Neoreactionary Realism

The easiest place to start is with what neoreactionary realism isn’t, which is this:

For a reactionary state to be established in the West in our lifetimes, we’ll need to articulate the need for one in a language millions of people can understand. If not to produce nationalists, to at least produce a large contingent of sympathizers. The question, “What is it, exactly, that you propose to do?” must be answered, first in simple terms, then in detailed terms that directly support the simple arguments. The urge to develop esoteric theories of causes and circumstances should be tossed aside, and replaced with concrete proposals for a novel form of government that harmonizes with perennial principles. This can be achieved by producing positive theories for a new order, rather than analyzing the nuts and bolts of a decaying order.

Beginning with a model of an ideal society is a procedure that already has a name, and a different one: Utopianism. It’s not a difficult way to think. For instance, imagine a political regime based on commutative tax politics. As far as economic considerations are concerned, the political problem is solved. Policy choices are aligned with practical incentives, and the manifestly irresistible democratic impulse to redistributive violation of property rights is immediately terminated. The trouble with this idea? — There’s no practical way to get to it. The real problem of political philosophy does not lie in the conceptual effort of modeling an ideal society, but in departing from where we are, in a direction that tends to the optimization of a selected value (equality stinks, utility doesn’t work, freedom is OK, intelligence is best).

Where can we get to from here? Unless this question controls political theory, the result is utopian irrelevance. The initial real problem is escape. In consequence, two broad avenues of realistic neoreactionary reflection are open:

(1) Elaborate escape. This topic naturally bifurcates in turn, into the identification and investment of exit-based institutions, and the promotion of secessionist options (from fissional federalism to seasteading). An escape-based society, unlike a utopia, is structured in the same way it is reached. Upon arriving in a world made of the right sort of fragments — splintered by political philosophy rather than tribal variety — all kinds of real possibilities arise. (Tribes are a useless distraction, because they resonate to defective philosophies — a world of Benetton differentiated failing social democracies is the one we are being herded into now.)

(2) Defend diversity. Once again, ethnic diversity — as such — means next to nothing (at best). Every ‘people’ has shown itself capable of political idiocy. What deserves preservation is fracture, defined over against Cathedral universalism. Any place that can practically count as ‘offshore’ is a base for the future. In particular, the East Asian antidemocratic technocapitalist tradition merits ferocious ideological defense against Cathedralist subversion. Within the West, domestic enclaves that have resisted macrosocial absorption — from Amish communities to survivalist militia movements — have comparable value. Wherever political globalism fails, neoreaction wins.

The very last thing neoreaction has to usefully declare is I have a dream. Dream-mongering is the enemy. The only future worth striving for is splintered into myriads, loosely webbed together by free-exit connections, and conducting innumerable experiments in government, the vast majority of which will fail.

We do not, and cannot, know what we want, anymore than we can know what the machines of the next century will be like, because real potentials need to be discovered, not imagined. Realism is the negative of an unfounded pretense to knowledge, no less in political sociology than information technology.  Invention is not planning, and sky-castles offer no refuge from the Cathedral. If there’s one thing we need to have learned, and never to forget, it’s that.

ADDED: Adventures in Exiting

July 4, 2013admin 57 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

57 Responses to this entry

  • Contaminated NEET Says:

    Shoot. I was hoping “neoreactionary realism” would be an art movement.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 9:09 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    No seastead is an island.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 9:57 am Reply | Quote
  • Arred Says:

    Surprised to read some of this, and still skeptical. How could the future “splitter into myriads?” Ethnic Balkanization seems like one possibility, but could that actually develop into political Balkanization? I read this all by way of Moldbug and Ellul, and with Moldbug’s Hobbesian observation that sovereign power will inevitably assert itself taken into account, it only remains to question what the requisite qualities for commanding that power are. All signs point to efficient internal ordering, and there’s a fairly obvious economy of scale effect whereby the bigger the base of the pyramid, the taller the height. In other words, unless you can explain a mechanism by which centralization of economic power could be reversed and small companies would somehow begin to overtake global corporations, I see no way that small political units could overtake the progressively more centralized competition. Exact same logic.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Economies of scale are clearly real, but there is no reason to think they are historically consistent. The era of mass production amplified them to a peak, and they have been exploited as a malignant factor, funding the bureaucratization, and eventual state-corporatization of capital. Large organizations replace market relations with command-control structures (suppressing catallaxy), eroding innovation, and raising the incentives for political-regulatory capture, as opposed to market competition.

    So I accept the problem, while insisting that it is a problem, and holding open the possibility that certain avenues of technological development promise a reduction of scale economies (a trend that is reinforced when returns to innovation are increased). Short-wavelength / tight-feedback production circuits optimize for intelligence.

    When it comes to nation states, there is overwhelming evidence that scale is socially corrosive. Nation scale negatively correlates with wealth, a pattern that holds despite the fact that America has historically been an outlier — although this exception is also eroding. City states are vastly more efficient as units of political organization than large countries, in which the temptations for redistributive policies and other types of cybernetically disintensifying risk-pooling are maximized.

    Efficiency is optimized as it approaches cause-consequence coincidence — an (unreachable) limit from which large-scale organizations recede.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Perhaps the battle against scale is the most fundamental, real battle. More than mere epiphenomena such as progressivism or bureaucratic corruption.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    A very persuasive case could be made for that.

    sviga lae Reply:

    That’s certainly Taleb’s view, which even has a shot at public exposure.

    Arred Reply:

    I agree that it’s a problem but don’t see any solution. Is there not a historically consistent movement in the direction of scale? What has interrupted it besides war and collapse – I.e. are there any historical examples of voluntary reduction in scale, as anything other than a response to isolationist pressures following conflict or economic downturn? Because those are temporary reactions to circumstance. not structural changes.

    When I say efficiency, I refer not to efficiency of political organization, but to the economic efficiency of a governing institution. I get a lot of this in reading Codevilla – not to mention the emphasis that he, moldbug, and yourself seem to place on the social reality that people within an administrative organization will always opt for greater influence over less. Only two of the reasons why I don’t see the natural inclination to scale reversing itself. What are some examples of technological developments which favor regression, though? I think most of them will necessitate the universal and homogeneous state, but I’m interested in hearing counter-arguments.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    One critical factor is the wave-length of the technological self-replication cycle. High frequency circuits promote autonomy at a comparatively small scale. Robotics and information technology (AI, 3D-printing …) seems to be shrinking these cycles, or cybernetically intensifying. That trend should counter-indicate for the dominance of scale economies.

    sviga lae Reply:

    (the antifragility thesis being quasi-cybernetic already)

    [Reply]

    Arred Wade Reply:

    “One critical factor is the wave-length of the technological self-replication cycle. High frequency circuits promote autonomy at a comparatively small scale. Robotics and information technology (AI, 3D-printing …) seems to be shrinking these cycles, or cybernetically intensifying. That trend should counter-indicate for the dominance of scale economies.”

    Not sure about this one. The same thing could have been said about the internet. Lo and behold, while it has resulted in a geographical diffusion of economic activity, this only allowed the global 1% to increase the size of the market they already dominated. AI and 3D printing may decentralize production the way the web did information services, but why would this result in anything other than the 1% responsible for design and organization increasing their reach dramatically and creating a global economy of scale?

    The economic example was only an illustration of the political principle. Moldbug is brilliant enough to treat economic and political institutions as if they operate by the same rules – because they do. If there is a natural organizational advantage provided to economic institutions of greater scale — regardless of how or where the grunt work is performed — then the same is true for the institutions which decide how we spend public money, and centralization is a one way street.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 10:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Orlandu84 Says:

    @admin
    “Where can we get to from here? Unless this question controls political theory, the result is utopian irrelevance.”

    One of the best ways of reading More’s Utopia is to see him pointing out the absurdities of humanist thought projects. In Greek “utopia” can mean either a “good place” or “no place.” I think that More used the word to point out that the a place free from evil and problems simply could not exist.

    @admin
    “Economies of scale are clearly real, but there is no reason to think they are historically consistent.”

    Anyone who has read James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg’s “Sovereign Individual” will have run into a similar point about scales of violence. Davidson and Rees-Mogg posit that political systems depend upon the returns of violence. As more violence allows for more control, states become much larger. When innovations in violence reduce the returns of violence, states shrink. For example, the castle reduced the return on violence of armies above 100 men since sieges were very difficult to maintain. If you had a dozen knights and a castle, you were likely to be in a good position for a long time. The gunpowder revolution eliminated the strategic advantage of castles and replaced it with mass infantry armies. Accordingly, states became much larger in the following centuries in order to take advantage of that scale of violence.

    Today, the world is finding out what scale of army/defense systems work best. Right now the USG is rapidly expanding its surveillance systems because that system of violence has high political returns. Firepower will likely be measured in gigabytes and in boots soon.

    Moreover, the combination of these forces is being worked out at present in the Middle East as the states there attempt to figure out what works. I have mentioned before by thought that the weak die first. The weakest nation states were in Africa and the Middle East. What emerges there will tell us about what works at present. From there we can then figure out the real options for the neoreaction. Accordingly, we will soon have some really important data points.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    This is highly relevant.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 3:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bill Says:

    How about we found a ‘religion’ based on our principles? The goal is to manipulate the current system towards our autonomy, i.e. our religious freedom.

    We buy some decaying roadside outpost town in Nevada or Vermont. Take the rotting husk and build a spectacle of wealth through discipline, moral behavior, and social trust. Before and after photos of the dead town turned into a modern man’s dominion over nature would be propaganda. Sell our ideas the way they advertise weight loss pills. Slightly unnerving skeletal woman: “Want to lose weight, try Hydroxymethamphetamine,” us with toothy smiles standing in obviously wealthy and beautiful town: “Want a good life, forget Democracy, at least in Moldbugburg.”

    We’d be like colonizers in the wilderness. The illiterate savages covered in tattoos exactly like the savages in Theodor De Bry’s 1590 “A Brief and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia” and sad beaten former-middle classers in tattered polo shirts could huddle around our fire, and we could tell them about Robert Putnam and social capital.

    Anyone that wants to live in the former dead zone turned economic hub has to convert to our ‘religion.’ Anyone can leave anytime. In five years we could have a success story, at that point we start co-opting regional and national leaders by being non-threatening and helpful. The end goal is a monarchy with no political voice and free exit. It would be a pragmatic organization that would allow us to exclude people, demand discipline, and concentrate wealth.

    [Reply]

    Francis St. Pol Reply:

    I like this plan. Except for the part about starting a new religion. That smacks of progressive hubris. And multiplies the complexity of the task needlessly.

    [Reply]

    Bill Reply:

    Make one of the tenants of faith: there is no progress.

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    It worked for the Mormons.

    [Reply]

    Captain Insano Reply:

    Founding a new religion may be more practical than you realize.

    Apparently praying to a deity “works”, even if you’re well aware that the deity you are praying to is completely imaginary (because you just made it up).

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/non-believers-say-their-prayers-to-no-one/2013/06/24/b7c8cf50-d915-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html


    Each morning and night, Sigfried Gold drops to his knees on the beige carpeting of his bedroom, lowers his forehead to the floor and prays to God.

    In a sense.

    An atheist, Gold took up prayer out of desperation. Overweight by 110 pounds and depressed, the 45-year-old software designer saw himself drifting from his wife and young son. He joined a 12-step program for food addiction that required — as many 12-step programs do — a recognition of God and prayer.

    Four years later, Gold is trim, far happier in his relationships and free of a lifelong ennui. He credits a rigorous prayer routine — morning, night and before each meal — to a very vivid goddess he created with a name, a detailed appearance and a key feature for an atheist: She doesn’t exist.

    While Gold doesn’t believe there is some supernatural being out there attending to his prayers, he calls his creation “God” and describes himself as having had a “conversion” that can be characterized only as a “miracle.” His life has been mysteriously transformed, he says, by the power of asking.

    “If you say, ‘I ought to have more serenity about the things I can’t change,’ versus ‘Grant me serenity,’ there is a humility, a surrender, an openness. If you say, ‘grant me,’ you’re saying you can’t do it by yourself. Or you wouldn’t be there,” said Gold, who lives in Takoma Park.
    While Gold’s enthusiasm for spiritual texts and kneeling to a “God” may make him unusual among atheists, his hunger for a transcendent experience with forces he can’t always explain turns out to be more common.

    “God, if You want me to actually believe you exist, I’ll do it; I’m not married to my intellectual pride; You’ve given me so much, just give me a little whisper,” he wrote in a prayer included in a recent essay about his journey.

    “But God has maintained her stately silence.”

    So, in theory you don’t need to pretend to believe a bunch of embarrassing mythology. You could simply worship the gods as exemplars of certain virtues, whose actual existence is somewhat irrelevant.

    Varg hints at this concept here:
    http://thuleanperspective.com/2013/06/19/european-religion-versus-atheism/

    From the same source we can read that; «In traditional belief, a deity is a supernatural being, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred».

    This Wikipedia definition does not seem to cover the European understanding of what a deity is though. In Europe a deity (i. e. a god or a goddess) was simply a(ny) force working for the good of something. The Germanic term «god» itself means simply «good».
    ….

    The European religion is simply «an organized form of goodness-cultivation». The deities and also the jötnar are forces working in us and in other places of nature. They are not «supernatural beings». They are real human beings (or rather were…we sadly no longer impersonate them), they are real statues, real ideas, real images and real symbols, all influencing us and our minds directly

    I kind of dismissed it at first, but it might have some potential when you consider the Washington post article.

    Of course, the downside is that making up your own religion limits your ability to appeal to Christian reactionaries who may be less dysfunctional than nihilist / agnostic reactionaries who are looking for a new religion, so your reactionary community may not turn out as well.

    [Reply]

    Shenpen Reply:

    Well, this is exactly what Tibetan / Vajrayana Buddhism (such as Karma Kagyu or for example the Dzogchen) is all about! People who learn about Zen first and know Buddhism is a non-theistic self-improvement path, are put off by all the “gods” and “prayers” in these traditions. It doesn’t help that Tibetans like to tell stories how this “god” did this or that, they sound as if they meant them for real. But they are just stories, they are not to be taken seriously. Buddhist “gods” are symbols that represent certain aspects of the your own mind at the level when it functions with maximal output, called the state of enlightenment. So Chenrezig / Avalokiteshvara is for example not a “god” but your own mind when it functions at the level of maximal compassion. And Manjushri is the same for intellectual wisdom. And so on. This why they are not moving images but static picture is specific, quite un-lifelike poses: they are visual icons, not beings. Plain simply the human brain works better with anthropomorphic icons. In meditation, the “gods” must be visualized as holograms: made of transparent light, emphasizing their emptiness and non-existence.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Sounds like Calvin in Geneva. Something involving rivets… (and an internet connection – been offline for far too long, not that I’m in any sense addicted. Tomorrow, hopefully).

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    So I can’t remember why I was learning about cratons and the like, but it made me think of John Donne. Then it got late (and drunken) so I’ll just leave it here:

    John Donne

    Upon the continental lithosphere I write to thee,
    with my pedospheric roots extended to the asthenosphere,
    from where Tormod Mor, my thrice great grandfather lived and lies.

    Cretin on your Craton, I give to thee his manor:

    [image]

    All continents are fragments – once mor now beag,
    Lesser Laurasias and clods of Gondwana;

    and Tormod sailed Tethys and survived.

    Ship Diligent

    (“we / Will fight with him by sea”)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Spreading Moldburgs — I like it.

    [Reply]

    Perfidy Reply:

    This is not that different from founding the Neo-Victorians from Stephenson’s Diamond Age.

    We just need to get the Stuart heir to agree to be our patron…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    For each Phyle its own Moldburg.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 3:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    So let me get this straight: Anissimov complains that JG’s programme is too theorietical… and Nick Land complains that Anissimov’s is too theoretical? Anissimov moves for a practical, implementable plan; and Land moves for an even more practical and implementable plan??

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 6:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    If religions arise more or less naturally then how can one start a new religion? You can start a cult (like Joseph Smith or Jesus) and hope it takes… but it takes a special kind of leader for that… AND a great deal of providence or good luck.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 6:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Anissimov from twitter:

    Michael Anissimov ‏@MikeAnissimov 10m
    Land’s vision sounds more like anarcho-escapism rather than any kind of coherent nationalism. More libertarian than anything.

    Michael Anissimov ‏@MikeAnissimov 11m
    And what is this “escape-based society” nonsense? A society based around escaping? Give me a break.

    Michael Anissimov ‏@MikeAnissimov 11m
    No man is going to put his life on the line for an “escape-based society […] loosely webbed together by free-exit connections.”

    I have to say, Nick, it does seem like you need a baby NOT to throw out with the dirty bathwater…

    [Reply]

    Francis St. Pol Reply:

    I don’t see what’s so contradictory about escapism and theorizing. Both are valuable. Of course, I’m partial to the idea of building theories by, you know, actually testing them. Let’s not fall into the Seasteading trap of spending so much time talking about how wonderful Seasteads are that we forget to build any.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Anissimov doesn’t understand ‘escape-based society’ because he hasn’t thought about Exit. (Hong Kong is an escape-based society.)

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    A society “based” on exit is not a “society”. Present an existential threat and it will be every man for himself… and we know how that all works out. We will be food for each other… or the rats.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s a plausible thesis, but not an irresistible one. Free societies cultivate habits of practical cooperation, which aren’t necessarily any less robust under stress than the more rigid types of solidarity imposed by despotism. Supple bonds, pragmatic self-interest, professionalism, and technological sophistication go a long way. Who would you bet on in a Singapore vs North Korea shooting match?

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Assuming the “International Community” stays out of it, North Korea… of course. Not that they have much of a society, mind you.

    I think there is vast yawning gulf of 99% of reality between Exit-Based Society and Despotically Imposed Solidarity.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Unless by “exit-based society” you happen to mean “normal free society”… which would not naturally consider itself to be “based” on exit.

    admin Reply:

    “No man is going to put his life on the line for an “escape-based society […] loosely webbed together by free-exit connections.” — At this point he’s just prancing around in some ridiculous Ruritanian uniform from the 1930s.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 6:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bill Says:

    I bet there is at least one charismatic leader in this group, if not several. However, I was thinking of using a ‘religion’ as a way to form a protected group who could construct a real location, a political entity in the form of a weak or dead town, where neoreaction could be tested. Neoreaction would require letting anyone leave, but also keeping some people out, this is unpopular and would need a cover like a religion to make it doable. The ideas expressed here are not popular.

    Two hundred years ago we would be having this conversation in religious terms, and the laws were written to protect people like us who want to live a certain way. If we could create an argument for a way of life by demonstrating that it works, that would make us acceptable to people who are not theoretically inclined. People would switch to our way of thinking because they would see a good future for themselves in it.

    A ‘religion’ would not require a belief in superstitions. However, there is some religious precedence for neoreaction. For instance, the idea that men have nothing to do with their own salvation – it is decided by God. Googling that concept comes up with umpteen results. We just delete the God meme. Essentially this is an anti-man-made providence/progress position.

    The functional part of the ‘religion’ would be a moral code with economic requirements, based in the values professed by neoreaction. I find the values of neoreaction compelling. Reality is compelling. Being against progress is compelling, more than that it is relaxing, anti-progress is psychologically peaceful.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 7:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anomaly UK Says:

    “East Asian antidemocratic technocapitalist tradition merits ferocious ideological defense against Cathedralist subversion.”

    Merits, sure, but what does ferocious ideological defense look like? Write a blog post saying Singapore is cool? Write a letter to your congressman?

    The good point the post makes is that the biggest problem facing us is how to effectively achieve anything at all — working out what we would like to achieve if we could is relatively easy. We don’t know how to create a divine-right monarchy or a neocameralist sovcorp, but neither do we know how to protect Taiwan from democracy.

    I don’t think dreams are quite the same as utopianism. “A dream” risks that failing, but many dreams, heavy with causes and circumstances as well as political theory, form a matrix that patterns of action can be extracted from.

    Goals, methods, and principles have to be grown together and made into a coherent whole. A goal is nothing without a method of reaching it, a method is meaningless without a goal to achieve; political theory both justifies and is grounded in the methods and goals it relates to.

    The much-discussed diversity of the reaction gives us a range of goals to seek; the task is to show how any or all of them might plausibly be reached, and to refine the goals in the light of the methods, and the methods in the light of the goals.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    This is doubtless an uncomfortable region. To explore it we must renounce the convenience of terminal truths (Foucault, Madness and Civilization)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “what does ferocious ideological defense look like?” — working to delegitimate the dogmatic democratic norm is the principal line of outside support. Yes, blogging that “Singapore is cool” probably helps (a little), especially when its sociopolitical model is promoted as a competitive alternative to hegemonic democratization. Spontaneous economic support (travel and trade) is crucial too.

    Of course, none of this is easy. If it were, the Cathedral wouldn’t be crushing us like bugs.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 9:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jack Angelo Says:

    Greetings.

    I would like to let you know that I have mentioned this very interesting post of yours in my blog:
    http://krakenite.blogspot.com.es/2013/07/social-freedom-is-tyranny-for-individual.html

    All this Neoreaction thing has spurred my curiosity!

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Do you know this book? It’s by a nutty leftist, but a brilliant one.

    [Reply]

    Jack Angelo Reply:

    Hello!

    No, I didn’t know about that book. Thanks for the recommendation!

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2013 at 10:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Whither particularity?

    If the earth is a trap—or exit so precious—then how on earth did we get (biologically and socially speaking) here?

    We are genetically and memetically the sum total of millions of generations of optimized decisions, almost entirely made for us on our behalf for our own good. Genetics shapes psychology shapes society shapes ideas. If we don’t fit in to something, somewhere for which we’ve already been optimized, what hope is there in exit? (Except hubris.)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m impressed by the thoroughness with which the Church has extirpated Gnostic heresies. No worries at all that a demented demiurge has you shackled and blindfolded in the basement?

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    The Church has gotten a little lazy of late… I’ve extirpated most of those myself… since, as a protestant it was my duty to make up my own mind… and THAT is was put me face-to-face with the abyss…

    As for an hypothetical demiurge: If so, then everything is perfectly meaningless anyway. “Tho’ he slay me, yet will I trust him.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 1:34 am Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    Lots of fascinating stuff there, thanks. (Predictably, I suspect that your sense of ‘capital interest’ is too narrow, if you think a self-sustaining escape trajectory is something alien to it.)

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    http://www.e-flux.com/journal/escape-velocities/ Apparently the manifesto wasn’t enough.. *yawn*

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    A frighteningly perverse little nugget from the essay:

    “Rather than working to smash the current capitalist system, the existing infrastructure is here identified as a platform requiring repurposing towards post-capitalist, collective ends.”

    In Leftspeak, “collective” nearly always means . . . well, no, I’ll just post the obvious link:

    http://nydwracu.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/voice-exit-and-the-catholic-question/

    In network theory, we might say that the “repurposing” of capitalism’s infrastructure for “collective ends” would mean conceptually un-making autonomous clusters of nodes and enfolding all nodes into one giant, undifferentiated cluster so that all nodes can be put to work on the same project, as defined by progressive pussies.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 4:46 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    On the subject of escape –

    An interesting example of escape occurred in 1983, when devotees of the American spiritual teacher Adi Da set up a community on the Fijian island of Naitauba, which one of them had purchased from the actor Raymond Burr for 2.1 million dollars.

    Adi Da (also known as Da Free John and Da Love-Ananda) was said to visibly radiate divine light and colored auras, and was able to spontaneously induce states of transcendent bliss in those around him. Renowned authorities also highly praised his writings, with Ken Wilber, for instance, declaring that –

    “His teaching contains the most concentrated wealth of transcendent wisdom found anywhere in the spiritual literature of the world, modern or ancient, Eastern or Western.”

    Unfortunately he was also accused of sexual abuse, slavery, false imprisonment, assault and brainwashing people to give him all their money.

    Such accusations aside, however, the point is that Naitauba represents the ultimate in escape attempts – escape from the karmic wheel of birth and death, from from the illusion of separate selfhood and from the associated suffering of mortal existence in general.
    Escape from excessive taxation seems somewhat unambitious in comparison.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    I assume he failed? At escape, that is??

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Who can say? Adi Da maintained that he was always already free, simply abiding “in Radiant Transcendental Being, the Substance of the total continuum of existence, the Domain of Ultimate Freedom, Peace, Love and Bliss.” (Capitals His).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    How about, in Naitauba’s case, escape from serious jail time?

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    As none of the accusations against him ever resulted in a trial, the issue of escaping jail time never arose.
    (Pity though – a trial would have been well entertaining)

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 12:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    @ Nick B. Steves
    “normal free society” — that sounds wonderful, where can you find one?

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Botswana sounds pretty good to me…

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scale « Collapse of Man Says:

    […] lay out a few of my thoughts in Nick Land’s comments section, 3 comments down.  As per Ellul, I believe increasingly […]

    Posted on July 8th, 2013 at 7:49 am Reply | Quote
  • The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish Says:

    […] Anomaly UK maps the Modern Structure. Michael Anissimov calls for more theory; Nick Land, for more realism. And Fred Reed lays out the logic of […]

    Posted on January 4th, 2014 at 7:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Realismo Neorreacionário – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 11:38 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment