Quote note (#196)

Internally sourced (replying to this):

Mercantilism *is* quite poor. It’s a system of tarifs, subsidies, protections and monopoly grants which is what we already have today (the only difference being that in the age of actual Mercantilism they had hard money and low taxes and we now have fiat money and high taxes).

November 4, 2015admin 51 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Collapse

TAGGED WITH : , ,

51 Responses to this entry

  • Chris B Says:

    The underlying point of free trade is destruction of sovereignty. Even Marx had that down. While we are on Marx, here he is getting triggered by List – https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1845/03/list.htm

    It is funny how besides the patchwork thing, you are actively hostile to absolutly everything that constitutes Neoreaction, and even on that you ignore necessary issues of sovereignty to warp it into social darwinism bizzaro world.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “The underlying point of free trade is destruction of sovereignty” — whatever happened to “Sovereignty is conserved”?

    Yes, it’s weird how ‘the neoreactionary road to authoritarian anti-capitalism’ doesn’t strike me as a right-wing thing.

    [Reply]

    TheDividualist Reply:

    I am not sure I am talking about the same thing – I think what I am proposing here is far more moderate than what e.g. Chris B. may be proposing – but imagine you are running a small island country.

    You have iron ore and coal. But the market decides importing steel is cheaper. Yeah, but what if there is a war and you get blockaded? Hence, you protect your steel industry in peacetime and accept losing efficiency, and trade it for the safety to be able to reliably manufacture weapons in wartime.

    Then you need soldiers for potential wars and for some reason you decide farmers make good soldiers. To have a recruiting base, you protect your domestic farmers and not really let people import much food.

    Then your small island country buys fossil fuels from Russia. Russia is infamous about using this for political blackmail. The free market may decided Russian gas is cheap enough, but to keep your sovereignty from external political bullying, you use protectionism and subsidize domestic drilling.

    And all these are not even economic arguments.

    Now an economic one. How to minimize fraud in business? Competition and lawsuits. What if not enough? Basically you need more trust and more trustworthiness, you need more voluntary cooperation. For this reason you want most businesses owned by locals. You are not trying self-sufficiency, but you make it so that international trade of goods and services happens and in a way capital investment too, but foreigners cannot get controlling stocks in local businesses, thus ensuring that most business is done in the patriotic in-group with more trust and voluntary co-op.

    The difference between this and socialism is that you are not running an ideological class war between the poor and the rich, you are in the first two cases preparing for normal war, in the third just running normal politics and preserve sovereignty, and in the fourth one just push whatever really fits the ingroup outgroup monkey minds of humans and tends to happen anyway as long as there are no huge capital differences in the world. Because in the e.g. Middle Ages most business was locally owned and there were only these goods trading walves between cities and nations like caravans and ships, but it didn’t happen that mega-rich Venetians would buy all the bakeries in Krakow and then dictate the rules in the local bread supply.

    I don’t know what the others are meaning, but it is what I would call governing by judgement. The most important part is the lack of ideology, and the only proper goal being ensuring the independence and survival and orderly, trustworthy operation of the ingroup country. And that takes some interventions.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Abandoning governace and leadership to abstract forces (aka no governance) in an attempt to protect liberalising ideologies doesn`t remotely strike me as right wing. Prob why at every point MM advocate leadership and governance based on judgement. A Carlyean point.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m sure you’re clearly seeing why this isn’t straight-up socialism. It’s not remotely obvious to me. What formally distinguishes — for instance — Stalinism from your Carlylean governance? They look structurally identical at this point.

    [Reply]

    Max Reply:

    The difference between Stalinism and Carlylean governance is the difference between Stalin and Carlyle. Looking for “structural” differences is futile, because all governance forms share enough in common to appear identical from a distance (and have enough distinguishing them to appear unique up close).

    People are monkeys, arguments over governance types are struggles to assert one’s tribal or superiority, and in the end all that matters is HBD. Methodological individualism is a mistake. None of us exists in a vacuum; we are the last link forged in a chain stretching back tens of thousands of years, and the purpose of our lives is not first and foremost to “solve the problem of governance” that has plagued and perplexed far greater men than us throughout the ages – it is simply to create the next link.

    Utopia can wait.

    admin Reply:

    Both Stalin and Carlyle are dead, and Carlyle never ruled anything of historical significance. So the invocation of “Carlyle” as an archetype of government either means nothing at all, or refers to some kind of generic personality type to be cloned into a despot, or it’s doing something (in Chris B.’s refrain) that has yet to be explained. It’s clear to me what the problem with Stalinism is — near-comprehensive suppression of catallactic social process. Since the Heroic Reactionaries profess proudly to ‘despise’ catallaxy and all its works, I’m interested to hear whether they have any articulable objection to socialist despotism at all.

    Max Reply:

    To more directly address your question, however: I would absolutely agree that protectionism is a sort of straight-up socialism. I would argue that this is for the time being both necessary and even beneficial. Groups comprised of members that work selflessly for the benefit of their group outcompete groups comprised of members that work selfishly for the benefit of themselves, and evolution is all.

    Please don’t interpret this as a defense of the idea that group selection has played an important role up ’til now or that “genetic racial interests” are a real thing. Neither of these need be true for the statement in the above paragraph to hold.

    Protectionism is straight-up socialism in that it bleeds the capitalists of a country for the benefit of the laborers. However, it is not necessarily true that all such socialism need impede economic growth – most of it DOES, of course, because most people are idiots – but a wise man is capable of understanding that progressive models of externalities and diminishing marginal utility are valid, even if often applied in absurd ways.

    Consider, for example, the book “Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own,” by Garrett Jones. The title is true – being dumb in a smart country is better (economically) than being smart in a dumb country, because most of the value created by intelligence isn’t captured by its “owner.” Thus, if it were possible to raise the IQ of a nation’s peasants by taxing its rich and distributing the proceeds in the form of childhood nutrition, this would ultimately benefit the rich even if the immediate effect was purely negative, and even though this is straight-up socialism.

    Whether a similar analysis holds true for protectionism is an empirical question. Though it may not seem so from what I’ve said thus far, I tend to come down on “your” side of the argument – I think most (not all) forms of protectionism are of the bad/wasteful/inefficient sort. But the “not all” is an important caveat, because it illustrates the invalidity of dismissing a policy simply because it is “straight-up socialism.” Sometimes straight-up socialism is good.

    admin Reply:

    “Sometimes straight-up socialism is good.” — Give it a state, or several (seriously). Inter-state competition is the theater in which to sort this stuff out.

    Max Reply:

    “Both Stalin and Carlyle are dead, and Carlyle never ruled anything of historical significance. So the invocation of “Carlyle” as an archetype of government either means nothing at all, or refers to some kind of generic personality type to be cloned into a despot, or it’s doing something (in Chris B.’s refrain) that has yet to be explained.”

    Can’t speak for Chris, but I meant #2. Smart is smart, and stupid is stupid. The intelligent head of a nation might take actions for the benefit of an ailing body part rather than choose to amputate it, especially because in the non-metaphorical world, other body parts get antsy when they see you executing people willy-nilly. Even Moldbug’s solution to the Dire Problem wouldn’t seem very humane to many people if those impacted weren’t permitted to choose their fate. Thus, even ignoring the possible economic benefits of certain socialist policies (because frankly, most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked, and further efforts appear to be going to digging a hole/grave for ourselves), there are Machiavellian reasons for taking populist (stupid) stances in order to elevate one’s standing in a nominally democratic nation.

    The Carlylean archetype, to me, means something like “the perfect ruler.”

    “It’s clear to me what the problem with Stalinism is — near-comprehensive suppression of catallactic social process. Since the Heroic Reactionaries profess proudly to ‘despise’ catallaxy and all its works, I’m interested to hear whether they have any articulable objection to socialist despotism at all.”

    Sure. The relevant disagreement here, I believe, has to do with timescale. I claim that some (not most) things you would call “socialist despotism” (such as certain forms of protectionism, or perhaps the subsidization of basic research) might ultimately promote the collective fitness of a nation/group in addition to the individual fitness of all its members, even if in the short run some (more fit) individuals are harmed for the benefit of other (less fit) individuals. Up close, this looks bad, but zooming out should change your perspective.

    admin Reply:

    My problem with this is trust. Assuming a complete absence of confidence in the administration, then policies reliant on government discretion are a non-starter. “Assume a wise and beneficent leader” doesn’t strike me as a solid basis from which to proceed. Having said this, I’m comparatively indulgent in my judgement of (quite heavily statist) Chinese economic policy, since the regime seems less obviously sick and evil than any political formation easily identified in the West, it’s heading in a non-degenerative direction, and its submission to competitive imperatives is unmistakable.

    Max Reply:

    “Give it a state, or several (seriously). Inter-state competition is the theater in which to sort this stuff out.”

    Inter-state competition is the theater in which this stuff HAS BEEN sorted out. “Sometimes straight-up socialism” won/is winning for now. The alternatives are what remain unproven (or disproven) and waiting in the wings. I happen to agree with you that some of those are probably superior to what’s presently in place, but transaction costs and the risk of failure are high, so we get very few opportunities to see even natural experiments, let alone artificial ones in laboratory-like settings.

    admin Reply:

    Most reliable way to improve the quality of the signal is to increase the sample size (which is the experimental social science case for geopolitical fragmentation).

    Max Reply:

    “My problem with this is trust. Assuming a complete absence of confidence in the administration, then policies reliant on government discretion are a non-starter.”

    All possible policies are ultimately reliant upon government discretion. This is completely and utterly and forever unavoidable.

    “’Assume a wise and beneficent leader’ doesn’t strike me as a solid basis from which to proceed.”

    Assume the opposite then, and reach the opposite result – my point being is that quality of governance is a function of quality of governors. That’s why I say that only HBD matters in the end; there is no such thing as government by steam.

    admin Reply:

    The highest expression of government policy discretion (wisely used) is administrative constraint. British colonial governments exemplified the pattern, with the governors of Hong Kong (pre-Patten) as the model. Yes, any government can take it as a solemn duty to fix the price of marmalade. Those worthy of respect don’t.

    Max Reply:

    “Most reliable way to improve the quality of the signal is to increase the sample size (which is the experimental social science case for geopolitical fragmentation).”

    But increasing the sample size isn’t free, and it isn’t worth it if the potential loss of capital in the transition is large enough. A stable sub-optimal outcome is sometimes better than taking too large a bet, even if the bet has a higher expected value than the stable sub-optimal outcome. Ruin is ruinous.

    jay Reply:

    Straight up socialism has also been tried in a small scale in various utopian movements in the past. None of them seem to have lasted. And of course the example of Venezuela is also an obvious example of failure.

    vimothy Reply:

    Moreover, I learned, in the real world today, there were only two real alternatives. Democracy, or Hitler. Or Stalin. Democracy or tyranny. Yet when I read the history of Europe before the 20th century, ie, the century of democracy, I did not see anyone or anything like Hitler or Stalin.

    What, exactly, is the difference – as a matter of political organization – between the regime of Queen Elizabeth, and that of Hitler? Democracy puts both in the same category: nondemocracy. Absolute personal despotism, to be exact. But… there is a difference, isn’t there?

    (…)

    So this is a quick and easy general-purpose explanation which can shed light on a remarkable variety of apparent historical anomalies. As a people, we believe insane things, because democracy has driven us all insane. After all, it’s had two hundred years to do so. Its edifice of magical thinking is a wonderful thing, ornate as a Disney castle, more worthy of admiration than destruction. Sadly, it is the castle of evil, and God’s sweet fire will melt it in a flash.

    Here are three words that will permanently cure you of democracy – if any three words can. Imperium is conserved.

    That is: no form of government can be defined as un-government or self-government. There is always a government; there is always a process by which this government makes decisions; this process always consists of the decisions of one or more human beings, and no other party or force. Therefore, either you rule, or you are ruled by others. Typically the latter.

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/divine-right-monarchy-for-modern.html

    RJL Reply:

    List’s argument was that nationalism was necessary in the early stages of industrial development so that each nation could develop equal powers – if a world reublic was created prematurely, while there were power imbalances, strong countries would dominate and possibly ruin weaker ones. The goal of nationalism and equal development was that when the time was right, all nations could confederate on equal terms. List hoped that eventually there would be cosmopolitan government and universal free trade.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @RJL sure. Pretty much everyone with half a brain back then clocked free trade as being anti-sovereignty except for the dominant power pushing it, which (and this is what they missed) then autoerotic -asphyxiates itself to interracial porn because “muh freedom and democracy”. Hence the absurdity of a patchwork of “sov” corps operating free trade. Throw in the republicanism via blockchain and you have “pozz” the system. In fact, it looks like a suspicious extension of out current system….

    [Reply]

    RJL Reply:

    @ Chris B I also had this line of yours in mind “Smith = free trade which implies state should not intervene (and in List view implies a utopia which I am apt to agree with.)” I was quibbling that List didn’t think it was utopia – in his words free trade was “desirable and necessary” – it was just too early. Protection wasn’t about sovereignty but productive powers. It was the difference between real and ‘chimerical’ cosmopolitanism. Anyway, I’m not trying for exegetical handbags at dawn. It’s just a gripe I have about List slogans. /end rant

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 9:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#196) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 9:20 am Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    People are monkeys, arguments over governance types are struggles to assert one’s tribal or superiority

    I repeat: People are monkeys.

    Oh, for an edit button. ='(

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    [You want me to take the ‘or’ out?]

    [Reply]

    Max Reply:

    I would if I could, but I think leaving all of this up as a testament to my own sloppiness and vanity might be better.

    [Reply]

    Max Reply:

    “I would if I could, but I think leaving all of this up as a testament to my own sloppiness and vanity might be better.”

    the word “own” has no place in this sentence REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 11:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    “I’m sure you’re clearly seeing why this isn’t straight-up socialism. It’s not remotely obvious to me. What formally distinguishes — for instance — Stalinism from your Carlylean governance? They look structurally identical at this point.” So you only read MMs posts on patchwork. I get it. This conversation is hopelessly impossible because you are an anarcho-cap who rejects every other aspect raised, and want to expand this single point to being everything.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    So no attempt to answer the question then?

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 1:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#196) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 2:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    What concerns me is that post-industrial capitalism seems frustratingly demotic. Even with a fully realized patchwork, if the majority of wealth is held by a minority that favors socialism (or mercantalism, etc.) what prevents them from crushing markets elsewhere. Our major publicly traded companies are prioritizing social justice over profit, and are going to melt whole sectors of the economy as they implode. A majority that values piety over profit and controls the vast majority of the wealth can distort/destroy any market. Heck, look how much damage Soros has done…

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 7:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • OLF Says:

    I thought that The Capitalist Question was resolved back when it became clear that Traditionalists and Nationalists weren’t NRx. But now it seems that Socialism came back with vengeance and is claiming our best and brightest.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    There was never a question to resolve to begin with because Moldbug (unlike some of his dim-witted self-professed followers) actually knew his economics very well.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @hurlock “(unlike some of his dim-witted self-professed followers) actually knew his economics very well.” Sure, that`s why he shifted to mercantalism.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    The argument that he made was that in some circumstances mercantilist policies might be beneficial. But he never went as far as you do, and implied that the sovereign should run a planned economy or something of the sort, he never went as far as to say that free-market capitalism is somehow anti-order, and he himself that spontaneous order (referring to the market mechanism) is the highest form of order there is. And his invocation of mercantilist policies was in relation to a specific issue (the “dire problem”), the importance of which he likely overstated. We have been through all of this already in other discussions, but as far as I recall, the last time we discussed mercantilism and when I actually took the time to explain why mercantilist policies are, as a rule, pretty inefficient, you abandoned the discussion because it wasn’t going your way.

    The irony is that you accuse others of cherry-picking Moldbug, when you are doing exactly the same thing. But at any rate, why the constant appeal to authority? If you think mercantilism is the best thing since sliced bread, and free-market capitalism is the literal spawn of the devil, you should be able to coherently elaborate your arguments in favor of that position. All I have seen from you is name-calling, slogan-shouting and cherry-picking passages from Moldbug’s posts which fit your paradigm, while you ignore the ones who don’t. Once again, the last time I actually bothered to attempt to debate the merits of mercantilism as an economic policy, you ran away and even had the audacity to claim that the discussion was getting derailed.

    If you are not going to bother to ever actually discuss economics, don’t bring up the topic of economic policies. Carlyle will tell you very little of value about economics, as Modbug himself would tell you. Carlyle is a broad thinker with a massive scope, but analytically he is pretty shallow.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @hurlock You know if you actually read him in any depth, you might have picked up on the Carlyean insight that the divide is not Capitalism-socialism or anti-statism -statism, but rather between order and chaos. It`s very clear, and its the dividing line between anarcho-cap/libertarianism and neoreaction. Order requires leadership with judgement. I don`t see how this can be ignored by anyone conversing in good faith.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Entropy, as a process (i.e. strictly understood) is the sole driver our cosmos provides. All machine processes produce entropy. Intelligence is technically understood as entropy maximizing (quantified by the flow of free energy). The problem is entropy dissipation, not entropy elimination. Entropy is dissipated by a highly adapted machine precisely in order to produce more of it, intensifying current. Crude opposition of order to chaos is therefore absurd. Complex systems emerge at the edge of chaos, and only there.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Non-action is the best policy in many cases, not just in case of Economy. Take Africa for example. And I’m not talking here about the disastrous foreign aid programs… bringing antibiotics and modern medical care to Africa seemed clear-cut: an undoubtable and unquestionable moral good. Sky-high STD rates among africans made many sterile before antibiotics and they had a relatively short life-expectancy because of lack of modern medical care… however, now, thanks to the best intentions we have, well, this.

    admin Reply:

    A Left that understood perverse effects would no longer be the Left.

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 9:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    I thought that The Capitalist Question was resolved back when it became clear that Traditionalists and Nationalists weren’t NRx. But now it seems that Socialism came back with vengeance and is claiming our best and brightest.
    [Reply]

    I deny the description, but if you believe it, then shouldn’t you jump ship too? The best and brightest are generally good people to follow.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    I was being ironic. I consider Laissez-faire with real gold standard without debasement, and with full-reserve banking to be an economic policy any state wishing to be successful should strive towards. You think that small amount of socialism can do some good in the long run. I think even small amount of socialism is completely unnecessary for what you described (not to sound like a libertarian here, but libertarians are right in their claim that problem is in that these days the state took over all the things that were done by non-state actors in the past).

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 9:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    Othmar Spann posited that Mercantilism is where our problems actually began, and one can trace the ‘Enlightenment’ to the rise of Mercantilism. Hence why I am very favorable to pre-Mercantile economic systems. Feudal districts, loyalty arrangements, guilds of technical knowledge and family trade secrets, every caste aligned in the appropriate direction to harness the power of the World of Tradition. The possibilities…

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 10:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Froude Society Says:

    Except having a sound financial and monetary policy is actually a huge improvement over what we have now, this you cannot deny. Mercantilism and status quo econ may not be apples and oranges, but they’re at least apples and pears. I’d go as far to say that if the bureaucracy is corralled, hard money is put in place, and the financiers are beaten into sanity then the economic outlook doesn’t seem all that bad. Production and abundance are enough now to meet the vast majority of Reactionary goals, including whatever warfare or counter-Revolutionary sponsorship a sovereign would be entangled with. Moreover, the motives and thought processes of Mercantilism strongly differ from Liberal Democratic Capitalism, inasmuch that markets and actors would act quite differently and, in the HRx view, wiser.

    The notion that Darwinian failure will result in the Free-Market triumphant is of a sketchy historical precedent. How many years have we waited for Venezuela to collapse? How many millennia did the negro run naked in his jungle? Considering artificial fertilizers and dirt cheap natty gas human life is going to continue reproduction with little hard Darwinian pressures. Lastly, I was under the impression that Reaction was fundamentally anti-whig… To promote the whigs’ most darling policy, free trade, as orthodoxy doesn’t match up with the broader historical narrative MM spun.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The Heritage Foundation index of economic freedom correlates almost perfectly with competent government.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @admin “The Heritage Foundation index of economic freedom correlates almost perfectly with competent government.” Well then, the USA and UK are at 12 and 13 on a list so why are you concerned?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Ordinal and cardinal values are different. The USA is governed better than Zambia. That every country on the list outside the short “Free” list is abysmally governed remains true.

    [Reply]

    Jefferson Reply:

    Any chance of that list crossed with one of TFR existing anywhere? On some level, good governance ought to be sustainable, right?

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 4th, 2015 at 10:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    @Max I can’t find the Reply button there so here:

    >Protectionism is straight-up socialism in that it bleeds the capitalists of a country for the benefit of the laborers.

    What? It does not bleed the capitalists, it feeds both the local factory owner and the local laborer if a protective tax makes customers buy from them at a high price than imports from a low price. Both benefit. The people being bled are the consumers and nobody else. Capitalists are making a profit in both cases, just local manufacturers vs. importers.

    In other words, the question of protectionism is plain simply: do you have any higher priorities than low prices for consumers?

    Such priorities can be:

    – wartime readiness, having war supply production capacity
    – avoid external political pressure by being dependent on imports from bullies

    But the best example is overconsumption. You run a small island nation somewhere. You see people drinking lots of sugary soda. Imported Coca-Cola for example. You see it would be good to reduce it. You could just tax it. Or you could be smarter and just tax the import with tariffs and thus incentivize locally made sugary soda which is more expensive, the effect is still a reduction of the demand and the beetus, and consumers getting somewhat poorer and somewhat less rotund. And on the plus side, now your island has a local soda industry which could come handy on a rainy day, such as making Molotovs to throw at invading tanks.

    And from a pure economic angle your economy is more stable now and it is something being ignored by libertarian economics. Imagine your little island nation was mining guano and exporting it and importing everything else. And then artificial fertilizers are invented and now the price of guano is, well, guvno, so you cannot import the precious soda. So local entrepreneurs will have to be really smart and figure out the competitive advantage of what to export next. But if you did this protectionist move and people are drinking locally made and undoubtedly very patriotic beetus juice, that is one headache less.

    So what could go wrong with the idea? On the minus side, Coca-Cola really hates you now and maybe they can pull some strings to fsck with you, like divert investment away from your cozy island.

    Still I think this example does survive basic libertarian tests like Sowell’s “think what happens after and then after and then after”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Protectionism relaxes the competitive environment for domestic businesses, and thus corresponds to a kind of econonomic dysgenics. As with all examples of (apparent) counter-Manthusianism, any resulting short-term fitness boost is paid for through chronic degeneration.

    [Reply]

    TheDividualist Reply:

    True, the question is what you are optimizing for

    1) War with infinite arms races – economic or other kinds of dysgeny kills your group, but in this case forget the Patchwork anyway. Only empires can survive in that.

    2) By some magic, war gets limited. Patchwork is possible. Then

    2/A) Infinite efficiency / tech progress, at any cost of human suffering

    2/B) Balancing dysgenic pleasantness – NOT dyscivic – with eugenic pain, and have a Mediocritopia. That kind of good quality, proud-of-your-work, but ultimately indeed complacent and a bit lazy, but really pleasant attitude you can see e.g. in a family restaurant in Toscana.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 6th, 2015 at 12:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • HRx Takes Its Exit | froudesociety Says:

    […] four part series by Reactionaryfuture. As a few readers may be aware, Froude Society’s first public notice was voicing reservation to Landian Neoreaction on Xenosystems. A foundational purpose […]

    Posted on March 2nd, 2016 at 10:56 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment