Mission Creep

Sensation — media nourishment — is situated on a border. It tells the inside something about the outside, and is shaped from both sides. The outside is what it is, which might not be perceptible, or acceptable. The inside wants relevant information, selected and formatted to its purposes. Sensation is therefore where subject and object meet.

… that’s an attempt to express preliminary sympathy for Matt Sigl’s situation, caught between an uncanny thing and a definite agenda. Concretely; research collides with editing, with Sigl’s brain as ground zero. The encounter of Neoreaction with the media is a peculiarly vicious one, with the sensations to match.

Crudely speaking, Neoreaction is disgust at the media condensed into an ideology. While generally contemptuous of the human fodder making up modern democracies, Neoreaction principally targets the media-academic complex (or ‘Cathedral’) for antagonism, because it is the media that is the real ‘electorate’ — telling voters what to do. This foundational critique, on its own, would be enough to ensure intense reciprocal loathing. Of course, it is not on its own. Neoreaction is in almost every respect the Cathedral anti-message, which is to say that it is consistently, radically, and defiantly ‘off-message’ on every topic of significance, and is thus something unutterably horrible. Yet utterance — it now seems — there has to be …

So what appears on the boundary — or sensationally — is something remarkably creepy. As a deeply resonant public communication of what has just happened, and continues to happen, as well as what has been editorially decided, this word is almost too exquisite to contemplate. We can at least burrow down into it a little way.

What is creepiness exactly? The intractability of this question is the phenomenon (which is not a phenomenon, exactly). Creepiness is not quite what it seems, and this insinuation of the unknown, or intrinsic inexactness, is something horrible that exceeds the initial sensation of revulsion. It suggests a revelation in stages, complicated by successive revisions, but leading inexorably, ever deeper, into an encounter one recoils from, sensing (inexactly) that it will be ultimately found intolerable.

It’s already a little horror story, most probably with a female protagonist (as acutely noted at Amos & Gromar). From the very beginning, it feels sinister. One cannot see exactly why, because one cannot bear to see. The imprecision of perception is already protective, or evasive, serving dramatically as an ominous inkling of the blinding panic, wild flight, and screaming that must surely come. You really don’t want to see it, even though (horribly) you know that you have to, because it could be dangerous. As the lurid movie posters shriek sensationally, it’s a thing You’d Better Take Seriously.

This is journalism eating itself, or being eaten, in a an encounter with something monstrous from Outside. Look at this thing you won’t be able to look at (without moaning in horror). Watch what you can’t bear to see. It tilts over into a kind of madness, which couldn’t be more obvious, or less clearly perceptible. Sigl’s editors have been sucked into a vortex of horrific sensationalism that draws attention to the one thing they are duty-bound to hide from people. It has to be creepy, that is: imperceptible at the very moment it is seen. The approved response to Neoreaction is to be creeped out, but that can’t possibly be enough.

At first we might think that ‘creepy’ is a subjective adjective, describing something too horrible to describe. It’s tempting, since we suspect these people retreated into their feelings long ago. The reality is far creepier.

Things really creep, although not exactly objectively, when they proceed in a way you’re not quite able to perceive. Evidently, Moldbug sees this (“Something is happening here. But you don’t know what it is — do you, Mr. Jones?”).

You have to imagine you’re the media to carry on further into the horror story. Then you can see that it’s creepy in part (always in parts), because you let it in. That shrieking thing you were doing? Perhaps you should have taken that as a sign. Now it’s creeping about inside, in your media, in your brains, in your dimly unscrutinized thoughts, and all those elaborate security systems that you spent so long putting together — they’re now mostly an obstacle course for the cops, or whoever else you think might imaginably come to your rescue, because they’re certainly not standing between you and the Mind Virus.

Really, what were you thinking, when you started screaming about it, and thus let it in? You don’t know, do you? — and that’s seriously creepy. Even though you don’t want to — at all — it makes you think about HBD, heredity, instincts, impulses, and incomprehensible chemical machines, stealthily at work behind your thoughts, obdurate in their reality, and intolerable beyond acknowledgement. Shrieking “Nazi science!” (or whatever) doesn’t help, because it’s inside now, and you know it’s true, even as you play the hunted heroine mumbling “no, no, no, no, no …” backing ever deeper into the shadows. This is reality, and it’s already inside, that’s what you were saying  when you called it ‘creepy’.

It’s happening, and there’s no point at all saying “get over it” — because you won’t.

December 4, 2013admin 110 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Horror , Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

110 Responses to this entry

  • Orthodox Says:

    This is playing out like a seduction. The girls have found where the bad boys hang out.

    They are trying to give form to their horror by bringing up Nazi/eugenics/white supremacy, which the progressive movement itself is associated with. Their horror is themselves. Neoreaction is the mirror saying to the Cathedral: take a good look at yourself. You are exactly right: they are going to eat themselves. Neoreaction is the formless horror, is not nothing, but it is also at this stage, no thing. It reflects back to the Cathedral its true form, from which the Cathedral recoils in horror.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 8:19 am Reply | Quote
  • Solex Says:

    The Mind Virus? There are countless mind viruses. The one infecting you may contain its own delusions of grandeur, but it is by no means the most virulent.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    1. Empirically, we’ll see
    2. Pragmatically, dark hype is a propagation stimulus
    3. Metaphysically, Mind Virus teleonomy remains deeply encrypted
    4. Gnon-Theologically, MV aligns itself with fate

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    I’ve been infected by several, but this one is by far the most entertaining and the one that makes me feel most in touch with reality.

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    We’re on track for winning the teenage girl demographic and once you get them…

    https://mobile.twitter.com/emashee/status/405555051864678400

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 9:56 am Reply | Quote
  • Artemisia Says:

    Damn it, this makes me struggle with trying to understand why I think neoreaction – short of being creepy – comes across to me as endearing.
    So much for horror stories with female protagonists.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 10:31 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    And to the extent that it works brilliant.

    There’s few things creepier than say sentry duty when you really suspect something – infiltration say – is going on but you can’t put your finger on it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 11:49 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Admin,

    More ammo.

    Have you known any criminals? Say – thieves? Professionals.

    For the Criminal – the True Career Criminal to use modern parlance – the Crime is it’s own reward. It will be pursued even at say the cost of a normal life with loving and caring, good stock wife [who was there because he can protect and provide]. A loving and caring wife and mother of an actually loved child.

    When the time comes that the foolish woman realizes that men seldom if ever change, and that the thief for instance will pursue the crime no matter what- the act of theft is it’s own reward – she will issue an ultimatum.

    Then leave. He may well continue to extend his finanicial and other benevolences [protection] over them. But he will if wise leave them alone otherwise.

    Because the crime will be pursued.

    I mention this because the correct accusation and description of the modern Progressive’s crime with democracy is: Manipulating Procedural Outcomes.

    As in “I am drawn to process Liberalism because my strengths lie in manipulating procedural outcomes.” Which is the confession of a political pyschopath.

    The ammo is: Progs are pyschopathic liars. People don’t like to be lied to….

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 12:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mai La Dreapta Says:

    Horrorism has got to be one of your best posts, and the theme of horror is perhaps the best expression for the relationship of neoreaction to the mainstream. Neoreaction is that which cannot be unseen, which, once glimpsed, destroys the viewers sanity.

    Of course, sanity is contact with reality. If there exists a reality which destroys sanity, then your sanity wasn’t so sane, was it?

    [Reply]

    Grotto Reply:

    Horrorism should become a cornerstone essay for neoreaction. It is the right strategy and the right intellectual stance for neoreaction’s current level of development.

    [Reply]

    Metallurgist Reply:

    > Neoreaction is that which cannot be unseen, which, once glimpsed, destroys the viewers sanity.

    It is not. Perhaps it can be for some, more easily impressionable minds, but I can tell you on good authority that a considerable number of people have observed the evolution of NR since day one, since the first suggestive articles and comments, as closely as can be done without participation, and have found it wanting.

    Flattering oneself upon florid prose may be cute but, in reality, Reaction just doesn’t destroy sanity upon being seen. Even more, it cannot destroy anything at all because it has no control over anything. But then, how could it have? For the Reaction is ultimately a Newtonian one – it moves itself backward with a force equal to that with which the rest of the world moves forward, and this self-imposed increase of inferential distance is, ironically, perhaps the most practical contraception against whatever virulent memes this movement could produce.

    And horror, is it now? Then let me give you some hints on the direction you really should be looking and trying to discern whatever vague shapes are moving there in the dark – your efforts are futile. You have started your movement decades, almost a century too late, and the most probable trajectory of your future is one of rapid self-engineered fall out of relevance. Even a couple of articles in blogs and popular press are already causing internal conflict and hints at retreat.

    The ten thousand eyes of the world are yet closed, as far as you are concerned – but what will you do if they would fixate upon your every move, every Twitter conversation, every blog-post or e-book? I am 87% confident you will burst into flames, shrivel and crumble into the same dust of irretrievably bygone history from which you draw your inspiration.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    So we have a 13% chance, then?

    [Reply]

    Metallurgist Reply:

    According to simple arithmetics, it’s 13% chance of not bursting in flames, yes. How big is the chance, counting from there, that NR will not simply turn into an out-of-mother’s-basement offshoot of /pol/ – well, that is an entirely different question.

    Kevin C. Reply:

    “And horror, is it now? Then let me give you some hints on the direction you really should be looking and trying to discern whatever vague shapes are moving there in the dark – your efforts are futile.”

    This. I thought being a reactionary meant accepting that some problems (poverty, crime, war, etc.) are simply unsolvable — “You will always have the poor among you”, and rejecting wishful-thinking based “solutions”, like those Modernity attempts. And yet, Mr. Land makes the same errors, for he, and those like him, fail to realize that Modernity, the Cathedral, while unsustainable, and utterly disastrous for civilization and our species, is also an unsolvable problem; and that any neoreactionary proposal to defeat, repurpose, convert, seceed from, or even survive the Cathedral is a product of the same sort of over-optimistic detatched-from-reality wishful thinking that neoreactionaries rightly condemn when done by liberals.

    Mr. Land, you say to Modernity that “Nothing that you are doing can possibly work”, and “despair”, and you are right. But you need to take your own advice, for it apples equally well to Reaction:

    Nothing that you are doing can possibly work.

    Despair.

    Despair.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    How would that make any difference? How about this maxim: Do that which you would continue with unchanged even under conditions of infinite despair. Is that OK? Or do I have to succumb to paralysis and weeping?

    fotrkd Reply:

    May as well get it over with then…

    VXXC Reply:

    Despair to the enemy.

    Let the enemy then gnash her teeth in despair as her precious world burns.

    And at the least we can have a Hellava Fire….

    Listen, it works for the Cathedral’s chief American thug clientele.

    And they don’t despair, they have extraordinary self esteem.

    No we cannot solve the Human Condition. That doesn’t mean we have to endure a government of weakling, corrupt, predatory and effete bankrupts who insult us at every interaction with them. We don’t have to turn on the Television to watch the Jud Suss Whitey Channel call for our Big Breasted Warrior Mother Ur-Leaderette* to be gang raped by niggas who then p__ and Sh_t on her…

    We don’t have to put up with that part. Ending that is worth a million lives. Just that part.

    The Category error – that we are not the majority. We’re 79.6%. We are weak…no, we have systemic leadership failure and betrayal. There’s an ancient fix to that one. We are arming so fast the world’s manufacturers lost the ability for months to keep up with demand.

    BTW – still not racist. Not enough to act or support policy on. There being a surfeit of the guilty in the world, there is no need to concern oneself with the innocent.

    And any Sovereign who was sane would make that His Policy as well.

    *This is all in their feverish and demented minds. Palin stepped back, way back. They’re not afraid of Palin. They’re afraid of whites. And it’s a self-fufilling prophecy. Because when you say you want Palin to be gang raped and sh_t on by niggas…you are really saying that’s what you want for whites. She’s always been a symbol.

    Mai La Dreapta Reply:

    I am 87% confident you will burst into flames, shrivel and crumble into the same dust of irretrievably bygone history from which you draw your inspiration.

    This is probably about right. Foseti made a comment somewhere that he belongs to a movement that always loses, and is always proved right (not that anybody ever notices). This is pretty similar to my attitude.

    However confident I may be in comment threads, my actual expectation of success in the near term is very low. In the long enough term, we’ll be proved right, simply because the realities of human nature cannot be suppressed forever, so the Cathedral and its doctrines must eventually fall. But there’s no reason to expect that it will be soon, or that it will be because of a bunch of bloggers.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes.

    Going Pro Reply:

    I can understand this point Metallurgist is making…insofar as NR recognizes itself too much. Self recognition as being human all too human, where NR (to my understanding) was to be a lot quicker than laboring in a mirror stage.

    The logic I thought was unilateral, which to me means not dialectic, which means not having internal responses to references elsewhere in the interwebs.

    On another note, this was the issue with CCRU. Essentially the 2nd “C” (“culture”).
    On a last note, on behalf the self-interest of accelerationism, I miss the posts observing the cutting edges in finance and space exploration. They were around a couple months ago, but are now gone.

    In the end, I can see how NR is slowing down. No bueno.

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 2:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anon Guy Says:

    Reading the Sigl piece, I’m reminded again of why I don’t like the term “Dark Enlightenment”. It sounds sinister, and thus progressives are happy to draw attention to it and use it to make neoreactionaries sound vaguely Satanic. That is not helpful.

    There’s nothing “dark” about this movement, unless you are judging it from the perspective of a believer in the Enlightenment belief in equality. Only someone who emotionally identified with the Enlightenment would call these realizations about nature and humanity “dark”.

    Understanding and accepting that human beings aren’t equal, and that they are unequal for a variety of reasons including several that are beyond their control and beyond remedy, is freeing. It is growth; it is truth, not “darkness”. It is a recognition and celebration of human excellence. Moving towards a social structure that truly honors the humanity and the desire for beauty and excellence that exists in all of us requires that we first acknowledge the truth that all men are not created equal. Accept it as truth, and build a society that applauds those who make the most of their talents, however paltry they may be by comparison to others, rather than celebrates equality and equal outcomes. This is not darkness. This is moving towards a truth and beauty.

    The “Tea Party” was a great choice of a name for that movement. Whoever came up with it deserves credit. It evokes a great moment in our cultural history, and the best the Left could do to try to ridicule it was to associate the term with a homosexual sexual practice, which only showed how desperate they were. But by calling this collection of insights the “Dark Enlightenment”, we hand the Left a very convenient and misleading way of dismissing us as a bunch of basement-dwelling white nerds with vaguely nefarious plans whose ideas don’t need to be looked at too closely. “All you need to know about them is that they call their ideology ‘The Dark Enlightenment'”, they say, and their readers shake their heads and move on.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    For some reason, the So-Bright-it-Burns Enlightenment thing never caught on.

    [Reply]

    Going Pro Reply:

    I ask for a chaos patch regarding the desire for something to “catch on”. Where does this desire come from?
    Maybe this would slow down the torch-raising ideology, and speed up the humility in fatalism…which speeds up speed.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    . It is a recognition and celebration of human excellence.

    Huh? It’s about understanding that 80% suck so much it’s not even funny. It’s about understanding that nations will always hate each other, and the minorities we already have on our midst are not only harmful but will always be so.

    It’s pitch dark. It’s so depressing 99% of people who are told about it cover their ears and pretend not to listen.

    Of course your approach is better PR. But I just don’t see the median masses accepting it. I’ve tried, they hate it, in all countries.

    [Reply]

    Anon Guy Reply:

    Yes, lots of people suck, and nations aren’t going away, and nations compete for resources, and the mixing some races doesn’t work well. But those things are only “bad” if you think egalitarianism is good. If your vision of the good is not equality, but excellence, then those things are neutral facts about the world. Yes there’s crap in the world and always will be but there’s beauty too and it is possible to create beauty, and it is possible for even the meanest of people to gain dignity by doing their best to behave excellently. That is the value we should be trumpeting, not “the world is crap because it turns out that genetics says we can never be all equal, and in fact most of us won’t even be very good at all.”

    My approach IS better PR, you are right; and PR matters.

    Regarding your last point, let me toss this out there: who cares if the median masses don’t accept it? What matters is whether the alphas, the leaders, the shapers of society, accept it. I want a Cathedral oriented around excellence instead of a Cathedral oriented around egalitarianism.

    I think that is not only possible, I think in the long run it is what we will get one way or another because I believe life is inherently configured to seek excellence, and any political philosophy that inhibits that will eventually fail.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    I believe life is inherently configured to seek excellence

    I wonder where you get your optimism dude. I guess we hang out with different life forms. The ones I know only seek to raise their status by lowering everyone elses.

    Look at women today. Everybody is beautiful! Fat is beautiful! Black is beautiful! Annoying over-educated feminist is beautiful?
    Who the hell’s seeking excellence?

    DB Reply:

    @spandrell: just because a large majority behaves in the depressing manner you describe does not mean it is impossible to find, and spend most of one’s time with, a subset which does not.

    Scharlach Reply:

    Spandrell’s cynicism has to be one of the most valuable checks and balances in the reacto-sphere.

    [Reply]

    Going Pro Reply:

    @Spandrell; Do you hear yourself? “I don’t see the median masses accepting it.”
    Holey moley. It didn’t take long for some NR think-tank to become progressive.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Progressive would be to focus on the left half of the bell curve.
    Let me rephrase it: everyeverybody hates HBD. The masses *and* the elite.

    For better or worse we live in a demotist age, power is based in successful brainwashing of the masses. That’s a game we can’t play.

    Matt Sigl Reply:

    I have to disagree. I think the “Dark Enlightenment” and “red pill” stuff is perfect branding for the movement, giving it an intriguing edge, and, most importantly, divorcing itself from the staid meme-space of the traditional right. Plus the D&D imagery reconnects the movement to mythic Western history, and one thing the NR movement prides itself on is a serious re-engagement with the wisdom of tradition and history. For better or worse, the liberal establishment sees history as something we should just be glad we left behind.

    Bottom line: There IS something Sith-like about the Darkly Enlightened; I can’t help but suspect that many neoreactionaries would see Darth Vader as an efficient leader. Don’t fight the trend, there’s deep truth in it. Whether it means that the “Empire” of the Darkly Enlightened should be victorious against the Galactic Senate is another question, but serious neoreactionaries owe it to themselves to at least try.

    [Reply]

    Contemplationist Reply:

    Take it from the media dude that this works. As a not-quite-old guy I agree. ‘Dark’ Enlightenment sounds very edge to my post-modern ears.

    [Reply]

    Robert Reply:

    Matt, your article would have been made stronger with some explication of the relationship between the DE/NR and the “Game” community, where the “red pill” reference seems to have originated. Five or six years ago I didn’t really grasp the relationship, but now the Game discussion has flowed out from the right edge of the connection chart you provided, and been touched on by many of the others. The intrinsic and unalterable differences between men and women, not races, are by far the largest example of “HBD.”

    [Reply]

    Grotto Reply:

    I suppose I have you to thank for dragging me out of radio silence. My first comments at Outside In were in response to an open call for descriptions about neoreaction for your benefit, titled “DE Q&A”, posted Sept 29th. Perhaps you will find it interesting.

    I’ve written a more general response to your piece elsewhere in these comments, this comment is directed specifically at you. Your article is understandable – you adopt the tone of a safari guide or a circus ringleader, promising spectacle and thrills, but without real danger. After all, you have the same problem. On the one hand, you cannot promise true danger, or no one would dare come. On the other, you must offer something – the simulacra of danger – to convince spectators to gather round.

    But through the bluster, fragments of what you really think are revealed, particularly in the verdict, which seems entirely incongruous with the mocking tone that preceded it.

    “ In the end, the Dark Enlightenment should be taken seriously at least by anyone interested in contemporary political thought; its beliefs are reasonably argued and its leading writers can be an engrossing read. And it is becoming increasingly evident that major structural reform, maybe radical in nature, could be what America requires if it is to continue to flourish in the 21st century.”

    Really? Well, that is already quite a substantial concession. Are you saying that perhaps our liberal multicultural democratic consensus needs some adjustment? And if so, where?

    “Still, something essential is always left out of the neoreactionary equation. Universal equality and classical democracy are not synonymous with an all-purpose, lowest-common-denominator leveling of mankind. Rather, they speak only to an existential fairness in which each of us has the right to value, direct and make meaning of our own lives.”

    First, the substantive critique – your right to value, direct, and make meaning of your life sounds outwardly reasonable, but in practice leads to totalitarian demands. To take a most recent example, the logical conclusion of reproductive self-autonomy apparently leads to forcing Catholic schools to pay for contraception and teach safe-sex to small children.

    But even more than that, I’m interested in the tonal critique. You seem to be saying, “Yes, you guys are right, but don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater! We just want people to have freedom and human rights! You can’t possibly object to that!” You are bargaining. Negotiating.

    This means we are winning, because by pushing and redefining the extremes, we have pulled you along. After this two-month engagement with neoreaction, despite active intellectual resistance, you no longer consider the liberal position to be self-evident truth, but rather something to be salvaged, to be saved.

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    “Plus the D&D imagery reconnects the movement to mythic Western history, and one thing the NR movement prides itself on is a serious re-engagement with the wisdom of tradition and history.”

    I was wondering when someone would notice this. The first thing, I mean. The mythic.

    Look what happens when you give young people (not just men, not just white), in this, the Age of Social Justice, the opportunity to just pretend to be, essentially, European knights — none of them apparently “trans” or “differently abled” — with a code of honor, living in a monarchical yet meritocratic society (where, like, the Dragon King is in charge cuz he’s a level 99 magical epic dragon thing). World of Warcraft is what happens.

    There are similar points to be made regarding apocalyptic scenarios in fiction, particularly zombies.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Karl …. Can you expound on this? What do you mean that “World of Warcraft is what happens.” I’m not getting the larger implications here …

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    I mean it has like 10 million players (or something). That’s all. 10 million, most of them apparently normal. All of them paying good money and wasting good hours (& years) pretending to live in a world which is sort of like the one we want to live in.

    Maybe with fewer dragons tho.

    Similarly, people apparently love the idea of civilization collapsing, and everyone gets to roam around with a shotgun dispatching soulless monsters, which in turn everyone imagines they would be really good at. And this is appealing! I talked more about this in Radish 1.9 (Way of Men).

    Thales Reply:

    tl;dr: lotr lol!

    Kgaard Reply:

    Karl … It seems to me you’re saying two different things. I get the appeal of the mythic element in WoW. But I also think WoW is a phenomenally retarded waste of time and a drain of human capacity. I just can’t imagine doing it. I see the appeal of WoW’s clarity of moral code. But isn’t the mere fact of retreating into this fantasy world a sign of total failure to engage with reality?

    Maybe I’m being too hard on WoW. Perhaps it’s a training ground for neoreactionaries, in the same way that early Christian communities were a training ground for democratic movements down the road. Perhaps not the most apropos analogy for this site, but it captures the sense in which one first gets comfortable with a new political setting in a hypothetical way, and later applies it to 3-D reality. So Christians evolved into democrats and WoW-ers can evolve into neo-reactionaries. I see the logic there, though it could take a generation or two.

    Regarding the whole obsession with collapsing civilization, that is probably just a wrong turn. The driver there seems to be that the cutting edge between the present and the future is getting narrower, in the sense that fewer people are really on it and recognize where the world is going. For everyone else, it feels like the world is spinning out of control and must crash. Therefore, they assume crash is a given, when in fact the far-more-likely path is that those few people on the cutting edge continue to mold the reality the rest of us experience, ad infinitum.

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    It is indeed a waste of time. But it is a revealing waste of time.

    That failure to engage with reality is difficult to fix. Perhaps not impossible. (I wouldn’t call the failure itself “training.”)

    Grotto Reply:

    I generally prefer neoreaction over Dark Enlightenment.

    First, neoreaction is a more accurate term. Dark Enlightenment is too specific, as if this movement is confined to a counter-attack on the Enlightenment. We reject parts of the Enlightenment, while embracing other aspects, and our rejection of liberalism is not confined to the Enlightenment. Neoreaction, a broader term that describe a direction (reactionary) and an approach (neo-) seems more suitable as an umbrella term.

    Secondly, and more practically, the word “neoreaction” is readily conjugated into accessible derivatives, such as neoreactionary, neoreactionist, or neoreactive. It is easier to use, and is more likely to gain currency in speech, writing, and Google searches.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The Dark Enlightenment isn’t about the historical Enlightenment per se. It’s not referring to that historical event but to the same metaphor that the original enlightenment got its name from.

    And its ‘dark’ because the rising of the sun reveals that the moonbeam landscape of our dreams doesn’t exist. Wishes aren’t horses. Beggars don’t ride.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I came across these sets of blogs because I saw the phrase Dark Enlightenment somewhere and googled it, because it sounded cool.

    [Reply]

    Mai La Dreapta Reply:

    I disagree: “Dark Enlightenment” is perfect branding. It’s still enlightenment, but it’s enlightenment which is deliberately opposed to the mainstream notion of goodness and progress. Plus, the whole Sith/Red Pill Voldemort analogy is great and should be expanded.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Homer was blind (Jesus was the light)…

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 3:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “All you need to know about them is that they call their ideology ‘The Dark Enlightenment’”, they say, and their readers shake their heads and move on.”

    They move on do they?

    If the phrase “The Dark Enlightenment” were taken as title of a TV show, and then was about anything at all, to include for instance rooting around at garage sales for hidden gems*, and were competently executed by anyone above the standard of a Crypto-Egyptian putative Copt amateur [the 9/11/11 video] then it would be a multi-season success.

    Never mind “we’re here to burn down a world you all hate so much you wish for a plague of the Walking Dead or any other zombie meme and it’s a runaway success” is the actual theme of “The Show” …but no, they’re going to move on?

    Who.Is.Going.To.Move.On?

    Call it: “We’re not Doomsday Preppers. We ARE DOOMSDAY“.

    Yeah. Everyone is going to change the channel.

    *American Tinkers, A&E.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 4:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Tagged under “sex” I see. Good to know.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Mostly due to the Amos & Gromar points (which I found very convincing).

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 5:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Robert Blake Says:

    I am it and it is I

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 5:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotto Says:

    The charge of “creepiness” should be easily dissected by anyone who frequents game/MRA blogs. It is a formless accusation that has no specific substance. It signals something low-status, perhaps with a hit of desperation, or declasse striving. It is an accusation used by those who adopt a socially superior pose, by members of an in-group seeking to ostracize an outsider. Matt is posing as an insider with expert outside knowledge, a safari guide, who will lead the respectable reader on a dangerous tour of the wild.

    Neoreaction’s first encounters with the Cathedral perimeter patrols have been rather promising. Since Matt Sigl started investigating his piece long before the TechCrunch piece arrived, its safe to assume that they are largely independent. I’d guess that Sigl rushed his piece a bit, worried that his thunder was being stolen. Essentially, we have two independent encounters, with TC and Vocativ. I consider David Brin’s piece to be largely derivative of the TC. We can see two distinct strategies:

    The TC piece relies essentially on misrepresentation. It follows the template set by Scott Alexander’s FAQ, and seeks to fight on the much-more favorable ground of monarchy, rather than engage with race-realism or sex-realism. Then, having given a superficial rebuttal to the monarchists, they treat that as if it were a decisive victory over all of neoreaction. They know they can’t win, so they lie about what neoreaction is.

    The Vocativ piece is superficial, but at least provides a more balanced survey of neo-reaction. Sigl commendably includes Scharlach’s constellation of blogs, which I think is one of the most useful pieces of information (and propaganda) in the article. I’m guessing more than one reader will be rather curious to see what kind of people go about with such deliberate systematic purpose in creating a new intellectual ecosystem. His main attack is creepiness – don’t look too hard at these people, don’t take them too seriously, they’re a bunch of loser white nerds. This is a bit of a schizophrenic attack, as for his article to have any importance, he must also portray neoreaction as a potent, virulent threat.

    The media is coming, and as they know they cannot engage the incandescent arguments about race, gender, genetics and IQ, these are the first two trial runs. Misrepresentation and creepiness. Let’s see what else they come up with, but for now, these are the main attacks to contend with.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Sigl commendably includes Scharlach’s constellation of blogs, which I think is one of the most useful pieces of information (and propaganda) in the article.” — One thing I’m noticing is the absolutely extraordinary power of well-executed, information-rich images (diagrams). Anyone with the technical ability to do this stuff really needs to realize how important and effective it is.

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    This semester has been utter hell and has seriously slowed down my commitment to DE. Over holidays, will do best to finish interactive and expanded network map and to get Dark Matter: A Journal of Neoreacionary Studies up and running.

    [Reply]

    Thos Ward Reply:

    I have the technical ability and tools to do graphic work, but little time for content development. If someone roughly drafts the content, I can (and would) make compelling visuals. thosward@hushmail.com

    [Reply]

    Candide III Reply:

    Yes, only we don’t have to contend with them. The people who filter through the misrepresentation and creepiness are welcome. Otherwise, leave the shit alone. The twitter has calmed down on both links and hashtags. Apparently the ‘outside’ is still rather below criticality, possibly because the superficial exposes/critiques are not sufficiently interesting (not that much above the point-and-splutter level) and engaging with our core material is too taxing on the internet kittehs’ attention spans. Heck, I don’t engage as I feel I should.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 7:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    The antigen goes viral and as I predicted first they came for the philosopher

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 12:15 am Reply | Quote
  • Vxxc Says:

    He’s in Shanghai. They won’t extradite him. Not Him.

    The next group therapy really then should be held in a Manhattan resturant kitchen.

    Admin will appear on a TV screen to explain the next move.

    Because if you want Dark….

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 12:53 am Reply | Quote
  • etype series Says:

    I enjoyed the creepiness of this article. Interesting reflections in the comments. Our dexterous host N. Land remarks on the inherent creepiness of the Sigl article, implying he himself is primarily who is creeped out, (a myoclonic response to his own and NR’s reflection in the ‘cathedral mirrors’. … which will be endlessly repeated and in no certain order).
    NR must shed it’s adolescent angst and understand…. There is no possible defeat of the Cathedral, we must become the Cathedral.

    In ‘Enter The Dragon’ the pre-eminent 60’s era Neo-Reactionary Bruce Lee advises – “Destroy the Image, and you will break the enemy”…. and to do this, one must enter the dragon.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    The Cathedral is for Puritans on their last legs. No one will fight for that, no one who toils under this mad priesthood should.

    One would only have to become the Cathedral if one had the Cathedral’s goals: The Cathedral Objective is THE SOUL .

    Until the mid-60s Objective Soul was to be seized in order to save it. Even if they had to lay waste America [1865] then Europe and Japan [1945] and risk nuclear annihliation of mankind [1989*].

    The last 50 years it has desired and subsidized the destruction of the soul. That is why the vulnerable working class was systematically fed destructive subsidies to their very particular** weaknesses, and we’re all deluged in porn, violence, drugs.

    The objective of the modern Cathedral is to destroy the Soul.

    No we don’t need to become the Cathedral, YOU need the Cathedral to save the Sinecure.

    Well, no. Save it yourself.

    *not possible without parties that did want to free the soul so it could be redeemed, that is to say the Catholic Church and conservative American Protestants.

    **and the permutation of feeding these particular destructive weaknesses for 50 years means that No lasting policies regarding HBD should be made until the Subsidies have not existed for at least 50 years. For you are looking at a distortion. .

    [Reply]

    etype Reply:

    Every movement of revanchment – all use and learn the tactics of their overseers
    Mandela – educated at British Universities, ditto Ghandi – too many Africans to list – even Idi Amin Dada educated at British Institutions. A hundred others. Bolivar. Herman the Teuton who destroyed the Roman Legions in the Teutoberg forest – educated and trained by the Romans. The founding fathers of the US. ect.

    The tactic of the ‘Cathedral’ is not rational debate. Their tactic is to enter rational debate in order to spoof their adversary… I’m not suggesting we copy their tactic – but go one higher.

    [Reply]

    Thanatos Reply:

    Your advice about learning the ways of the Cathedral is sound,if poorly-worded. Also,ill-conceived.

    You are addressing the group most knowledgeable of them all about the ways of the Cathedral;its self-selected enemies.

    There is no reason at all to mimic the tactics of the Cathedral at this point, as their tactics are failing against ours. Later, we may have to adopt a tactic specifically used by Jewish Cathedralites, the practice of damning with faint praise. If you’ve ever seen a documentary about neo-nazism on tv in the modern age, you have seen the tactic. You cherry-pick the dumbest-looking/sounding standard-bearer of your opponents, feed him just a little bit of direction, get him off on topics which require a large amount of backstory or logical explanation without sounding bizarre, then you give him no opportunity to explain himself in any depth, thus reinforcing the appearance of stupidity supplied his overall demeanor and cast. Then you draw the curtain on him and seem to say “Ok, folks, you’ve seen everything that his type has to offer.”

    Cathedralite Jews are very good at this type of misdirection, and it is capable of fooling even very erudite whites if planned and carried out with a prestidigitator’s skill and many Jews are capable of performing satisfactorily in this pursuit. This trick may be useful for us in the future, but for now, there is no cause to resort to it.

    Metallurgist believes the light of scrutiny will dry up support for neoreaction. I am quite happy to call his bluff on this. No, armed neoreactionaries will never seize the levers of power in Europe or the U.S. and control policy from the White House or Downing Street. It’ll never happen, but it doesn’t need to. Christ became King of the Europeans and the only blood he shed was his own.

    “This means we are winning, because by pushing and redefining the extremes, we have pulled you along. After this two-month engagement with neoreaction, despite active intellectual resistance, you no longer consider the liberal position to be self-evident truth, but rather something to be salvaged, to be saved.”

    By our own standards,we are not “winning”,we have already won. The situation of the neoreactionary is that of a formula racer,waiting for the photo finish to confirm what those paying attention to the race already saw. The neoreactionary position has been thoroughly vindicated,democracy thoroughly discredited. It wasn’t even a contest. We beat them like red-headed stepchildren in the intellectual realm and in the practical realm. Compare the longevity of the Egyptian Dynasties to the impending collapse of the United States ,after a mere 200 years. We are simply waiting for our win to be acknowledged formally by our opponents and their supporters.This we will coax from our opponents, and they will provide it ,begrudgingly,after a lot of impotent protests.

    Kevin C. Reply:

    @Thanatos

    “their tactics are failing against ours.”

    Are you delusional? it’s the exact reverse.

    “Later, we may have to adopt a tactic specifically used by Jewish Cathedralites, the practice of damning with faint praise.”

    The tactic you outline only works for those who control the megaphones, and that will never be Reaction.

    “By our own standards,we are not “winning”, we have already won.”

    Again, only someone completely detatched from reality could believe such utter nonsense.

    “The neoreactionary position has been thoroughly vindicated,democracy thoroughly discredited. It wasn’t even a contest. We beat them like red-headed stepchildren in the intellectual realm and in the practical realm.”

    Then why are governments continuing to move Leftward; why are there no Neoreactionary states? Because outside this tiny litte corner of the Internet, demotism is most definitely not discredited, it reigns triumphant.

    “the impending collapse of the United States”

    Yes, the United States will collapse, and take the world with it. It will go up in a Leftist Singularity of cataclysmic proportions as the Left continue their only response to failure: to double down; to consume yet more irreplacable civilizational capital in their futile attempts. And when it doesn’t work, well, it’s because those born-evil whites are holding back minorities with their evil eye unconscious racism and stereotype threat, and that’s why they all have to die, like Oprah and Solomon Wong call for. Thus, expect at least 90% of the white race (and a fair chunk of the Asians) to be killed when the Cathedral goes from passive to active genocide. Expect attempts at secession, all crushed. First, they will crush them with conventional force; then, when the failing system can no longer afford to do so, they will, like a small child who breaks their toys rather than share them, on the principle of “if I can’t have it, no one can”, reduce the breakaway regions to radioactive wastelands. Meanwhile, the stripping of ever more resources to fund this final, mad-dash reach for equalist utopia will finally consume enough to push industrial technology beyond the point of no return, ensuring a medieval/Amish future for the rest of human existence.

    “This we will coax from our opponents, and they will provide it, begrudgingly, after a lot of impotent protests.”

    Impotent protests? Really? They will acknowledge defeat only when there is no more civilization left to consume.

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 6:32 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    “Admin will appear on a TV screen to explain the next move.”

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aHz9NAwfgnA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaHz9NAwfgnA

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… you are one of us now.”

    (Where do you find this stuff?)

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    “That’s the sex that passes the censor, squeezes through between bureaus, because there’s always a space between, in popular songs and Grade B movies …” (WSB)

    Seventies children’s entertainment was particularly rich in coded messages from beyond.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 6:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    The pederastic warlock Burroughs employed a similar stratagem with some success:

    “… I think there is a residue of fair-minded people in England who will read it as it is intended: as an empirical sociological observation. If an image or symbol is widely venerated in a population segment, the desecration and shattering of that image or symbol will shatter the social structure insofar as that structure is based on the image or symbol. It’s a very old rule: shatter the idols and you shatter the social structure. … The tactic must shock and enrage, preferably to the point of madness. that is what this tactic is all about: desecration, madness.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Hmmm … not entirely convinced that the stratagem is the same. It’s hard to tell, given the way Burroughs so often wraps his process in bogus political trappings, for fictional effect. This type of passage strikes me as as an amusing way to mess with left-anarchist heads.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 7:16 am Reply | Quote
  • Cipher Ideology | Anarcho Papist Says:

    […] to do so. Is that why, if we don’t want to admit it’s scary, we will say it is creepy? But why is it so creepy? What makes it so […]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 7:59 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    O/T but Jim nailed it [and BTW I called it during the Conclave as Pope Social Justice I].

    Progod is a Jealous God, and will have no other gods before it. Other gods have to bow to it and acknowledge god Prog’s supremacy, as this man does….

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/04/pope-francis-is-catholic-churchs-obama-god-help-us/

    But what’s interesting is the reaction against Francis has begun, and FOX is pandering to it…what FOX does is pander to the conservative American. That’s their business. They’re good at it. They also give far too much air time to the GOP, but realistically…there’s no business case otherwise.

    Ye.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 12:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • etype series Says:

    No. Burroughs describes what has been done to the integrity of the language of Western discourse and our methods of rational correlation whether in politics or inter-personal affairs. This is our shattered image – rationality – the throne is empty. The secret for success of the ‘Cathedral’s’ method is to engage us in discourse in which the end is not what is true, or false, but rather what is unreal, or the more or less totally irrelevant.
    This is ‘critical theory’, deconstructionism. Just as Sigl’s approach was not at it’s core a rational exchange of ideas, but like modern journalism – pubescent, juvenile, pathetically comic…. ‘creepy’….

    Burroughs was ahead of us – he was the conceptually extremist neo-reactionary party of one. This was the core of his thought, and so he indulged himself in the subject matters ‘creepiness’ or ‘horror’, the same as you intuitively remark upon as a result of your recent engagement with the ‘Cathedral’.

    Viruses are obligatory cellular parasites and are thus wholly dependant upon the integrity of the cellular systems they parasitize for their survival in an active state. It is something of a paradox that many viruses ultimately destroy the cells in which they are living…And I may add the environment necessary for any cellular structure they could parasitize to survive. Is the virus then simply a time bomb left on this planet to be activated by remote control? An extermination program in fact? In its path from full virulence to its ultimate goal of symbiosis will any human creature survive? Is the white race, which would seem to be more under virus control than the black yellow and brown races, giving any indication of workable symbiosis?”
    Why did he write this? Concern for virology? computer security? He was investigating the microcosm, the system denuded of distractions with which he could understand and explain the deep state, he was both prescient and accurate. Burroughs analogue for ‘the personal is political’ is ‘the ideological is biological’ – he eschewed the trappings of the conservative face of rationality because he knew it had been shattered, and instead pursued efficacy. He was supremely rational. The left reads Burroughs not for it’s intellectual content, but for it’s ‘creepiness’, ‘horror’, to enthusiastically see themselves named.
    You probably didn’t notice, but I commented to you once that you’d be subsumed eventually by as you call it – ‘the Cathedral’. Perhaps working for it I mused. It’s inevitable because you have no where else to go other than to remain a quirky niche. You’ve already demonstrated to my mind a talent for conceptual synthesis, as in your book ‘Fanged Noumena’… you must realize in your encounter with the Cathedral, that you are either working for or serving them, if you plan to covertly make war to subvert them. And here, supra-rational points of reference will appear to them as little more than a minor deviance, as the method of rational discourse itself has already been settled to their satisfaction.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 12:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Reaction Ruckus | Handle's Haus Says:

    […] 04-DEC-2013, Nick Land, “Mission Creep“ […]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 12:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    @ Anon Guy

    Darkness is more like truth, light more like lies. The truth is eternal. Light requires constant effort to maintain. Light is constantly changing, and impossible to exactly recreate once snuffed. One light can drown out another light. Darkness is what is left when all lights are stripped away. By conversing the analogy, it becomes almost exact, it seems.

    That darkness is PR-unfriendly is a virtue. It’s much easier to be socially acceptable than to believe the truth, and the word ‘Dark’ is a constant reminder that reactionaries would rather be right than popular. It’s a one-word repudiation of demotism. Going with the flow, molding the message to the audience; these are traps. Mold the audience with the message, and fuck ’em if they can’t be molded.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Two excellent points.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Thanks.

    This post is my new favourite xenosystems post. I agree with Mai La Dreapta that your horrorism point is really good, but I didn’t understand it until just now.

    “Look at this thing you won’t be able to look at (without moaning in horror). Watch what you can’t bear to see.”

    Dude, edit this to fit on a t-shirt.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 12:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    I’m still laughing at this, admin:

    “Let us kick it to the curb and throw it under the bus and back up over it a few times.”
    — You’re going to metaphor us to death?

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 3:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    @etype series

    Burroughs describes what has been done to the integrity of the language of Western discourse and our methods of rational correlation whether in politics or inter-personal affairs. This is our shattered image – rationality – the throne is empty. The secret for success of the ‘Cathedral’s’ method is to engage us in discourse in which the end is not what is true, or false, but rather what is unreal, or the more or less totally irrelevant. … [H]e eschewed the trappings of the conservative face of rationality because he knew it had been shattered, and instead pursued efficacy. He was supremely rational.

    Supremely rational or just supremely efficacious? You speak as though he wanted to purify rational discourse of its Cathedralite distortions, employing disruptive efficacy as a means to this end. Yet he spoke as though disruption was the end and rational discourse as such the problem (“rub out the word”), source of the pesky cop/priest control process that had the effrontery to put pederasty outside the law.

    Perhaps something was talking out of Uncle Bill’s ass.

    [Reply]

    etype.series Reply:

    ‘Supremely efficacious’. If you read my comment as suggesting he wanted to purify rational discourse, then I apologize for my comment was poorly written. It was late and I took no care in the formulation of my argument. Your criticism is fairly astute at any rate. Burroughs, did dismiss the word as infected, yet didn’t propose disruptive efficacy, but diagnosed and predicted it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 6:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • etype Says:

    @Thanatos/KevinC

    Listen, nobody’s made any money betting against the United States, or the ‘Cathedral’ yet, and we haven’t won anything, and in the end we all die and go to hell anyway. While we’re here we need game… that’s how things work in this town. Theory is fine, what’s needed is game. The ‘Cathedral’ is a hypergamous bitch – with a head full of ego-mego rainbows and endless loops of the sparkly illogical nonsense of the eternally feminine. She only exists because of the motherloving guys with the unending supply of 5.6mm hollowpoints. But she is a woman, who is a whore, and the bla bla blah is fine between the lads, but her cunt doesn’t have ears or an orifice for ideals.

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    “Listen, nobody’s made any money betting against the United States”

    Vietnam? Or was that the US losing to the Cathedral?

    [Reply]

    Kevin C. Reply:

    The even more bizarre gladiatorial bloodbath of Vietnam, in which it was almost impossible to recognize anything resembling a military strategy or objective, was so hard for Plainlanders to understand that it actually wound up as a political victory for the ultra-loyalist radicals, now recognizable as our modern-day “blue-state” Coasters. Vietnam was so confusing that after the Pentagon had won a complete military victory over the South Vietnamese insurgents, State prevailed by simply capturing Congress and imposing a surprise arms embargo on the corrupt, reactionary leaders of South Vietnam, treating them much as it had treated Chiang. The resulting North Vietnamese invasion surely reminded a few diplomatic silverbacks of the good old Popular Front days, when the Red Army rode into Poland on Plainland-made Jeeps.

    –From Mencius Moldbug’s “How Dawkins got pwned (part 5)

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    BTC is $1k per.

    They were $150 6 months ago.

    They were $9 2 years ago.

    Plenty of money made there.

    [Reply]

    etype Reply:

    Generalizing from the particular is not considered a sign of great intelligence, and is considered one of the cardinal logical fallacies.
    This is where neo-reactionarism fails – the inability to hold two opposing concepts in ones mind at the same time….the ‘enlightenment’, without qualification, was bad? Allright, that fits on a T-shirt….. next.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    A blanket rejection of the enlightenment is more of a paleoreaction than a neoreaction.

    admin Reply:

    @ Steve Johnson
    An exaggerated BTC price correction would be welcomed by those laggards among us who are still waiting for an opportunity to climb aboard.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Now that btcchina is there you have no excuse really.

    Posted on December 8th, 2013 at 2:52 am Reply | Quote
  • etype Says:

    I don’t remember LBJ or McNamara et. al. falling into a tiger trap or loosing a lot of sleep. They did all right actually in an military/industrial sense. Sure they cry about the 58.000 dumb folk, but you know what they say ‘survival of the fittest’… and as for the 2.500.000 mostly civilian Vietnamese, well
    “Charley don’t surf!”

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 8th, 2013 at 5:15 am Reply | Quote
  • etype Says:

    I find neo-reaction interesting as an opposition of principle… but I cannot get to or find the fundementals. It seems to only derive Oughts from some materialist universe of Is’es. Basically doomed from the start… but it’s a start. And that my friend, is Dark Enlightenment.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The ought / is problem is the output of some deeply flawed philosophical assumptions. Self-cultivation doesn’t divide into it in a convincing way (which takes out all emergent systems immediately).

    Handle makes a valiant effort to construct a Neoreactionary genesis narrative here.

    [Reply]

    etype Reply:

    Thank you, those are helpful. As of yet I’ve only read ‘Neoreaction explained (for Dummies)”, but it was sufficient for my purposes. I’m reminded how everyone who shaped Quantum physics disagreed with each other vehemently and totally about the meaning of their work. Einstein who opposed the whole concept, rejected the “spooky” aspects of the entire system, Heisenberg thought that Schrodinger’s work was “disgusting,” and Schrodinger in turn was “repelled” by Heisenberg’s theories. Not surprisingly, Schrodinger and Heisenberg both proved themselves right.  This, in and of itself, is a very valuable lesson that’s very difficult to learn.  For instance, if you disagree with my version of quantum theory, or I disagree with your version of neoreaction, you’re not wrong…but then again, neither am I.

    [Reply]

    Kevin C. Reply:

    @Admin

    It is rare these days, at least in my experience, to find criticism of the Humean gap; what I have encountered tends to fall either into the domain of the explicitly theological (where God fills the gap), or else is firmly Chinese. Based on the reference to self-cultivation, I venture that you have in mind something of the latter form. I admit that I have only passing, and indirect, familiarity with the latter, by way of Thomas A. Metzger’s work.

    Now, isn’t part of the developing neoreactionary consensus the degree to which Darwinian insights into human nature comport with ancient religious teachings discarded or denigrated by the Left? That we can agree on the general contours of man’s fallen or evolved nature (mfen?) while suspending decision on the cause? Further, the negative consequences of mfen for ideas of perfectability, the limitations it imposes, serve an important role in criticism of Leftist utopian schemes dependent on molding tabulae rasae into the New Soviet Man Progressive Person.

    This is relevant to the above, however, in that Chinese arguments against Humean is-ought separation seem (at least to my, admittedly limited, understanding) to be entangled with, and ultimately inseparable from, Confucian models of moral perfectability. These, though, appear just as incompatible with mfen as Leftist models of perfectability. To quote from Metzger’s A Cloud Across the Pacific:

    Again, behind this contrast between conceptualizations of evil and of the ideas needed to overcome it lie contrasting definitions of human nature — the dark Western notion of a perpetually sinful being quite capable of conspiring with the Devil, and the sunny Confucian notion of a being who would be morally perfect but for the persistence of some removable shortcomings (despite their differences, Confucius’s two major interpreters in classical times, Mencius and Hsun-tzu, shared this view, which has remained central to Chinese thought down to the present). Indeed, this sunny view of universal human nature was integral to the concept of ” culture” (wen- hua) which Chinese intellectuals imported by about 1920. According to widespread views, people would not be selfish if “bad” “cultural” tendencies could be corrected.

    Thus, I, for one, would be interested in a further outlining of your critique of the Humean gap, with an eye as to its consistency with the Neoreactionary insight into mfen and the lack of human perfectability.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes, I concur with all of this, including the specific questions to be addressed. They’ll require some slow unfolding, in stages. The only provisional offering I can make is that the qualification of “perfection” has an obvious realist usage (erratically touched upon in Western traditions, too), when it designates something to be discovered, rather than imposed from a presumed advance understanding. This is evident in a Western theodicy (such as Spinoza’s) which takes the form: God defines the Good, irrespective of our confused preliminary ideas about it.

    Alrenous Reply:

    Let me give you a third type.

    Where’s Hume’s proof? He didn’t prove it, it’s presented as a diagnosis of a rhetorical pathology. It’s something to watch for, not a proof it can’t be avoided.

    If you believe ought can’t arise from is, where’s your proof? No philosopher has any business believing anything they cannot personally prove. In these cases, the correct answer is abstain. It’s not like we all need our own personal LHCs, this stuff is all made of words and thinking.

    Looks to me like Land would rather dissolve the problem.
    Here’s a fact: to first order approximation, the kind of person that needs to be compelled by ‘oughts’ is a sociopath that cannot be so compelled. They respond only to prudence and punishment. Everyone else is motivated by basic decency and the idea that if you don’t step on my toes I won’t step on yours.

    Porphy's Attorney Reply:

    More people have made critiques of the “Humean Gap” than one might think. It’s just that they don’t get paid as much attention as they arguably deserve, and so aren’t widely known, and so the Humean Gap has the sense of being unchallenged and unchallengable in the minds of people who are aware of it in the first place (We’ll set aside the ignoratii). As neoreactionaries we don’t have to guess why that is.

    But as neoreactionaries we should make ourselves informed on the subject, because arguably the “Is-Ought Gap” is a result of the same intellectual/philosophical error that led us to where we are now.

    I highly recommend reading Alasdair MacIntyre, who covers this (and also why the Enlightenment Project had to fail – which does not mean we need to dismiss the worthy parts of that first Enlightenment, simply the unworthy parts).

    I also highly recommend Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition,” which, among other things, critiques the whole Is-Ought gap, and/or his Aquinas book.

    Also, Phillipa Foot’s “Moral Beliefs” paper.

    Noting that the work that has been critical of the “Is-Ought distinction” tends to have been done in the Aristotelian philosophical tradition. Hopefully that’s reactionary enough (without having to buy into everything any Aristotelian ever said).

    ANd yes, Hume did shift the burden of proof (look up “Hume Shifts the Burden of Proof” on friesian.org).

    Also while I’m plugging away, the “divergence point,” intellectually, seems about the time as many other divergences neoreactionaries tend to note (here I’ll dirgress and recommend North’s “Postmillenialism and the Progressive Movement,” and Quant’s “Secularization of Postmillenialism,” pdf’s of both articles being online for free. I’ll also recommend McCloskey’s book on Bourgeousie Dignity; which while not explicitly highlighting Postmillenialism, picks out exactly the place, time, and intellectual/rhetorical strains that a good neoreactionary would expect to find; and noting that even we neoreactionaries wouldn’t want to throw out *all* of this. As many have said, we ourselves are a sort of heretical offshoot of the Cathedral, reacting against its most pernicious strains, and the flaws in its inception which led us to where we are now. Critical flaws that tend it towards hypertrophy and civilizational dissillusion, and thus which need to be corrected. But now I’m digressing wildly).

    Posted on December 9th, 2013 at 7:57 am Reply | Quote
  • ht Says:

    Disappointing to see ye all getting so excited about this piece written by a nobody for a worthless website. They’re just exploiting you for ad clicks and pageviews. I have no doubt that you realize this, but apparently a bit of a fame is a dangerous thing. Quite sure that most of the NR bloggers would sell their dark enlightenment powers for the chance to be a matt sigl at some upworthybuzzclickme.com

    [Admin: Indiscriminate drive-by abuse this inane would normally be re-directed straight to the spam queue. I’m letting it though this time, on the liberal presumption that it doesn’t fully reflect the potential of Ht‘s thought-processes. So if anyone is interested in the boundary-line set by this blog for intolerable trolling, it’s just about exactly here.]

    [Reply]

    ht Reply:

    Apologise for my trollish tone. I wanted to emphasize how the media engaged has been of a rather low calibre.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s OK. (Thanks for vindicating my liberal impulses.)

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    We haven’t been engaging much, have we?

    I think Moldbug might have felt he had to respond, but ‘low calibre’ is much nicer than the names he called these ‘people.’ And in true Moldbug style he went flagrantly off-topic as quickly as possible.

    For the most part, we are observing. Someone noticed us and we are noticing that they noticed. I observe that reports on DE could hardly start in high-calibre publications, so by process of elimination…

    Moreover, even if the very first MM profiles had appeared in the NYT and Economist, Moldbug’s dismissive insults would still have applied. I don’t know where all the bright bulbs end up these days, but it sure isn’t in journalism.

    [Reply]

    ht Reply:

    I agree, NYT would probably just repeat the same “creepy white men who want to be kings” line(using better vocabulary). Though a better exposure would generate a higher-quality discussion, which is all in all good.

    Personally I’d love to see(listen, read) a debate between MM or Land and an educated leftist who would avoid the “you’re thinking forbidden thoughts/ you’re not cool” type of arguments used so far. Not sure if this is possible at all at the current climate…

    Alrenous Reply:

    On reflection, I think if your philosophy requires a critic, then your philosophy is a dead man walking. Do physicists need critics? Some sort of anti-physics debate?

    Reality is the ultimate critic. Work out which truth you wish to understand, and from there work out what success and failure look like.

    I want an accurate civics class. How does USG in fact function? Who calls the shots and how do they do so? I succeed when I can look up someone by name and address, and then predict how USG will evolve based on their stated views.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    @alrenous

    Good criticism is reality faster

    Alrenous Reply:

    Sure.

    Good to have != need. Having a critic is great. Needing a critic means I’m disconnected from reality and I am connected to the status framework.

    Posted on December 9th, 2013 at 9:31 am Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    @ Alrenous — Some awesome (is/ought) Gordian Knot slicing there.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Thanks.

    Unfortunately I’m in the second or third order terms. I need a formal theory of morality or I’m apt to see the system as something to be exploited. Indeed I’m still apt to exploit such frameworks – the point is to stop me exploiting them immorally.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 9th, 2013 at 2:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • ht Says:

    > How does USG in fact function? Who calls the shots and how do they do so?

    Seems that this information would be worth millions if not more. The keys to the kingdom.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Foseti and Handle (both in my blogroll) are the go-to guys for that — indisputably crucial — question.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Care to get either to confirm or deny the hypothesis that journal editors are the most powerful Americans today? Bureaucrats follow the science, science is determined by what is published, and editors determine what is published. Indeed, so much science attempts to get published it follows the Homestuck principle – they will be able to find whatever they want to find in that cornucopia.

    Grant agencies seem to have similar leverage, but grant seats are determined in part by who publishes the most…

    @Ht: if this is so, how it worth money? I expect new journal editors are chosen by the old journal editor. If I’m out to prove I’m disenfranchised so that I can discredit ‘democracy,’ mission accomplished – except that ‘democracy’ need justify itself to no one.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 9th, 2013 at 4:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • etype Says:

    @shifting the burden of proof

    I call bullshit on this fodderall that takes Hume’s simple warning to consider why things ‘are’ + ‘is’ and not confuse and miscegenate them with ‘should be’ and ‘ought’ …. requiring as always a unending vortex of complex meta-verbiage that increases in torque until it spirals up the thinkers ass and into his brain and out his mouth. Correct me for being misinformed, but I didn’t read Hume as suggesting the ‘is/ought gap’ was the new advent and a fit occasion to build a royal suite of sandcastles in the sky. He was observing that people often build rube goldberg philosophical contraptions in their head that always seem feverishly obvious when tested by the same fallacies used to build it. An Architect does not design or build on ‘oughts’, nor does any other physical science unless you call applied dialectical marxism a physical science as some used to if they hadn’t been assigned to the dustbin of history (I’m hoping permanently). There is no conflict between ‘is’ and ‘to be’, but there is a problem with ‘ought’ and ‘to be’, in that ‘ought to be’ is passive, feminine, whining and annoying, especially when expressed in a torrent of psuedo-philosophical logorrhoea. Who wouldn’t, as Göring suggested ‘reach for his revolver’?

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 10th, 2013 at 9:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2013/12/11 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] creeping horror of the neoreactionary mind virus. Related: Cipher ideology. Related: Neoreaction in the news. Related: The reaction ruckus, […]

    Posted on December 11th, 2013 at 6:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » 2014 Prognoses + Says:

    […] pitiful distancing signals. (Given what can be confidently expected, we might as well make ‘creepy‘ our […]

    Posted on January 15th, 2014 at 5:46 am Reply | Quote
  • No memes, only “societies”. | ananthropotropics Says:

    […] or propositional content. Relevant indexical phenomena may include affective states (for example creepiness) or pragmatic effects. It matters because it follows that memetic warfare is a progressivist […]

    Posted on July 16th, 2014 at 2:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Missão Arrepio – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on April 11th, 2017 at 8:42 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment