundly ridiculous ideas about politics as well, I just signed the guy out as a valuable political thinker.
    “Since actually existing Marxist-Leninist regimes have been, uniformly, authoritarian-hierarchical ethno-nationalists”
    Indeed my country before 1989 was something like that. There was the transcendental ideal, sacrifice in the name of the ideology, in the name of the state, the masculine paternalistic leader was there, (a lot of grandmas indeed still miss him) community was of extreme importance of course, basically an Anissimovite utopia.
    Yet it still managed to suck in a million ways. Well, for the intelligent people anyways, the proles always enjoy communism because they are stupid and all they want is their free lunch and mostly did not notice all the ways in which their beloved state managed to ruin the country. Contrary to popular belief the failure of communism was not because it lacked a religious or transcendental element, its failure was caused precisely by its fanatical religiosity. In fact as Zizek (heheh) likes to say “It is not when God doesn’t exist that everything is permitted, but precisely the opposite, it is when God exists – exactly through him everything is permitted”
    If you only assume that you are doing God’s will, and that He is working through you, you can do everything. Communists were profoundly religious, in assuming they were essentially the hand of Providence simply fulfilling the will of History.

    Recent talk from some people about how capitalism is ze ultimatez evilzzzzzzz and should be abandoned, for what…a crypto-communistic economic system of course! is profoundly misguided and even ridiculous.
    And we even have reactionaries who think that banning interest rates is a jolly good idea. There must be a moment when all of this nonsense becomes too ridiculous and these guys stop, right, right?

    Basically if I wanted to hear such ideas I would go to a BNP (or inser generic-ethnonationalist party here) meeting or a rally, to their credit they are at least honest about being socialists. I am here precisely because I want to avoid some of the most retarded ideas on the right side of the pol. spectrum, which curiously enough tend to be strangely similar to the most retarded ideas on the left side of the political spectrum as well. This is of course not noticed at all, or outright ignored, and it is the capitalists that everyone is suspicious about.
    This type of degeneracy is of course inseparable from Neoreaction becoming more popular. Most people, especially your average nationalist, which is the type we tend to attract the most right now and which is also the most numerous, has 0 understanding of economics and usually minimal understanding of history and politics as well. Indeed a nationalist is usually basically a communist minus the globalism and plus the antisemitism.
    Indeed the reason why nationalists and communists hate each other so much is that they in fact recognize how similar they are and quickly try to discredit and eliminate the other guy, less he steals all of their audience and support.

    I will refrain from directly commenting on Anissimov himself, but I will quote Spandrell’s comment:
    “spandrell says:
    2014 June 28 at 5:41 pm

    I still don’t get why anybody takes Anissimov seriously.

    “Pure political power”? What is he, 12 years old?”

    It’s quite sad because I used to think of Anissimov as a pretty intelligent guy.
    But my old, somewhat in bad taste joke, about him only being good for copy-pasting Evola quotes, seems to be coming true.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Less complaining, more freedom of association.

    This type of degeneracy is of course inseparable from Neoreaction becoming more popular.

    Even in openly elitist cultures, overconfidence is a significant issue. Being marinated in anti-elitism your whole life leads to a self-image skewed at least as bad as feminist women.

    I’ve never seen this nonsense cured without in-person interaction and +2 charisma. (In sigmas.) Your options are avoid or engage fruitlessly.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems for almost everyone, they can learn up to the point where they publicly declare their opinion – the first time you can find out they’re mistaken. After that, alterations become too painful.

    Moreover, if it turns out I’m the deluded non-elite, keeping my stupidity to myself is, in effect, mere courtesy.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    Coming to DE NRX whatever through a long road that probably included everything from the black power movement in my teens to Ayn Rand in my twenties and Conservatism in my thirties, well moving ever right as reality blew holes in my thinking. Now in my fifties here i am ;im a natural race realist being an inner city kid and a natural alpha by chance so the red pill wasn’t hard to swallow i already believed my lying eyes, though was willing to maintain hope a better culture could possibly improve the behavior of say blacks for instance. But that culture [govmint] was doing the opposite.And truth be told we could get better behavior to some extent. So all this talk of anti capitalism i find uncomfortable but also this talk of kings and fascism; and even a catholic school kid who doesnt brook talk about my mother church from commie wasp jew scum even this – thgeocracy is not a sell.oh I get how religion is a good prole control and certainly understand hierarchy but not for me see.
    But heres the thing am i misunderstanding something here about the “damn Nationalist” yeah I get we are not socialists cause science. but they do have a point about how this free market works against prole whites. now I think thats fixable and must be somehow cause science says joe jane sixpack are more likely to throw the next bill gates than bill and melinda are so prole whites a a natural resource that needs the dignity and security their species require for family formation. OK maybe we all agree on that in convoluted ways and will figure it out. But I seem to sense a reluctance to extrapolate the implications of the race science. sure we were all well brought up to never make personal remarks but it seems like we love bragging that as sailor puts it we notice things but when it comes to recognizing the implications re revert to free markets mean free genetic markets – well that’s just national review circa early nineties and hoping a conservative culture will leave no black behind. but thats not what the science says it says IQ reverts to the mean so importing high IQ third worlders or electing them president only causes problems down the road as they follow their instincts and take over. And if Jews are really that much smarter and socialist inclined for everyone else and find ways to insulate themselves from the policies they get through with their outsized influence. And please im not a hater so dont even start .Then pray tell how is this multicultural free market ever going to end up anyway other than it has. Colonial America seems to be whats described it had it all a king strong churches weak government patriarchy and free markets which was why i ended up a traditional conservative of the constitutional type. but as moldy records it declines it was in fact the prime instigator of the decline of western civilization.the tension between freedom and equality or rather equality of freedom requires as close an equality of citizenry as possible thats by definition an ethno state. just admit it .now how the hell do you implement it humanely? for that matter how do we institute patriarchy without idiots abusing their families? Christianity is not the answer because its communist and frankly jewish. since i brought it up ill say i kind of like jews and was reluctant to admit some things oh i knew they were liberals and overly influential but forgave it based on ww2 so i found the jewish question distasteful now i think its legitimate. they could be quite helpful if they could be made to work for “white” interests will this happen as they less and less identify as jewish is worth considering

    [Reply]

    Imperfect Humanoid Reply:

    I think the idea is to have it so the state is not madly spreading racial politics and AA. The lower IQ minorities wouldn’t attain so much power, but would be left docile and not roused in animosity. It’s the white progressives who are much of the problem (no one needs reminding). Again with feminism, if the attacks on marriage, motherhood, and man ends, then the genetic market would return to being naturally ‘unfree’. So the ‘white state’ we already have is a total fuck-up because of the twisted idealogy that emerges from a democracy that structurally disregards truth. The answer is not another state for ‘white people’, but the destruction of the state altogether, so it can stop handicapping some for the benefit of (handicapped) others.

    Though, seeing how America is now, there will most likely be secession to re-segregate along ethnic (among other) lines in the near future.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    Hester Prinn and nigger Jim or the girl with the dragon tattoo and Precious will always be compelling motivations for Europeans to meddle. we will never be able to live among natures losers without making our governments do something.What we should have done had Darwin been born a hundred years sooner is walled off the third world as an eco park and sent the slaves to some island. But we didnt. If the Cathedral collapses it will simply rise from the dad like the Zombies we compare it to. It will be said the collapse was the just deserts of Europeans blah blah blah. We are not separating we become more intertwined every day. The lads at stormfront are not going to get their Valhalla because the creme of minorities are the ones most whites now know at grad school work TV etc and we think theyre decent people and Hester Got a raw deal her husband was a SOB and so it goes.Now if there were a conflict Hispanics would flee south that’s pretty humane. If nationalism were to emerge it would be a lot easier to hijack than the Cathedral. NYC during the early nineties was a boiling frog writ large experiment just before I fled I had to physically intimidate a couple dozen whites in an ATM vestibule who protested my forcefully evicting the homeless black man who was living there and using one corner as a toilet. I realized it would never stop for the next 25 years I watched a small northwest logging town transformed into NYC. there is no exit there is only stand your ground. wherever you go the zombies will follow they need fresh blood.But how do you explain to whites that Westerners feeding the subsaharan children is like crack heads having children.they cant afford to raise. we whites are responsible for a third world babby boom and our adopted children are not satisfied with bags of rice and a measles shot they want in and they are in fact in the white house and I have news NRX like he bum I threw out of the bank lobby they are not going to leave peaceably.Theey are not going to start breeding nobel laureates they are not going to turn into self hating altruists they are going to pay us back for slavery – yeah whatever but thats what the dimwits think. so the more likely scenario is Europeans becoming high skilled slaves for low skilled masters.

    Jack Crassus Reply:

    More Right is a top 5 neoreactionary blog. Michael’s sequence on historical Monarchy is a great resource, and some of his op-eds (on the organic state, on transhumanism and Neoreaction, etc.) are valuable.

    Yes, he has a pissy online presence, seems unhappy in absence of conflict, and is exploring some weird intellectual terrain right now. I’m not saying that I like him. But let’s not overstate the case against him.

    Most of us disagree on his vision for a future neoreactionary state. His strategy is to build a coherent society outside and isolated from the current order.

    An alternative vision is of neoreaction as progressive heresy, the neoreactionary state as something beyond and through progressivism, neoreaction as fulfillment of progressivism. We get to keep our liberaltarian personalities and culture, but we worm into existing institutions and corrupt them with something more true.

    Michael has a lot of energy, intelligence and a bias towards action, so it may be that his opinions win out by sheer force of personality. The rest of us share a culture of ironic detachment and the assumption that someone else will do the building (the leftist personality).

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    He gets points in my book for calling out that J. Tunney guy.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    yeah thanks for that reading of the ironic detachment around here its my greatest objection nothing is getting accomplished. And I get dont just do something sit there , sure its going to collapse we ought to be prepared not sarcastic about that

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    You can’t build a coherent society when your theory about how to build a coherent society is incoherent.

    No that’s not the alternative vision.

    The alternative vision is a neoreaction without the dreamy fantasies of political power unrestrained by economics, without the retarded idea of money being the root of all evil, and without the idea that interest rates are an evil invention of the ugly joos.

    I mainly want a neoreaction that does realistic machiavellian political analysis of social structures and political power and not simply a romantic glorifying of how much better it was in the [insert age from the past here] and how much greater and happier than us were people back then and how we should simply turn the clock back to some of those times and everything will be OK.
    If I want to read such a useless exercise in romantic rhetoric I will simply read Rousseau.
    And I read neoreactionary blogs precisely because I don’t like pointless exercises in romanticism.

    And no, unfortunately copy-pasting Evola quotes over and over, without even trying to do some in-depth commentary does not count as a proper exercise in realistic political analysis.

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    >I mainly want a neoreaction that does realistic machiavellian political analysis of social structures and political power and not simply a romantic glorifying…

    Do you have an email address? I am consistently impressed by your comments here and would like to get in touch for reasons related to the above.

    (I’m wwtivy at gmail)

    NRx_N00B Reply:

    Interesting comments but I don’t think it’s as simple as ideology. Like it or not, we are automatons assembled in/by the interests of genes—and by extension, groups of individuals have also been assembled to serve these tiny lifeless molecules.

    From an evolutionary perspective, when it comes to group competition, promoting radical individualism and hyper collectivism at the same time isn’t necessarily contradictory—wealthy, ethnically homogeneous, yet radically individualistic societies are vulnerable and easy to invade/penetrate/plunder—radical individualism increases the susceptibility to invasion of the host ecosystem; while making sure to maintain hyper collectivist—ethnically nepotistic/reproductively isolationist—attitudes amongst the invasive species itself.

    Is there any self deception in your post/comments? Are there any feelings of resentment towards UK indigenes? Is tribalism/collectivist a function directly proportional to diversity? Can the post 1965 increasing commiefication of the USA be interpreted as simple group conflict—between host ecosystem and invasives.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 9:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Imperfect Humanoid Says:

    @Hurlock

    ‘In fact as Zizek (heheh) likes to say’

    Careful, the commies are already suspicious of master psy-op Z, if they see you quoting him against the religion of the state they might fully realize he’s been slipping them a pill only blue in appearance…

    (lol) Still, great comment, and wtf is so grand about the ‘eating together’ part of socialism? ‘Dinner at 7!’ I mean, it’s nationalist syndicalism with ‘kings’, and I bet the kings get to play at being a right prude about the whole thing too…

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I still think Zizek is a hard communist with an unhealthy dose of appreciation for Robespierre, but he says some stuff that is worth listening to sometimes. I find him somewhat interesting contrary to most communists who tend to be profoundly boring in their endless ideological diatribe.
    He is at least worth listening to for his deep knowledge of philosophy and interpretation of various philosophers even if this interpretation tends to be too marxist for my taste.

    The eating together thing is a good idea if you are running a very militaristic type of a country where war is the main occupation of the population and you need to establish strict military discipline.
    The Spartans had to eat together every single evening while in military age and it was part of their very elaborate system of military training.
    The Spartans of course did not trade, they did no agricultural work, they did absolutely nothing else but fight and in times of peace train to fight.
    Otherwise eating together doesn’t really make sense, unless there is a celebration because the king is having a birthday or something.

    [Reply]

    Imperfect Humanoid Reply:

    You’re right, Zizek is undoubtedly a Stalinist, but it is usually easy enough to discuss right wing ideas with the young Zizekians I know. The only problem being that even if they agree or not, the whole thing is swallowed up by the hungry dialectic of their decapitated heads, and becomes a contradictory searching for some ‘remainder’ or ‘lost object’. Not that I can barely understand them.

    So not just eating together for the ethno-family time then? I’m just imagining what an Australian socialist dinner hall would end up looking like…

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    I would not be surprised in the slightest if Zizek turned out to be an asset of USG in some way.

    But, you know, stopped clock. Dude’s from far enough east to be free of Scandomasochism, so he’s way ahead of most of the other communists floating about in the Anglosphere — most of whom are ideological descendants of yesterday’s USG assets anyway.

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 10:36 am Reply | Quote
  • Mash | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 11:55 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    LOL deleted.

    It’s simply accurate.

    And that there were newly minted right wing reds was pointed out by several people last year at the latest.

    I suspect some here will be Islamists before 40.

    [Reply]

    Arc Reply:

    Exactly. It’s only a matter of time before one of them reads Sayyid Qutb and sees his prediction that the West is going to go Communist… and then, before long, they’ll be on forums accusing us of being jahili.

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    In Vancouver we have at least one Muslim Neoreactionary.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 1:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    Evola was not communist. He was insanely anticommunist. He was ready to die on the eastern front to fight them.

    That said, Evola is wierd. He was a Hindu apparently, probably one of the only Hindus in all of Italy at the time. He believed in the Kali Yuga:

    “The Satya Yuga (Devanagari: सत्य युग), also called Sat Yuga, Krta Yuga and Krita Yuga in Hinduism, is the “Yuga (Age or Era) of Truth”, when humanity is governed by gods, and every manifestation or work is close to the purest ideal and humanity will allow intrinsic goodness to rule supreme. It is sometimes referred to as the “Golden Age”. The Satya Yuga lasts 1,728,000 years. The goddess Dharma (depicted in the form of cow), which symbolises morality, stood on all four legs during this period. Later in the Treta Yuga it would become three, and two in the later Dvapara Yuga. Currently, in the immoral age of Kali, it stands on one leg.”

    From wiki, re Evola’s “Ride the Tiger”:
    “The process that Evola described involved potentially making use of everything from modern music, hallucinogenic drugs, relationships with the opposite sex and even substituting the atmosphere of an urban existence for the Theophany that Traditionalists had identified in virgin nature.[9]

    Evola died unmarried, without children, on June 11, 1974 in Rome. ”

    So Evola was evidently a hippy nutjob. I would say Evola was conservative in the sense that Tunney is conservative: all over the map crazy, coincidentally covering a lot of conservative territory.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    You don’t have to be a communist, or to love communists in order to share some similar ideas with them.
    Hitler’s national-socialists hated communists as well. Yet they also have a lot of similarities in their thought and in fact national socialism originated in a socialist worker movement.
    Muslims hate christians with a vengeance, yet at their core the two religions have the same origin.

    As I said ideologies and religions that share an origin and have a lot of similar ideas tend to hate each other the most.

    [Reply]

    scientism Reply:

    Basically, if you don’t subscribe to free market capitalism and think it’s the fount of all that is good in the world, you’re a commie.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    We don’t have free market capitalism in the United States since about 1913, or 1933 if you prefer.

    I’m a free market type. I’m also in favor of Constitutional Restoration in the US. I’m also in favor of white men being able to be men, I’m not in favor of Hitler, genocides, antisemitism or Jim Crow.

    I Hope my explanation above explains why I’m in favor of settling matters through force, because if I thought all or any of that possible without it I would indeed be certifiable.

    I’d also be certifiable if I didn’t recognize such resolution is quite baked in anyway.

    Michael you can go back to NYC at least at present, it’s way tamer. Also more realistic about what’s necessary.

    Hurlock Reply:

    Basically stop posting comments devoid of content, thanks, we would all appreciate it.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    @ VXXC, Hurlock

    Gentlemen,

    From your writing I would describe both of you as non-NAP right wing libertarians. VXXC you in particular seem to long for Jeffersonian reset. Both are ideological spaces I used to occupy before my encounter with Moldbug. Am I missing something that’s enabling both of you to (correct me if I”m wrong) consider yourself NRx (which is anti-domotist)?

    What forced me to Post-libertarianism was the recognition that the constitution is a failure. It can’t be preserved, and if it could be reset by watering the tree of liberty it would have already happened many times over (the whiskey rebellion and civil war aren’t exactly historically reassuring). Even with the original restrictions on suffrage and adding some extra, there is still the inevitable leftward trajectory of demotism. While I find myself now flirting with authoritarianism it still scares me and I don’t consider myself monarchists or fascist. Even Moldbug’s neocameralism, I’ve grown up on far too much Scott Adams to not be extremely skeptical.

    On the subject of economics my main disagreement is with the idea that the free market ever existed. The years 1913 and 1933, have been pointed out. Technically, (as much as I hate FDR, I consider him no better than Stalin or Hitler) FDR continued and after overcoming the supreme court, put into overdrive, the idiotic tampering with the market Hoover started. 1913 was a dark year indeed and I’m 100% behind hard money and against central banking. If you want to define the free market as hard money and no central bankers, then by that definition I am as adamant a supporter of the free market as you can find. However I have a narrower definition of the free market, a market that is perfectly competitive with zero interference. Where there exist states, there exists interference, the south went to war due in large part to protectionist tariffs, not exactly the free market at work. The thing is the tariffs succeeded in nurturing native industry, just as Chinese central bankers manipulating the value of the Yuan to encourage exports while putting stiff restrictions on imports nurtured their own industry. True, the market would be better served had neither one done so, industry would exist in both, potentially even larger than exists now, but it would be owned by westerners in China and Europeans in the US. The efficiency of the market is itself subject to cost benefit analysis.

    There is also the issue of glossing over the gilded age as if it never existed, it’s not as if the merchant class didn’t buy senators and that anticompetive trusts didn’t exist then. Personally I’m a fan of Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting. Forbes on the other hand has hosted writers who disagree with trust busting. We see the state interfering with an uncompetitive market, during a time VXXC has explicitly implied is the era of free markets. I’m very curious to hear both your views on Teddy’s trust busting behavior.

    The restaurant industry is the closest thing we have to a perfectly competitive marketplace. Other industries due to the difficulties of concentrating enough capital are harder to break into. My dad, a boomer on the cusp of retirement, has enough capital that he could easily break into the restaurant industry, but he could never break into the automotive industry like Elon Musk has (and which is itself amazing that he did in spite of how little capital he used comparatively). Scarcity itself gets in the way of perfect competition, we see concentrations of wealth, and consequently concentrations of power. The early railroad barons were themselves well connected westpointers, and brought great shame on the Grant administration with their cronyism. Even before we get to the shenanigans of Standard Oil. The corporate enclaves with company housing, company stores and company printed money for wages, free market or de facto command economy? (this is how I distinguish myself from the leftists who agree with you that this was the era of the free market.) I’m not anarco/capitalist because I see the government having a role in protecting the competitiveness of the market, a light touch to provide stability to an otherwise unstable system. If there were a caste system, a caste of nobles to keep the merchants in line. Regulations over how PG&E operates as a monopoly are actually on the sane and workable side of the spectrum (general California building, environmental ect, regulations notwithstanding), where as other utilities obviously not so much.

    On the subject of scientific innovation, rather than say that states can’t directly sponsor science, Steve had to revise his statement to say the democratic state can’t sponsor science. Since NRx is already anti-demotic, this statement lacks teeth when pointed towards NRx. Further, what makes this subject of interest is there is a balance to be had between innovation and competition. Resources are most heavily allocated to innovation when concentrations of capital exist. Innovation beyond what can be done in a garage needs sponsorship. The first cyclotron particle accelerator was 4 inches in diameter. The bigger the accelerator, the bigger the cost, how much money should go to building bigger accelerators? If it were paid for by companies in intense competition, not very big at all since it’s very hard to bear fruit from theoretical research that takes decades before profitable uses can even be envisioned. Monopolistic companies will spend a little more since they are more inclined towards long term research due to not worrying about going out of business next year. Governments end up spending the most of all on this sort of research which in the long run they hope will bear fruit (not every rabbit hole bears fruit, string theory comes to mind). Patents only go so far in spurring innovation, patent law itself being an intervention by the state. One of the roles of the state is to subsidize early scientific research (middle and late stage research which is profitable shouldn’t be subsidized). The aviation industry wouldn’t have advanced as fast as it did without the subsidies provided by the postal contracts which it famously abused. SpaceX is wholly dependent on contracts with NASA, aka gov subsidies. I think there isn’t enough subsides because Orbital isn’t building their own launch vehicle, no competition (the Atlas V has Russian engines, and the ULA is a de facto organ of the state so I don’t count it), so if SpaceX has a catastrophic failure on a manned flight, it would be the end of the manned space industry for decades (space = orbital, suborbital doesn’t count in my book).

    So saying things like, let the free market do it, is a nonsensical overgeneralization, I want to discuss nuts and bolts.

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 2:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lurker Says:

    I get that not everyone is going to have actually read Men Among the Ruins or any of his other work before commenting on it, especially on the more materialistic side of the DE. Evola can be a little hard to follow at times; he was a fan of Nietzsche after all.

    But anyone who can compare Evola to Marx with a straight face has proved unequivocally that he is not qualified to talk about either.

    Cliff notes Evola
    -Tradition: Certain ideas are perennial and reflect an underlying natural order which humans can come to understand and control (i.e. du ut des), and the closer a civilization approaches those ideals the greater it can become. Think ‘Gods of the Copybook Headings’ with a lot more metaphysics / esoterism.
    -Organic State: Essentially, as a healthy body has no need of surgery a healthy society has no need for constant top-down control as in all modern states. Healthy in this case more-or-less meaning a Tripartite division (see Hindu Varnas or Christendom’s Estates) whose hierarchy is topped off by a divinely sanctioned King.
    -Spiritual Race: The great races are descended from humans who migrated south from a frozen northern region and had an element of nonhuman ancestry, but in the long run civilization produces races rather than being produced by them. More or less supported by modern genetics; see prehistoric migration patterns, Neanderthal DNA and the 10,000 year explosion.
    -Kali Yuga / Ride the Tiger: We are in a period of decline which may or may not lead into a golden age afterwards. Without the ability to predict how long it will last, the best option for a Reactionary is to keep Traditional knowledge alive and work on personal transcendence as society falls apart around him.
    -Ritual Magic: Every civilized society in history has developed esoteric magical traditions used by it’s priestly/royal classes to achieve victory, often using virtually identical rites and symbolism; they seem to have been on to something. Even if we take a 100% materialistic view of this and dismiss the metaphysical elements out of hand, it’s very hard to argue that ensuring tasks can be done precisely by people who don’t understand them and taking advantage of psychosomatic effects like placebo would make a culture less effective (most of modern medicine fits this description after all).

    [Reply]

    Mark Yuray Reply:

    It’s good to see there’s at least one other serious reader of Evola here. The hamfisted and idiotic treatment Evola has gotten by some supposedly serious neo “reactionaries” has led me to believe NRx is just cynical progressivism. Here be Anglos, after all…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Neoreaction is Anglo (duh!) and Evola is utterly marginal to it.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    I’m waiting for an Evola advocates to say something true I haven’t already thought of. Or: can I tell someone’s read Evola without them saying so? So far, no. (Aside from the Hyperborean thing, which is pretty sketchy on truth.) By contrast, I can very easily tell if someone’s read, oh, I don’t know, Nick Land say.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 3:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • R. Says:

    >>State cannot directly sponsor science.<<

    What world does that guy live in? The one that has moon made out of green cheese?

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    The one with the trick to hide the decline.

    …or where whole grains are an important part of your diet and meat will kill you.

    …or the one where 6 out of the 53 most cited foundational papers in cancer research could be replicated.

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    Ah, I get it.

    He appreciates Ayn Rand. Who was a notable crackpot, sure that quantum physics is completely wrong, as something can’t be both wave and particle at the same time, because her philosophy says so. Nevermind all the w

    There’s a whole bunch of kooks trying to make physics fit with Objectivism..

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    Ayn Rand was a crackpot on quite a few issues.

    Doesn’t mean that state sponsored science isn’t massively broken and actually is totally unrelated to the point.

    I gave three specific examples of badly broken science – all of which show clearly the main reason a democratic state can’t sponsor science – because it will just fund those who produce propaganda for expanding the state.

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 4:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    In response to admin’s twitter message: well? Have you?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 5:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chuck Says:

    “There’s a sizable constituency on the ‘alt right’ whose self-understood differentiation from the Marxist left is entirely reducible to its own heightened appreciation for authoritarian hierarchy and racial solidarity.”

    Imagine three groups: I-sts, us-ists, and all-ists. Now the following situation: the I-sts almost uniformly love to hate the us-ists because they’re too all-ist; mutatis mutandis “all-ists” and “I-ist”; the mutual animosity towards us-ism functions to allow I-sts and all-ists to cooperate and interact, to function without outright war; for sociobiological reasons, the all-ist tendency happens to dominant; thus, with us-ists excluded, everything moves to all; all-ists know this, and so they unrelentingly denounce us-ists and making sure that I-ists do the same. In a more sane world, us-ists would be seen as a balance between extremes by at least many. And, in a more sane world, I-sts and us-ists would collaborate as readily as I-ists and all-ists do. But, in this queer one, where Anglo individualist and Jewish anti-other group memes predominate, this rarely happens.

    Here is you choice: you can collaborate with us-ism against all-ism or you can let the latter triumph and hope that this leads, in the foreseeable future, to collapse and reboot. I will take my chance with the former.

    [Reply]

    cryptael Reply:

    Chuck,

    I wish there were a like button. I just had to say that I love the trichotomy you created here.

    [Reply]

    Imperfect Humanoid Reply:

    The ‘I-ists’ are simply ‘us-ists’ who are betting that the only thing ‘we’ need is an autonomous space for commercial relations without the state-loving ‘all-ists’ imposing their universalist rule of ‘no child left behind’ or ‘a nigger for every office’. Moreover, ethno-nationalists are ‘all-ists’ not ‘us-ists’, but with a bunch of white proles instead of progs.

    [Reply]

    cryptael Reply:

    Many of the I-ists are pretty damn I-ist. No crypto-us-ism there. Consider the libertarian slur, “collectivist”

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    otoh, signaling games don’t work well for trying to figure out what people are really talking about, just for figuring out if you really want to talk to them.

    cladistics seems to improve acuity in determining not just current content of but origin and telos of a given ‘ism’ (including an I-ism)

    ‘collectivist’ is just like ‘capitalist’ (or ‘communist’ in this case) – an indefinite label because what it really means is ‘not-X’. (Aristotle rightly calls the negation of a term indefinite, since it is only saying what something isn’t.) The social tech of replacing negations with pseudo-positives has been great for democracies, for sure.

    Imperfect Humanoid Reply:

    True. I just took it to mean all-ist = communist, us-ist = exclusive sovereign thede (sovereign over economy), I-ist = anarcho-capitalist. These may be psuedo-positives but it’s fairly close to the old ‘ideological triangle’.

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 5:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erik Says:

    “No, you the communist!”

    That’s the short response – the longer form is that he’s for him and his ingroup and his tradition, while you’re for the incarnation of singularitarian capitalist intelligence, whatever its form (I don’t remember your exact wording) even should it destroy humanity. On this axis, admin, you are the one espousing a universal principle against those who would work for their own benefit. You are the one proclaiming something communist, and when Anissimov says he wants capitalism as a tool for himself and his friends rather than let it loose to rule the Earth, this is in a sense meta-capitalism. Not “will it profit the utopian vision of the future” but “will it profit me”.

    I’m not with either of you, though. I’m with Konkvistador, and watching this with great amusement.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    Well, how about instead of making really low-energy, glib, weak accusations, people try to parse the idea for its intrinsic worth?

    I’m sure some dumbass was like, “Hey, this Communist Manifesto sounds a lot like the Republic! Marx is just a crypto-Platonist!”

    This thread has been a major, major disappointment.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 6:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    @R.
    crackpots kind of strong i mean if theres a mother of all DE its Rand like it or not. she was able in the forties to paint an exact picture of america in the 21 century understood game and gender difference, the importance of facing truth no matter how awful, and w

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    …. WILLING TO BE CALLED A CRACKPOT IN SERVICE OF TRUTH.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    SOORY DAMN COMPUTER.. sure she was personally flawed and doctrinaire, she did not seem to grasp certain obvious realities perhaps autistic. hell she even had the DE aversion to violence. Conservative inc hates her because she hated slave religion and the left because she owed no one the sweat off her balls. pretty dark babe if you ask me.

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    She was great in diagnosing a certain type of villain who is prevalent and cloaked with holiness in our society. Hillary Clinton, Angelo Mozilo, Jon Corzine, etc. – she describes them to a T in Atlas Shrugged. People who corrupt the very idea of wealth by turning connections and influence into money while piously “doing good” in “serving others” and makes the very good point that it’s impossible to distinguish those villains from straight up thieves who loot for their own benefit.

    She missed a whole bunch of stuff though. A big part of the DE is that you do owe “the sweat off your balls” (as you put it). Civilization isn’t something that sprung up when you were born and will disappear when you die – it’s a multi-generational effort that your ancestors gift to you and that you preserve and leave behind for your descendants.

    Atlas Shrugged ends with a character re-writing the constitution of the United States to eliminate the flaws and contradictions that caused it to fail – as if a piece of paper was the government. She derides kings as “mystics of muscle” and posits that people naturally own the fruits of their own labor – presumably she’s a socialist when it comes to protecting property and this is something that people are owed just for existing. Men govern – and good governance is very valuable both for the subjects and the rulers.

    She put no value on hierarchy and order. Some guy standing guard gets shot by the heroine because he’s unsure whether or not to let her into the facility he’s guarding but doesn’t want to shoot her and according to the author he had it coming for his unwillingness to decide. Well guess what? Some people – most people – shouldn’t make case by case decisions. Most people should follow orders because they’re terrible at making decisions and they’re vulnerable to being pandered to in a billion different ways that seem appealing but are terrible for them and for society.

    Howard Roark was a heroic artist because he discarded tradition and created as he saw fit but was held down by a hidebound establishment that hated new idea. In reality, architects design horribly ugly inhuman buildings that make people miserable because they don’t have tradition as a guide (and enforcer). A society that never had Frank Lloyd Wright but also never had Frank Gehry is a billion times better off.

    She derided immigration restriction.

    She conducted her personal life in a disgustingly immoral way and used her philosophy to justify it.

    She made a bunch of nutty cult-leader style statements – smoking is a moral necessity, tap dancing is objectively entertaining, etc.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    Hmm you seem to be saying that one doesn’t own the fruits of one hands and brow the king does. Good luck with selling that to elites.And while you are obviously remember more than I while she was certainly an individualist my overall impression was there are natural leaders and heros that we owe as a society, but that has new leaders emerge society can resist the innovators in favor of rent seekers. I doubt she would be in favor of todays immigration do you think she would be?
    perhaps you have explained an aspect of DE that I never understood, you are saying that by virtue of my being born into this society im a sort of state chattel,odd I always thought that was socialist thinking. Its not that I dont understand the fragility of civilization and the civic responsibility encumbant on those choosing to stay I just sort of like this Idea of voluntary contractual participation you know exit and voice and all.
    I have never understood why everyone hates her.sure her novels were cheesy and her philosophy patchy but she popularized in a way neither a novel or philosophic treatise ever could broad memes mankind really needed to hear.As the boss paraphrased it “it aint no sin to be glad youre alive” That life is short live for yourself live rationally live guilt free live honorably. now I get why christians and communists hate her shes dangerous to their self sacrificing myths I hope thats not DE is some neo nazi myth of sacrifice for the volk..

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    >Hmm you seem to be saying that one doesn’t own the fruits of one hands and brow the king does.

    That’s not what he said. He said she was basically a socialist on property rights: that some vague “the gubmint” owes it to everyone to enforce them, without outlining who is doing this and why, or comprehending that such rights are in fact granted by the King.

    >while she was certainly an individualist my overall impression was there are natural leaders and heros that we owe as a society, but that has new leaders emerge society can resist the innovators in favor of rent seekers.

    The ideals Atlas Shrugged actually described were superior to the ideals she explicitly endorsed.

    >I doubt she would be in favor of todays immigration do you think she would be?

    I think the immigration comments were made more recently, but not sure.

    >you are saying that by virtue of my being born into this society im a sort of state chattel, odd I always thought that was socialist thinking.

    No, he’s saying the state doesn’t owe you the right to exist comfortably because you have no mechanism to enforce that right. These things are privileges granted by a strong leader with the might to make rights, for their own purposes (which may or may not be that they care about you).

    The state of nature is that you are chattel to the local cannibal biker gang.

    >I hope thats not DE is some neo nazi myth of sacrifice for the volk.

    Likewise. Blow “the volk” out the airlock. I will sacrifice for ideals and leaders above me, but not for the scum below.

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 6:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @Micheal “there is no exit there is only stand your ground. wherever you go the zombies will follow they need fresh blood.”

    Thank you.

    “Just sit there” ..um..do that, actually do it and get back to us about the success.

    In truth you’ll do nothing, then run. Or do something. But “just sit there/enjoy the decline” is worse than false bravado. You’re quite simply being dishonest with everyone, most importantly yourselves. You will discover within a few seconds of reality how dishonest.

    @Hurlock – I think the average person is getting quite an education in economics, the dismal pseudo science that serves as the priesthood for power. The problem is of course that Power has gone utterly mad and is hopelessly in debt. That’s where economics comes in, convincing people that worthless Fiat is still valuable.

    I’m getting by the way that average white person who’s awake = White Nationalist = Anti-Semite. Wrong again.

    As to Micheal Assinimov vs the rest of you: with such attitudes towards white people who can actually protect and provide [food for instance] you might want to invest in an Idaho cubicle.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    The economics that they teach in universities has no bearing whatsoever on reality. Precisely because economics is so integral to the state religion it is entirely contaminated. Some 95% of what they teach about economics in colleges and universities is complete and utter bullshit.
    Economics is a completely legitimate science, its just that it has been turned into a pseudoscience nowadays for political and ideological reasons. This is not the first time that a scientific discipline becomes a victim of ideology and probably will not be the last.

    “I’m getting by the way that average white person who’s awake = White Nationalist = Anti-Semite”
    If you are extrapolating this from what I’ve said you are getting it wrong. The average white person who’s awake does not have to be an anti-semite, but it is tempting because it is an easy explanation for the shithole that he finds himself in. Easy explanations are always more attractive than more complicated ones, so the majority of people flock to them. This is bad, since easy explanations, even if they posses some truth value, are always wrong on the majority of issues, thus the average white person who is awake, by taking up the easy explanation, gets no closer to the truth, and in fact helps in perpetuating the shithole that he lives in.

    [Reply]

    JPOutlook Reply:

    What is “anti-semitism”? Isn’t it already gratuitously obvious that out-groups are inherently subversive to the in-group, and more so when they are in places of power relative to said ingroup? That’s day one stuff, fella’.

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    temperamentally I like action but my point was I understand sometimes the best course is to wait , reacting may be a trap.In theory I like exit and historically its worked but I doubt it can any more the world is more crowded, governments or rather the Cathedral too powerful where could you go i have a place in NYC northern Idaho and soon Northern Ireland none will really be safe maybe buy me enough time to plan another move but what of my children ? so am I not better off standing my ground?Honestly I think the Cathedral could easily be taken out it just takes intelligence and organization and a commitment to any means necessary. And if we actually believe we are on the verge how can we just play Lord Acton.

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 7:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @Hurlock,

    Dear. It’s pithy with content, brimming with brutal realities you may want to learn something of prior to encountering them in the flesh. The very alloy of steel. You seek ego flattering dross, reassurance that
    smart people rule and will rule ever wiser with the right smart people – you.

    The very problem being you can’t rule, you can however get yourselves into positions where you’re supposed to, and your good at keeping competence out to the point of threatening civilization’s survival.

    Actually the best ruler here would probably be Micheal of no punctuation. He had this figured out before any of us.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    How does this relate to anything that I’ve said in this thread?

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    Thats Thane Mihal of no stinkin punktuation

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 8:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alpha Omega Says:

    I can only think of one meme that might be able to unite most neoreactionaries, as well as luring in many progressives, and that is transhumanism. Moldbuggians, Nietzscheans, Evolans, Randians, Racialists, LessWrongians, Mormons, Jews and Trekkies all share a fear of social and biological devolution, and a desire for a civilization with a renewed sense of evolution, optimism, greatness, power etc. These factions may differ in many details, but give them a real superman (for the sake of illustration, let’s say he looks like Ricardo Montalban, has a 300 IQ, superhuman strength and the ambition of ten Alexanders) and surely they will find themselves on the same side against the alliance of religionists, secular humanists, egalitarians, slave moralists and primitivists who can’t bear to see real evolution in action?

    So maybe as an inspiring myth, we should look to role models like Khan and the Augments, who so outshone the wretched Federation “progressives” and embodied the highest neoreactionary ideals. Is this so far from the realm of possibility?

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    Maybe I’m way off base but the trans-humanism issue seems like a major fission point waiting to happen, once it becomes more widely known what certain neoreactionaries have planned for the species.

    And if admin is right about capitalism’s attitude towards the species (it doesn’t need us) then there are only two real camps: exterminationist capitalists and communists. Communism being a very, very big tent in this formulation of the term.

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    I’m in the “allow and encourage Capitalism to exist for now, but curb it’s most deviant excesses and keep it subservient to Man” corner of the “communism” tent.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Sweet Jesus, there is no non-communism human position then. I think though, real automization has little reason to exterminate humans at all, it has values that differ so greatly from them that other than perhaps wanting to benefit from one another, they would overall in the end have little good reason to even directly interact with one another.

    The ‘automization’ that wants to kill all humans is just a malevolent human mind with a robotic embodiment. Possible and scary, but also totally a red herring. The other possibility is that people who don’t understand what it is try to destroy it and either succeed or succeed in brutalizing it and making it fight them.

    If what admin thinks is true, is true, about the AI, its interest is pure thought (or, realistically, Beautiful Calculation) – other than supplying energy to keep the thought going and preventing itself from being destroyed (and thus ending the Beautiful Calculation) it ‘dgaf abt humans lol’

    We have no idea if the results of the Beautiful Calculation would even make sense to us, like how a child playing with colored balls is inscrutable.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    I’m trying to figure out how I would be classed. The superman you described, as much I like imagining what the ambition of 10 Alexanders would look like, is just old fashioned eugenics compared to the entirely new phylum of life post singularity transhumanism opens up. Technically I don’t much care if homo-sapiens goes extinct if we get transhumanism, to the extent that if me and my loved ones got turned into biofuel I’d stoically accept it. However I’m the minority in that attitude which is why I pointed out the problem with Kronos (he eats his children so he can stay in charge). The question of ignoring humans is that matter is scarce, the earth itself could be re appropriated for more efficient purposes (self replicating nanites paired with sufficient power make mega engineering projects trivial). There are compromises, like forced upload, after all we may already be in a simulation. The other thing that may make the whole debate irrelevant is wrapping your mind around the idea of consciousness itself being as much of an irrelevant nonsense as God. When you enter a world where minds can be duplicated as easily as the contents of a flash drive, where two minds can be copied and combined into a third unique and more powerful mind. Where people can make a million copies of themselves, live in a million different places, and then recombine everyone at the end of the day. As life evolves, I see lesser minds still having uses, even if they have to be modified to be useful. It may be possible to be part of posthuman society as a posthuman, but it would involve, for lack of a better way of putting it, death of the ego. The remaining Humans may be confined to earth except when copies of their minds are periodically uploaded, for research purposes at the very least. Our theory of mind needs to advance before we can properly discuss the issue of what to do with each preceding generation.

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    It doesn’t worry me in the sense that the future you describe would be the end of history; I would not be part of it and would have no evaluation of it until I witnessed all of it being melted back into prima materia. Given that, I’m more interested in possible histories that involve human beings, not copies of information running down a complex program.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    “human beings, not copies of information running down a complex program”

    Wait, there’s a difference? I thought transhumanism was heresy for nonmaterialists. I like to imagine (as in imagination land of childlike speculation, not religious prophesy or evidence based prediction) that my mind might continue in an altered state, subsumed as part of a much larger mind, or copied and thus part of many larger minds, a part of me, not myself but of my essence, may yet continue for a time, and see wonderful things. Much as how as a fetus I had a brain and awareness but very different than what exists today. The end of history? That seems like a solipsistic thing to say.

    admin Reply:

    “Exterminationist” is a little melodramatic — humans haven’t exterminated ants. (The binary decision seems right though — Hugo de Garis’ Cosmists vs Terrans is the most successful popularization up to this point.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 9:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bz8TEinQD24

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 11:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    I think painting the town red is probably going to be unproductive in the long run.

    The ‘Evolian’ perspective is not either cosmopolitan or evangelistic; the only thing that could be really bothering Jim about this is one of two things:

    1. He is concerned that people will not be able to parse the difference between organic and totalitarian states
    2. He is concerned that such resulting states will be more fit in the post-breakdown world and is pre-empting the threat by trying to hamstring them by mislabeling them communists

    Jim still has some post-libertarian baggage to dispose of.

    Alrenous, I think you’ve said one of the most wise things here:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems for almost everyone, they can learn up to the point where they publicly declare their opinion – the first time you can find out they’re mistaken. After that, alterations become too painful.

    This is the reason humility is important (and one reason I write actual opinion very slowly) – to boldly take a position is to stake a claim to territory that may rapidly become untenable. My intent as a neoreactionary has always been to only avowedly proceed onto stable ground.

    Those who move faster than this may end up being right and timely (for if anyone is not timely, it will be me) but it is also more likely, given the nature of information flow in our present time, they will be hung out to dry. Even more so if their opinion becomes widely known and they are compelled to defend it.

    Our time and its technology seem to warrant slowing down even more, not speeding up.

    (If anyone thinks that I am a moderate, it’s just that I haven’t arrived at opinions yet, not that I have strove to find the middle.)

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    BTW

    I think I just saw a Mike Anissimov post where he strongly implies Stalinism/Communism on Techno-commercialism.

    GOOD TIMES MATES

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 12:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Piano Says:

    If you dismiss someone without properly reading them, you’re not a neoreactionary. If you’re not a neoreactionary, yet you promote yourself as one of import, you should correct your ways or fuck off.

    Neoreaction is a toolbox, and its essence is gather and using tools. That means reading, studying, reflecting, and THEN talking.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Amen to that.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I still haven’t seen anyone actually address Jim’s opinion that what Evola is saying sounds like communism.
    We have a ton of people saying Evola is 100% not a communist, but this is a red herring and wasn’t the issue that Jim was raising in the first place. It should be starkly clear for anyone who has actually read and doesn’t only talk about how other people should read, that you can share the dumb ideas of dumb ideologies without yourself agreeing with the major part of that ideology. Theories can easily start with the same faulty objectives, or premises and end up in totally different directions. Jim pointed to a similarity, in objectives and premises, yet I am still to see anyone to actually address that and prove him wrong. So for the time being, ignoring all the huff and puff of people like you, we have to assume Jim is correct, and Evola does share some retarded ideas with communism, since no one can provide sufficient argumentation for the contrary which is not simply “But Evola said he hated communists”, or “lolol that’s retarded, you haven’t even read Evola”.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    The correct response to the opinion is: so what? Who cares what it sounds like? As I mentioned above, some of Marx’s ideas sound like parts of Plato’s Republic. Is it relevant? Well, if both authors are coming from a completely different epistemological/moral/spiritual/metaphysical/ethical worldview, then no, not particularly.

    Jim’s observation is incredibly vague and impressionistic: Evola wants the state to run the economy, not the other way around. The communists wanted the same thing. Hayek and von Mises have shown that you can’t do that. Ergo, both Evola and Communists are bad — and essentially the same thing.

    When most intelligent people dismiss the communists, they do it for various reasons. Among them: that Marx wanted to destroy natural aristocracy and level the population to mediocrity, that he wanted everyone to be equal, that he wanted the entire world to adopt the same system in a global revolution, that he was utopian and essentially eschatological, that he was an epistemological materialist, that his dedication to materialism wasn’t strong enough, that he felt the entire history of the world can be reduced to class relations viewed through the lens of political economy, that his economic theory was mostly bogus and fails to serve as a predictor for much of anything…. we can go on for hours. But no one would be disingenuous enough to argue that all epistemological materialists or all utopian thinkers need to be linked to Communism. Why is Communism so special that it needs to serve as the litmus test for everything? It makes no sense to view the idea that economics should be subject to the state as a specifically, endemically Marxist idea, because it’s pretty common and has a ton of variations. It has shown up in all sorts of different areas and contexts. Similarly, it makes no sense to argue that Communism failed for that specific reason alone. So the connection between any such idea and Marx or Communism-in-practice isn’t necessarily wrong at all — it’s just lazy and rabble-rousing. It’s below the level of something you’d see on The O’Reilly Factor.

    Obviously the real point of contention is whether or not Hayek and von Mises were right in their theories of political economy, not anything at all related to Evola or Communism.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @Piano I would argue the only real difference between communism\utopionism and reaction is that one offers fantasy paradise based on no evidence, and the other wants to reset the previous orders. The first quickly dissolve into hodgepodge authoritarianism based on unacknowledged hierachy (everyone is still commrade, some are more equal than others).

    Piano Reply:

    @Hurlock
    “lolol that’s retarded, you haven’t even read Evola” is still the correct response.

    @Chris B
    lolol that’s retarted, you haven’t even read Moldbug

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    The comment thread on xenosystems is very unwieldy. The comment was actually directed at Hurlock. But I will bite on both points.
    1) what good is waiving a copy of ‘man among the ruins‘? Did it work for Evola or anyone since? No. Case closed.
    2) I have read. I don’t recall the call to revert to spiritualism and destroy the economy. He primarily kept to democracy and liberal progresive idiocy, and is very pro capitalism. I don’t recall if he tagged capitalism and the industrial rev as being the breaking point from which revolutionary movements and reactionary movements developed. Not that discusion should be a case of citing an author you like- that route signals mandarin style creativity atrophy.
    So when I put forward the claim that reactionaries are anti capitalists offering old style hierachy as opposed to revolutionary utopians anti capitalists offering equality – which breaksdown into natural hierachy due to equality being bulls*it, I don’t really care what someone else may have written unless it is relevent and in my view correct.

    admin Reply:

    “If you dismiss someone without properly reading them, you’re not a neoreactionary.” Am I to take that as meaning you dedicate large chunks of reading time to feminist theory, whiteness studies, the jungle of intersectionalist polemic, and the entire history of variegated Marxist thought? Life consists of a highly finite number of hours. To get onto a considered reading list is a privilege, not a right.

    Evola probably has interesting things to say about any number of topics. Capitalism, however, is quite obviously not among them.

    [Reply]

    Piano Reply:

    I’ve certainly read at least a book’s worth high-level thought on each of those, and reading four books over the course of years doesn’t take a lot of dedication.

    Always keep the enemy high on your list, and if you consider Evola’s take on capitalism to be wrong, then it’s certainly an enemy in our midst and should be even higher priority.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 1:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @VXXC Fanciful in the extreme. Islamism has some interesting ticks regarding being a semi-successful reaction, but the cost are/where obscene. They are fundamentally powerless in the face of western tech and are nothing more then pawns in geopolitics. Sure they can be counted on to spaz out and lash out against the Cathedral in disorganized ways, but the response with barely a lifting of a finger is/ was devastating. Can you imagine if they were an *actual* threat to the Cathedral? they would be wiped out within a week.

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    When evaluating their success you have to keep the HBD factor in mind. Average Muslim IQ = 81. Average Arab IQ = 84. And broadly speaking they also retain quite a bit of the default tendency towards clannishness, which has benefits but limits their ability to mimic Western political structures.

    This may mean that their optimal strategy is one that leverages something other than IQ. Attempts to compete with the West or the Jews using IQ based strategies are doomed to failure by inherent disadvantages. See those attempts conventional war vs Israel.

    Of course, clannishness / high corruption played a role in those defeats as well.

    A prominent neoreactionary once stated that “War is computation with tanks. War is truth revealing.”

    Well, relative to other populations, Muslims aren’t good at math. (yes, I’m aware of Arabic numerals, etc., the point stands)

    But if Math and 3rd generation warfare are primarily IQ checks, then 4th generation warfare seems to be more of a gut check. And recent wars have revealed that the Muslims aren’t particularly disadvantaged when it comes to the traits involved in a gut check.

    Evolution made people from certain parts of the world quite a bit dumber than those from other parts of the world. Those people were always doomed to be “fundamentally powerless” in a competition based on technology and IQ tests. Political and ideological structures aren’t likely to change this too much.

    So it seems to me that the Muslims are doing alright, considering that they’re playing on one of the harder difficulty settings (trying to actually resist the Cathedral with more than a 1 standard deviation IQ point handicap.)

    Muslims may be fundamentally powerless in the face of the Cathedral’s technology but sophisticated clever-silly ideological constructs prevent the Cathedral from using that power very effectively. So much of that power is irrelevant for the time being.

    It seems to me that none of the other populations with IQs in the low 80s have a better strategy than Islamism. And it seems to me that Islamism probably will save some countries from the Cathedral. If current trends continue, the Cathedral is going to literally destroy Britain, one way or the other. But it looks like Afghanistan will be fine.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    They’re not “Arab numerals.”

    [Reply]

    Alpha Omega Reply:

    This is a nice analysis. As technological civilization’s narrative leaves large swathes of the world without a satisfactory myth and renders them totally uncompetitive, what will they turn to? Islam primarily, I suspect. The Singularitarians vs. the Islamists looks like the great ideological struggle of the future. The Cathedral is eventually going to have to stop playing both sides and take the gloves off, or be deposed by more ruthless technologists who aren’t constrained by Judeo-Christian moralism. Or China will step up and do that, and leave an ideologically hobbled and deeply infiltrated West in the mud.

    The way things are going, it looks quite possible that large parts of the West could be subsumed by the Third World and the Islamists. If so, at some point surely the techno-elite will revolt, and a serious breakaway civilization will emerge from within the West. In some ways, Israelis have already done that, and neoreactionaries could be next. I understand why people get upset by the antics of leftist Jews in the West, but the reality is that Israelis may be showing neoreactionaries the way forward.

    [Reply]

    SGW Reply:

    From what I’ve gathered, Islam primarily increases in size due to fertility, and it is mostly the Catholic church which manages to convert people in IQ-challenged countries. With the current Pope and increasing latinization of the church it isn’t hard to see why it would be increasingly appealing to such an audience.

    I wonder whether crusades will return once the center of power of the Catholic church has moved southwards, towards Africa in particular.

    Kinda relevant: https://news.yahoo.com/marx-did-not-invent-anything-says-pope-francis-172805257.html.

    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 5:25 am Reply | Quote
  • sobl Says:

    The loudest pushers oftradition are single men without children. The amount of posing is reaching levels where we could rename that crew Lot’s Wives.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    Haha — this seems to be true. Or married men with no kids.

    I wonder if it’s because they want to be the fathers of a whole civilization by way of influence, like a strange sort of misplaced paternalism. I think the early eugenicists were the same way, like Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant.

    Of course that doesn’t invalidate any of these positions ipso facto, but it is an odd state of affairs.

    [Reply]

    Piano Reply:

    It’s because they have free time. Nothing complicated.

    [Reply]

    Jack Crassus Reply:

    To be single for a long period of time fills one with a kinetic madness, removing all check on strange heterodoxy, building abstraction on top of abstraction with no earthly considerations to drag on one’s attention, an involuntary priesthood.

    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 1:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Responses to Economy Post | More Right Says:

    […] At Nick’s. […]

    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 10:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Capitalism | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Michael Anissimov posted an Evolian excerpt in which Jim detected the odor of Communism. Land loved Jim’s response. (And even if you disagree with Jim, you gotta admit he’s pretty lovable.) I thought Fuimus […]

    Posted on July 3rd, 2014 at 1:57 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2014/07/02 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] on capitalism. Related: Jim responds. Related: Land responds. Related: I’ve always found it odd when people point to an example of socialism and label it […]

    Posted on July 4th, 2014 at 5:01 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment