In an alternative universe, in which there was nobody except Michael Anissimov and me tussling over the identity of Neoreaction, I’d propose a distinction between ‘Inner-‘ and ‘Outer-Nrx’ as the most suitable axis of fission. Naturally, in this actual universe, such a dimension transects a rich fabric of nodes, tensions, and differences.

For the inner faction, a firmly consolidated core identity is the central ambition. (It’s worth noting however that a so-far uninterrogated relation to transhumanism seems no less problematic, in principle, than the vastly more fiercely contested relation to libertarianism has shown itself to be.) Inner-NRx, as a micro-culture, models itself on a protected state, in which belonging is sacred, and boundaries rigorously policed.

Outer-NRx, defined primarily by Exit, relates itself to what it escapes. It is refuge and periphery, more than a substitute core. It does not ever expect to rule anything at all (above the most microscopic level of social reality, and then under quite different names). The Patchwork is for it a set of options, and opportunities for leverage, rather than a menu of potential homes. It is intrinsically nomad, unsettled, and micro-agitational. Its culture consists of departures it does not regret. (While not remotely globalist, it is unmistakably cosmopolitan — with the understanding that the ‘cosmos’ consists of chances to split.)

Outer-NRx tends to like libertarians, at least those of a hard-right persuasion, and the gateway that has enabled it to be outside libertarianism is the ideological zone to which it gravitates. Leaving libertarianism (rightwards) has made it what it is, and continues to nourish it. ‘Entryism’ — as has been frequently noted — is not a significant anxiety for Outer-NRx, but far more of a stimulation and, at its most acute, a welcome intellectual provocation. It is not the dodgy refugees from the ZAP who threaten to reduce its exteriority, and return it to a trap.

The Outside is the ‘place’ of strategic advantage. To be cast out there is no cause for lamentation, in the slightest.

August 1, 2014admin 22 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations , Neoreaction


22 Responses to this entry

  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    Of what use is strategic advantage absent the weapons with which to concretize the advantage? Always the good ontologist, Heidegger said of epistemology, though I vaguely suspect that one could rightfully exchange the word “epistemology” with ‘Outer-Nrx:’ “it continually sharpens the knife but never gets round to cutting.”


    admin Reply:

    I’m still Deleuzean enough to think nomads do most of history’s cutting.


    RorschachRomanov Reply:



    Posted on August 1st, 2014 at 6:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    The purpose of NRx, that is where it interacts with reality, is as intellectual guidance and a wellspring of ideas. Influencing the perceptions and goals of actors. It is the actors who after filtering NRx then create actual norms, the folkways of the rightwing counterculture. It’s a game of influence and there will be clades.

    Cthulhu will be active, it is said Cthulhu swims left, but the word left will quickly become meaningless as it becomes a means of slander. Cthulhu swims toward the local maxima, optimized for influence in this case, not truth or any other value. Nitpicking between great ideas is wonderful but far from the battle fought between influential ideas. We are left with a choice, monk like solitary existence pursuing truth, or the path of power. The power influence of the nascent rightwing counterculture is the manosphere. Gnon spares no one, not even his own acolytes.


    Posted on August 1st, 2014 at 7:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Amon Khan Says:

    This memeplex suffers from the same disease as most of the blogosphere: it is ideation divorced from action, conducted in a sanitized environment divorced from lived experience, suffering and violence.

    Ideologies that matter have threats of violence behind them; it’s the reason we take the Islamic State’s facebook postings seriously, but can safely ignore 99.9% of what is being produced in the Western nerdosphere. There’s not going to be any power in it until you take it offline!


    SGW Reply:

    That only works when the state is either weak or supportive of your actions. What do you think would happen if a group of programmers, fully peacocked players, Catholic priests and confederates in full regalia would go around breaking the windows of workplaces that only hire spanish-speakers, the homes of anti-gun activists and the HQ of the SPLC? I suspect that it would make the news, but I doubt that the covering would be sympathetic, or that the response would be appeasement.


    VXXC Reply:

    Well this realm isn’t the place of NRx however…

    “That only works when the state is either weak or supportive of your actions.”

    The State is weak and genocidal towards us, it just happens to be mostly economics and malignant governance – see the southern border. The State is so weak it’s bringing in Private Criminal Contractors called MS-13 [you see EVERYTHING is contracted out these days] to do it’s dirty work.

    And as for “that only works” ..er…no..it always works. Now whether it wins is a different matter. But it always works. It’s how the State became the State, as opposed to the State before. In our case it worked against the British Crown and all challengers so far. The problem is in our case it’s now no longer our State. And it’s “working” against us.

    Put another way the State is weakly supportive of our comprehensive genocide.

    What “worked” at the Bundy Ranch and elsewhere? The State cannot trust it’s own gunmen.


    Posted on August 1st, 2014 at 7:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Postnietzschean Says:

    1. If Inner NRx is postconservative NRx, and Outer NRx is postlibertarian NRx, and libertarians are classical liberals, then the NRx fission is merely a re-emergence of the key fission in 18th century Anglosphere thought, i.e., Burke vs Smith. You should really confuse people and call them ‘right NRx’ and ‘left NRx’.

    2. C.f. Venkat Rao’s post on Saints vs Traders: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/06/04/saints-and-traders-the-john-henry-fable-reconsidered/ (admin, you’d like Ribbonfarm if by some chance you haven’t come across it already)

    “Saints define and defend boundaries between sacred and profane. To traders, boundaries are profane and openness is sacred.
    Saints believe in the perfectibility of humans, traders in the perfectibility of markets.
    Saints play finite games, traders play infinite games, in the sense of Carse.
    Saints in their ideal form are cognitive psychologists. Traders in their idealized form are behaviorists.
    Saints are highly vulnerable to cognitive biases. Traders are highly vulnerable to sociopathic adventurism.
    Saints are civilized with fundamentally settler sensibilities whether or not they stay put in one place. Traders are barbarians with fundamentally nomadic sensibilities whether or not they physically wander.
    Saints try to build perfectly virtuous organizations and communities in their own image, seen inside out. Traders try to build perfectly predictable incentive structures that reflect an outside-in understanding of themselves.
    Saints work towards incorruptible, impregnable conditions of virtuous stasis: honorably attained heavenly utopias. Traders work towards the maximal rate of change that behavioral adaptation allows.
    Saints insist that their prowess comes with immunity from moral hazard and principal-agent conflicts and are deeply offended when not taken at their own estimation. Traders prefer to trust, but verify and are deeply surprised when taken at their own estimation.
    Saints value relationships based on others spiritually recognizing them. Traders don’t care to be understood and don’t set much store by self-reported understandings divorced from behavioral data.”


    Hurlock Reply:

    ” Burke vs Smith”
    Burke is in no significant way opposed to Smith.
    Indeed Burke was one of the main intellectual influences of Hayek, one of the biggest libertarian inspirations of the 20th century.

    Your second point is beautiful.
    I just want to note, that if traditionalists are to take the “saint” route they will always be pwned by progressives, because progressives will always be holier than them, and being a saint requires maximum amount of holiness.
    Indeed, historically this already happened with Christianity…


    blogospheroid Reply:

    Ah.. another ribbonfarm fan! That bit was really insightful wasn’t it?
    The same split was seen in Babylon 5 as well, with the vorlons and the shadows. The vorlon fundamental question was “who are you?”.
    The shadows’ fundamental question was “what do you want?”

    The vorlons represented order and the shadows represented Darwinism.


    admin Reply:

    Before reactionary revisionism gets entirely out of control, a gentle reminder: Burke was a Whig.


    Posted on August 1st, 2014 at 8:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • cryptael Says:

    It seems the line of fission between neoreaction and the Yudkowskyites is that the latter are concerned primarily with the final shape of history while neoreaction has more proximate and broad concerns.

    I met a Yudkowskyite whose entire thoughts on politics were that he supported whatever system was most likely to come up with friendly A.I., with no other human values or common constraints entering into his calculus. A thing of infinite value tends to make people behave in weird ways.


    Amon Khan Reply:

    Singularitarians seem no more sane than any other religionists to me. Are there really people here who are worried about Singularities and AI takeovers in our lifetimes, when we have immediate, reality-based concerns like civilizational collapses, police states, world wars, etc.? I think Yudkowsky’s crowd needs a good mugging by reality!


    Ghostlike Reply:

    There is also the matter of what shape the Singularity will have or even what shape it should have. Having given it a good go at it, despite a few interesting ideas (self improvement as necromancy, self improvement as advanced form of persuasion) I’ve discovered, any sane person would soon start to flounder. Human brain is a memory system, not a prediction machine. They have incredibly strongly held ideas regarding how self improving AIs will act that are quite horrifying regarding what they imply about the sort of universe we live in and are as far as I can tell, badly rooted in reality going by the actual behavior and thought patterns of the adherents of those ideas.

    Scott Alexander’s god’s eye views in his recent essay is a good example of that hubris that stems from their mindset. If the actors in his example were dog or lions or micro-organisms then would have his method of prescribing the optimal set of behaviors make sense? Of course it would not, as we recognize the lower level beings as having no free will.

    They see optimal behavior as an ideal while I look for actual meaning behind their words and see it as an attempt to hijack my mind. They see Gnon as an actual God (taking reactionaries completely seriously at their word,) while I see it as a prediction. They do not grasp that every social interaction can be seen as a mind control attempt (but ordinary people tend to not notice it because their values are so homogenous.)

    Power exist as a concept and it is the highest virtue. People are pulled towards it like it is gravity. In our minds, it is also an estimate. By accepting certain views on how the God AIs will act, what the true shape of power is and should be, unconsciously they have started acting in the God AI’s image, in essence aping them like low status people would people of higher status than them or like children would adults. They acquire a part of its mindset and seek forgiveness for that sin (which is stimulation of the submission instinct.)

    Self improvement itself should be seen as a type of social extremism and extreme goal oriented behavior should not be seen as a ideal as it will get one stuck in a local minima. Of course if they accept that, then that means that they would start floundering as they can’t imagine self improvement being done without strong goals.

    I am drawn to NRx as a way to balance my values as they tend to fluctuate wildly. I know better than to trust myself fully.

    That having said, Postnietzschean’s post struck a chord with me. I am most definitely a trader by personality as demonstrated by the fact that I actually was a trader in real life. I plan on going back to it eventually after I spend my creative load. (I also plan on shoving you guys into separate universes 10-15 years from now, no offense .)


    Ghostlike Reply:

    “Of course it would not, as we recognize the lower level beings as having no free will.”

    Could I have put this better? Yes, I could.

    He also talked about throwing values under the buss. However, in reality nature rarely does so, instead it recombines them in novel ways. He talks about traps, but what is not appreciated that those traps exist because people are dumb. Smart people do not play in Vegas (except to prey on fish.)

    I knew for quite a bit that for any self improving being the social instinct would be vital, but for a while I’ve sensed that my arguments were not passing muster.

    “(I also plan on shoving you guys into separate universes 10-15 years from now, no offense .)”

    Rough sentences like these are starting to become a trend with me lately, as if the story I am writing has started writing me, but no matter. I have finally figured out the true structure for the post-Singularity uploading story.

    In the first three arcs of Simulacrum, the main characters were kind of sociopathic. Given that the nature of self improvement is replacement of the self with a better copy of the self, it made sense to make them detached outsiders in order to focus on the method of self improvement. In essence, the characters became societies unto themselves and any merger with ordinary humans would be like us merging with dogs, an absurd proposition. Similarly with uplifting, there is a distinct set of unease because the Inspired are at any given moment using the best available algorithms and would only turn them into the copies of themselves if they tried doing so.

    At first glance one might think that this is not so, but as people are not distinct from their memories and thought patterns, the case becomes clear that people are their algorithms.

    I tried ignoring that, convincing myself that the only thing needed was to suppress the ego, but the first unreleased version of Torment was not good, it simply lacked gravitas.

    As is my tendency of liking sociopathic adventurism, I concluded that the problem was due to mind control being taboo. That did not work out as plan either. The supporting characters became so fearful of Armatia’s giveaway of power that they practically sold themselves into slavery to her so they could suppress those lower in the hierarchy. It was all caused by her altruism and compassion.

    I logically concluded that the problem was resource scarcity. The reason they were scared was because in a zero-sum game, power should be hoarded until only one player is left. Put them all in each of their individual universes. Albert Einstein once said that he does not teach, he merely creates the environment where the students could learn.

    There was one final lock before the door could open.

    Despite the undeniable greatness of striving to better oneself and the glory of self improvement, I could never have guessed that compassion could work against uplifting, or rather I could not accept it. Why should something good be so sad? I never ever saw that pattern in my life before, but there it was, waiting to burst out until I could no longer deny it .

    -An excerpt from The True Singularity by Elisvais Lain

    ‘Given a particular environment in a broader sense (such as this universe we live in) eventually the death user will attain some optimal method of cognition after which his efforts will turn to keeping up with his training so he does not slip. Instead of moving forward, his efforts will turn towards not diminishing in greatness.’

    ‘If a mind were optimal – meaning it could not be better – then it stands to reason that two optimal minds should be identical to each other, or at least almost identical owing to the differences in the paths they took to reach that level.’

    ‘The Transcendi are kin, united by the path that they traveled.’

    ‘From this it stands to reason that if two Transcendi are not equal then one of them (or both) are not optimal. That is a gross injustice that should be corrected! What do the Transcendi stand for if not for Equality!?’

    ‘In the following section I will proceed to outline the gross benefits of death matches over outright mergers in ‘unequal’ situations…’

    The story of the true Singularity is that of society disintegrating, of the connections between individuals being severed and rerouted towards the self, the Inspired only being united by the path they walk on.

    It is unbearably sad and yet majestic.


    Posted on August 1st, 2014 at 8:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outsideness | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on August 1st, 2014 at 9:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Exterioridade – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on August 31st, 2016 at 12:08 am Reply | Quote
  • Deleuze and Outsideness – xenogoth Says:

    […] It all sounds sort of familiar. […]

    Posted on November 5th, 2017 at 12:28 am Reply | Quote
  • Reaching Beyond To The Other: On Communal Outside-Worship – Vast Abrupt Says:

    […] Here Land, too, invokes the Lovecraftian Outsider — a voiceless shadow out of time driven by exit — in opposition to the political establishment’s Jamesian warnings against the outer edges of this cloistered world. On his Xenosystems blog, with its penchant for abstract horror, Land could not be clearer: […]

    Posted on January 16th, 2018 at 8:57 am Reply | Quote
  • ŠUM Says:

    […] [62] LAND, Nick, Outsideness, 2014, available at: http://www.xenosystems.net/outsideness-2/. [Accessed […]

    Posted on June 29th, 2018 at 6:42 am Reply | Quote
  • šumrevija Says:

    […] Nick, Outsideness, 2014, available at: http://www.xenosystems.net/outsideness-2/. [Accessed […]

    Posted on April 22nd, 2019 at 10:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Anomalous Worlds: on Accelerationism & Patchwork Says:

    […] thought that even Nick Land has denounced. On his Xenosystems blog, in a post called “Outsideness”, Land writes how an inwards-facing neoreactionary (or NRx) thought holds “a firmly […]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2019 at 8:08 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment