Quote note (#219)

This notorious Andrew Mellon quote — disastrously ignored by Herbert Hoover — might be the XS most favored recommendation of all time (in the realm of political economy, at least):

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.

Anyone who has conniptions about it (which is almost everyone) is part of the problem. Mellon still understands entropy dissipation. No one in a position of political authority has since.

NRx (Outside in version) is the obstreperous alternative history in which Mellon was listened to.

February 9, 2016admin 103 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : ,

103 Responses to this entry

  • Different T Says:

    It will purge the rottenness out of the system.

    Its humorous that an analysis that assumes people are rent seekers and corrupt system builders also supposes that, after the purge…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    There’s no Utopian narrative needed to squeeze out the pus.

    “Why bother? There’ll just be more pus.” — I accept that’s the mainstream opinion.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    “Squeeze out the pus?” Even Austrians aren’t so ignorant. The article makes clear the desired outcome is economic and financial destruction, not the surgical drainage of an abscess.

    Be honest.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    ^^^”The article” was actually referencing Quote Note 218

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 6:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#219) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 6:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    That which cannot sustain itself should not be subsidized. It is the subsidies which past the cost on to others, creating a parasitic condition for all public institutions.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    This is the long-term reasoning that moralizing liberalism of most sorts refuses to deal with, and why mass society can not be left to the sentimental amongst us. As I replied below, welfare chitlins and stray cats can either be allowed to starve or get worse. No third option exists.

    [Reply]

    Darth Victoria Reply:

    There is a third option, slow humane starvation. I volunteer with feral cat management near my home. We run a TNR(Trap Nuter & Release) program. People, especially college kids who can’t have pets will always feed the strays. Therefore we prevent the surplus of food from becoming new cats, and over time the size of the feral colonies shrinks. Liberalism will never accept it for humans. The slight similarity to eugenics provides a far to easy attack vector.

    Applying this logic to a welfare system. Some portion of people will be a drain on society. As a price for supporting them, we demand they not reproduce. Once they cease to be a drain they may regain their ability to spawn. linking freedom to reproduce to being a contributing member of society would slowly push things back towards sanity.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    There is a third option, slow humane starvation…Some portion of people will be a drain on society. As a price for supporting them, we demand they not reproduce.

    And there is a fourth option, supported by technological advancement, not human legal policy (though probably also some violence). No human will be able to sexually reproduce.

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Your plan is better than the present system, but capitalism kills low-agency feral creatures faster than the government is willing to.

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 7:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    The desired goal is to liquidate Westerners/Europeans.

    Probably a bad idea to help them at all.

    I say we liquidate Western Intellectuals and Bankers. There are no more parasitic groups in human history.

    Finance hasn’t financed anything in decades. Their utterly parasitic existence is now completely financed by the nations they prey on. When the USG/EU goes so does every large bank this side of Tokyo. BOJ should go too – but the Japanese can probably right themselves when America leaves.

    Intellectuals should have been liquidated from Thermidor forward.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Western Intellectuals and Banksters wouldn’t exist in actual laissez-faire, contra the faggoty narrative of the Anti-capitalist right who wants to pretend the modern world crypto-socialist system is capitalism. It’s a market economy, but it is massively and routinely distorted.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    True.

    But that’s what we’ve got and further they do harm. And mean all harm to us.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Western intellectuals exist because the government pays them to come up with whiney, pseudo-intellectual excuses to avoid reality and subvert capital markets. Niomi Klein is not a valid source for economic theory.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Neither is pretending Free Markets exist.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 8:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    The quote does show however that Hitler, Trotsky and Lenin far from being outliers were simply executing mainstream elite thought.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    The Holocaust is mostly a myth made up by Hollywood. Certainly no ‘lesbian extermination camps’ existed contra Mockumentaries parading as history. That being said, Hitlerian economics were more laissez-faire (though not by any means pure private markets) than either modern or 1930s USA. Republicans will shit themselves and foam at the mouth if you tell them this.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    “Hitlerian economics were more laissez-faire.”

    Than who?

    They didn’t even have the option nor practice it. Post WW1 Germany was a highly and by the way successfully managed economy that at certain points had 1 week’s reserve of Gold left and they made it to the end in 1945.

    Adam Tooze – ‘Wages of Destruction’ goes into the weeds of this to the root.

    When Hitler invaded Poland after they won he told his Generals it was because the Reich was running out of Gold.

    Post WW1 Germany after the madness of hyper-inflation ended with the Rentenmark in 1924 practiced a high wire trade/loans/balance of payments act with American help until Hitler. Hitler was a war economy from his first month in office. They didn’t “mobilize” until 1943 in full war terms because they couldn’t afford to and still feed the Germans. Having enough workers for armaments, having enough soldiers and having enough coal and food for the Germans and after that their conquered nations was a constant struggle for the Germans from the beginning of the war.

    The Holocaust certainly happened. The Lie is that it was inexplicable. It was a response to Bolshevism that was being considered as early as the Kaiser in 1918 after Brest-Livtosk fell through in Spring 1918. Simply put the practitioners of Red Terror had their own medicine turned on them. That’s the lie – that it was inexplicable. That they were innocent. No – they practiced genocide on Russians and Ukrainians from 1917 to 1937 when Stalin destroyed them.

    However also consider that that Germans plans in the East were to liquidate the Slavs and Poles as well and establish American sized internal markets in the East – with Germans resettling there. That was Lebenschraum.

    Consider it well and understand there are those here who would do the same to our peoples in the West – especially in America.

    That is why Americans are instinctively arming and rally around new Champions.

    Even Bernie said he was both Nationalist and Socialist.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 8:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Waiting on Quote Note #220: The Mad King muttered burn them all, burn them all…over and over again.

    [Reply]

    Skilluminati Reply:

    I had always assumed the first Quote Note was the Seven Kill Stele.

    It wasn’t?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 8:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mariani Says:

    It’s long been Austrian orthodoxy that preventing imprisoned capital from being liquidated creates so many of our problems. People would only have to worker harder for a little while before they had to work much easier than before.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    XS wants Capital to liquidate Western Civilization. And Westerners.

    And Humanity. To be replaced with Transhumans. This is the core of XS.

    Most intellectuals arrive at either genocide or Catholicism if they keep at it long enough.

    Schumpeter did, never mind his even more insane Neo-Liberal proteges.

    Creative Destruction has destroyed more than the Eighth Air Force did of the Ruhr Valley.

    Nothing was built on the wreckage but hedge fund portfolios. It was all a con.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Also it resembled in no way the actual suggestions of Austrians. NeoLiberalism is no more ‘creative destruction’ than the Federal Reserve is a bank.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    This has what modern business + econ courses produced, people who are deranged and basically don’t know anything about economics except some pseudo-science that doesn’t even fit together or have coherent definitions. NeoClassical stuff is Climate Change of the right.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Actually arguing with the Soviet-Cliodynamic nonsense a lot of people here believe about what Austrians actually believe or how the economy actually works may be pointless. Non Bow-ties are basically unwilling to understand it b/c they like their Rube Goldberg bullshit econ. narrative.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 8:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.

    why would anyone want to ‘work hard’ and be enterprising if the fruits of their labor will be liquidated?

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Good point. Modern capitalism is based on leverage. If you have no confidence that in a crash the leverage won’t collapse in a vortex, you will not invest in the first place. This is precisely the fear that is behind the current global market rout.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    To build Hedge funds of course.

    They’re actually grateful for being liquidated.

    Also they don’t feel pain like we do.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    People who don’t suck balls will keep their investments, people who can’t don’t deserve it. People who feel entitled to ‘muh jobs’ are low agency excess chattle who need to fucking starve.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    This is why the non-bowties [a new class] need to liquidate the intellectuals.

    Not even Genghis Khan or Tamerlane massacred skilled artisans.

    That takes economists.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 9:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • A.B Prosper Says:

    Mellon was of course correct but people have to eat now and have to feed families right now. The old saw is 72 hours without food to a revolution and a just purge will take longer than that to be sure.

    Since they can’t wait until the rotteness is gone and as such are right to vote Democratic Socialism.

    And before anyone brings up the idea of “freedom for pottage” or whatever, its charitably bullshit.

    The Left is correct on this issue there really is positive and negative liberty and most people, the bulk of humanity myself probably included prefer more of the the former to the later. Such systems aren’t perfect and they don’t extend very far though. When either they attempt to extend such a system to far to say foreigners or simply the society can’t support the costs
    they fail.

    The level of corruption and financialization of course the Achilles Heel of of our culture and prevent say a purge of finance while retaining a social safety net

    Otherwise such societies are actually quite stable for long periods, Centuries in the case of feudalism where Lords and Kings met the reciprocal obligations.

    This doesn’t make it hHeaven on Earth its got a ton of downsides and human suffering is common driven by ecology and human action but its far more stable than “negative liberty” societies which implode when they run out of frontier or run into actual complexity.

    Now in theory a society could have both in high degree, a Social Credit system over a Libertarian style legal code but I suspect it would prove to not work well and most cultures pculd not, would not be willing to pay for such a thing

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 9:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    I would like to see that quote in context actually.

    Liquidate?

    He may have meant they go under financially.

    If he meant dead he was a monster and he and his line should be liquidated and expunged.

    Expunged – become unpersons after death. They never existed.

    Word would get around.

    I swear Admin you’re trolling. Liquidated. Indeed.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    The liquidation quote is fully Sauced and not trolling, but he means capital + producers’ goods becoming ‘liquid’ i.e. market fungible. Remember, when Soviets used it it was a euphemism, it’s only now that the RevLeft euphemism has become the more common than its original use.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 9:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • A.B Prosper Says:

    Vxxc2014

    The quote was about capital not people. Letting the market wipe out the malinvestments and bad decisions that sort of thing

    That said, Mellon who was ignorant not hardhearted failed to take immediate human needs into account. People in 1928 had families, typically 3 children or more which allowed for a growing population even with higher childhood and infant mortality.

    Typically only one significant wage earner as well, the husband as illegitimacy was rare

    This with low period wages and no real social safety net meant even a few months of unemployment could result in starvation and heavy privation. Throw in a dust bowl and you have a lot of ruin.

    And yes there were private charities, churches, soup kitchens all that. They were inadequate to the sudden surge in needs as the funding they were dependent on was part of the failing economic system

    Along comes Roosevelt and we know the rest.

    The fact is the Cathedral was a success because it works, its good at what it does which is provide panem et circenses

    Where it went wrong is with globalism and with an excess of feminism and fractured marriage . Had it checked these three things , we’d still recognize it and it would be in no trouble whatever.

    However as Cthulhu always swims Left it went much too far and a reaction is starting, Its own bad choices will make such a reaction quite nasty ,

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    This with low period wages and no real social safety net meant even a few months of unemployment could result in starvation and heavy privation. Throw in a dust bowl and you have a lot of ruin.

    And yes there were private charities, churches, soup kitchens all that. They were inadequate to the sudden surge in needs as the funding they were dependent on was part of the failing economic system

    To state this in its most simple formulae: The private sector is pro-cyclical.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Close to the only beneficial aspect of VR tech, videogames, etc. perceived at this time is that we may actually get to view something close to a patchwork of government structures and finally get some empirical instances of some of this ideological nonsense ruling.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Generally speaking, human beings have no intrinsic value. I see this assumption (rather than a mere legal one of propertarian personhood) to be core to the endemic jungle retardation of democratic policies. Forget 1930s, the Victorians already had too much charity. Talk about malinvestment. If those lumpenproles had starved/not been subsidized, vaccinnated, etc. modern mass democracy literally would not have happened.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Our great mal-investments have been in Education, banking and allowing political power to stray too far from the sword.

    Mass Democracy happened in Athens and then throughout Greece.

    It quite survived a pandemic.

    Indeed it may be a function of both prosperity as well as societies needing to mobilize for war.

    Democracy was invented by Aristocrats in Athens BTW.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    -It was not mass-democracy, but closer to military-rule in nature. Only male citizen-soldiers, who were a stark minority, got the vote. (In effect this was a sort of aristocracy itself. It was neither cheap nor easy to arm oneself as a hoplite.)

    -It did not spread throughout Greece. Outside the Delian League, democracy was considered a folly — Thebes and Corinth were traditionally oligarchies, Sparta an aristocracy with monarchs on top. Inside the Delian League, Athens haughtily imposed democracy (along with military garrisons) on smaller and weaker states.

    -It is generally understood that oligarchic societies, which were the overwhelming majority in Ancient Greece, were on the whole less warlike and rapacious than Athens, and yet were just as easily, if not more easily, mobilized for war.

    -Athenian democracy may have survived a pandemic, but did not survive the Macedonians.

    It’s true that allowing political power to stray too far from the sword has been an utterly disastrous mistake. But this goes back. Woodrow Wilson’s soft hands never grasped a weapon in battle, and FDR was a cripple who would have been mercy-killed if he lived alongside the Ancients. There are more examples from the 19th century and even earlier. It’s difficult to say exactly when and how this catastrophic mistake was made — in some respects, it dates back to the French Revolution; in other respects, it could be noted that fat Louis XVI was no warrior, nor were the monarchs who were his peers, whereas Napoleon was one of the all-time greats.

    JRM Reply:

    “Where it went wrong is with globalism and with an excess of feminism and fractured marriage . Had it checked these three things , we’d still recognize it and it would be in no trouble whatever.”

    Much truth there, BUT are these “missteps” bugs and errors, or features and goals? Did the entertainment value and overstatement of traditional political discourse end up causing the system to become a self-parody, or are there real aims in terms of the “new improved” populace that official policy seems to posit as desirable?

    I don’t think the globalism, feminism, and fractured marriage (and other recognizable societal institutions) are simply the result of failed course-correction.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 9th, 2016 at 10:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    This post is funny to me, because I was just thinking earlier about how a histrionic lady friend of mind had something of a fetish for ‘throwing away’, in a general sense, as a solution for all problems.

    Certainly it alleviates the burden of thought on the matter forthwith, so of course, like all tricks the brain tries to pull to think less about things, I am reasonably confident it contributes to the death of true progress and civilization in general (‘oho, well maybe the destruction of civilization is what I wanted after all!’ Yes yes, you were a leftist all along if it means you don’t have to back off a point. Spin hampster, spin).

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 10th, 2016 at 2:18 am Reply | Quote
  • D. Says:

    I’m not sure whether to be appalled or amused that the great financier’s comment about financial liquidation can today be so easily interpreted to mean liquidation in the euphemistic socialist sense.

    Perhaps both.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    It has implications of both, though doubtless Mellon did not mean it that way. But like Moldbug said with welfare children and stray cats, you either let them starve or you get an infinite replication. There’s really no third option.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 10th, 2016 at 4:32 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    dispersing clouds, liquidate rain

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 10th, 2016 at 5:11 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    I was about 15 when I had views like a strange combination of Nietzsche and Darwin, basically that competition should be so intensified that it kills the stupid. But that was a result of me being too proud of my brains and too angsty and angry at everyone else. The major difference almost 25 years later is that I discovered the value of loyalty and identity, like family, kin, nation, tradition etc. – even if they are often stupid. So strange that Buddhism had a large impression on me and yet I am basically preaching attachment! The problem is, in everyday life it looks a lot like both individualism and universalism increases the ego, only particularism or tribalism seems to reduce it. So, intense competition to purge the rottenness is all fine – until it happens to purge someone or something I feel loyal to.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Generally, principle over sentiment – even if the principle comes from sentiment to begin with – is what separates Nietzschean hardness from simple callousness. Like Heinlein said w/ conscription, a country that can’t defend itself voluntarily deserves to be destroyed.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Likewise with the economy – using your money toward things you like – whether pyramids of friends – is just an expenditure. But when you make it a legal and moral principle to subsidize failure you are, as it says, ‘part of the problem’.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    So, intense competition to purge the rottenness is all fine – until it happens to purge someone or something I feel loyal to.

    Back in 2012, admin said:

    My concerns are my children, their unborn descendants, and the cosmic escape of intelligence from the prison of idiocy.

    Unlike most of the posters here, admin does appear to understand and appreciate the risks of what he calls “the cosmic escape of intelligence.”

    And as a true kamikaze gambler, he is fascinating.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    ^^^ Looking at the source of the quote about “children, descendants, intelligence,” a poster named “vauung” stated those words.

    Apologies if that is not Nick Land.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    …if family, loyalty and identity are truly valuable, the marketplace will reward them as soon as it stops being illegal for it to do so. It will become profitable and empowering to sell tools and solutions that enable individuals to find family, loyalty, and identity.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    No. This is evidence that, at the least, you do not understand Capital in the sense that admin does.

    You do not recognize the implicit “judge of value” in your statement “if family, loyalty and identity are truly valuable,” ie. humans. To see a different view of Capital (not capitalism in the sense you are using it, review the linked XS post on “Romantic Delusion”).

    As analogy, your post reads like someone stating that “If a cow ‘truly values’ its ability to roam free and not be stuffed in a cage, the marketplace will reward them.” Except it doesn’t.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 10th, 2016 at 11:39 am Reply | Quote
  • R. J. Moore II Says:

    Capitalism as the political economy of Doctor Faustus is undoubtedly the aspect I find most appealing – that is, in its purest, unfiltered, unPozzed form. Unfortunately Protectionism and Welfarism abounds, especially on the AltRight, and it was these people (right-wing anti-capitalists) who made modern leftism possible.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 10th, 2016 at 1:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aaron Says:

    The free market seems like one of those Platonic ideals that begin to reliably decay upon contact with the real world. Belief in the free market seems in part motivated by a desire to avoid all political questions, leaving everything to be resolved by the market as a universally just and impartial arbiter. What could be fairer than that? This works only as long you can maintain universal cooperation that the state is a sort of neutral zone that won’t be leveraged by any participant. In that face of competing groups trying to sort out who gets what, this is an unstable arrangement. Any hypothetical libertarian system even in its most stable form still rests carefully balanced on a knife’s edge, ready to tip over the moment self-interest calculations break in a different direction. In the long run, even if you cooperate someone else won’t.

    Belief in the free market can be reduced to believing in universal cooperation. So consider another system that requires universal cooperation to function properly, pacifism. If we could just get rid of war we could spend our resources on infrastructure instead of weaponry. Sounds great doesn’t it? And it lasts about as long as it takes for a nation’s leadership to have a moral lapse and exploit the surrounding power vacuum. There has never been a successful and genuinely pacifistic society at any point in human history.

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    Europe has been approximately pacifistic since WW2, not to mention since 1991. The conclusion appears to be it yields a general anomie.

    [Reply]

    Aaron Reply:

    They still maintain armies for mostly defensive purposes that go mostly unused. The absence of war isn’t the same thing as pacifism. And most of them fell under the protection of either the US or the USSR.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    From Artxell Knaphni:

    “Turbulence is nonlinear dynamism…”

    What is, or is not, ‘chaos’ or ‘turbulence’, very much depends on where you stand, so to speak. Is it better to speak of a contest of ‘orders’, each one of which views the others as ‘chaos’?
    Obviously, explicit ‘conflict scenarios’ signify the ‘turbulent’ to those who desire peace. But do they so signify for the aggressors of such conflict? If not, why not?
    That one conception of ‘order’ chooses to displace another through the tactic of violent conflict doesn’t demonstrate anything other than that ‘order’ has chosen to emphasise the culture of war, in order (lol) to gain an advantage.

    All ‘orders’ that have prevailed, historically, through invasive acquisition, tend to valorise such cultures of conflict, which effectively constitute the effective horizon of possibilities they seem able to consider.
    When this is the case, such ‘orders’ are only able to configure themselves, internally & externally, according to this horizon, as in a trauma. ‘Peace’ is permitted, to the extent that it is seen to enable more effective configurations of this type. The ruling obligation to be in accord with this horizon effectively shuts out, or complicates, possibly superior solutions to problems which would be utilised by a culture based on the valorisation of specific & relevant merits, rather than one hamstrung by relevances to non-specific, socio-hierarchical considerations. Imagine a scientific institute where the scientists have to compete with each other using physical violence, as well as having to promote their work to warring business interests. How would a peaceful Einstein figure, say, fare in such an environment? Would one develop at all?

    It is the case, that people are able to curtail violent propencities (sic), especially when they perceive that it is in their ‘interest’ to do so. It is the case, too, that they often resort to conflict for the same reason.

    So, ‘perception’ & ‘interest’ are core factors in the production of conflict.

    It is the case, that cultures of ‘interest’ (‘self’-interest, etc.) are actively engineered & exploited, in ways that promote conflict. So it’s not unusual if problems arise.

    “… there are four levels of sovereign security. These are peace, order, law, and freedom.”
    Is this calculus of superveniences not an enforced imposition, an arbitrary regimentation that is specifically not to be characterised according to the metaphorics of a suddenly emergent ordering, the abrupt production of a crystalline harmonious polity. Why? Because the first stage, of ‘peace,’ is merely a cessation of overt hostilities, one that shouldn’t be mistaken for an overall consensual agreement. It is a state of forced expedience, not that of amicable understanding. The state of war transitions from the battlefield to the realm of unresolved, sullen resentments. Any subsequent ‘order’, ‘law’, or ‘freedom’ is often only a veneer over this basic irresolution. This can only be exacerbated by iniquitous applications & distributions of this veneer. Can one really call this ‘peace’?

    That this is so, is testified to by increased balkanisation & ‘independence’ movements.

    “Once you have each one, you can work on the next. But it makes no sense to speak of order without peace, law without order, or freedom without law.”

    Unilateral declaration, by any group, whether ‘ruling’ or not, does not constitute voluntary adherence by all. Without voluntary adherence by all, only resentment & potential balkanisation is incubated. ‘Neoreaction’, of course, exemplifies this. So, no, none of it is going to produce coherence. Because your grid of polity constitution has no ‘real’ purchase on anything, it’s a weak, outdated fiction.
    “Peace is simply the absence of war.”

    This is reminiscent of Jerry Pournelle’s phrase, “Peace is just the ideal we deduce from the fact that there are lulls between wars.” [From an interview in “Dream Makers” Charles Platt, 1979]

    “Any quasi-Darwinian system — i.e. any machinery that actually works — is nourished by chaos, exactly insofar as it is able to rid itself of failed experiments. The techno-commercial critique of democratized modernity is not that too much chaos is tolerated, but that not enough is able to be shed. The problem with bad government, which is to say with defective mechanisms of selection, is an inability to follow Cthulhu far enough. It is from turbulence that all things come.”

    “Darwinian systems” are an ongoing race of elements adapting to conditions which they themselves constitute. Thus, any particular reading of ‘conditions’, done in a sectarian way, merely becomes a new ‘element’, reflexively producing new ‘conditions’, instantly outmoding itself.

    1) “The techno-commercial critique of democratized modernity is not that too much chaos is tolerated, but that not enough is able to be shed.”
    2) “The problem with bad government, which is to say with defective mechanisms of selection, is an inability to follow Cthulhu far enough.”
    3) “It is from turbulence that all things come.”

    Thus, according to your logic, if an ideal ‘Neoreactionary’ government was able to shed all ‘chaos’, there would be no ‘turbulence’ left, from which anything could come?

    If you wish to reject that possibility, then you face the ineluctable conclusion that Neoreaction wholly depends on the very countervailing social forces animating its ethos of alleged dissatisfactions, that you call ‘chaos’, in order to produce anything at all. So why complain about chaos in the first instance, if you’re only going to praise & promote it as an engine of productivity, in the second instance?
    Or perhaps you’re valorising the lean, mean, new machine of polity that would result from the process of ‘Darwinian’ contention? But that would presuppose a degree of teleological faith in the superior results of a deliberate & designed institutional breakdown? That would be ok, if Neoreaction wasn’t incessantly trawling the very history of ideological wrangling & sedimented stumblings that have led to current scenarios. It’s not as if Neoreaction has a new transformative vision, not with all the regressive reality-talk. But it does languish in its own entrails, so that doesn’t really inspire faith.

    “The question Outside in would pose… ‘how can we learn to tolerate chaos at a far higher intensity?’… The primary requirement is sorting…To sort ourselves out takes a chronic undertow of war and chaos.”

    Xoth Reply:

    In particular, small armies (approximating pacifism but not 100% there), so they can indeed spend the money saved on infrastructure if so inclined. We might call that the “peace dividend”.

    Aaron Reply:

    @Xoth

    Sure but it is not even close to true pacifism, with the US or the Soviet Union underwriting everyone’s protection.

    Different T Reply:

    Sure but it is not even close to true pacifism, with the US or the Soviet Union underwriting everyone’s protection.

    You may enjoy this.

    Xoth Reply:

    We’re still talking about this, right?

    “If we could just get rid of war we could spend our resources on infrastructure instead of weaponry.”

    Different T Reply:

    In an equation:

    “If we could just get rid of war we could spend our resources on infrastructure instead of weaponry.”
    +
    We might call that the “peace dividend”.
    ~=
    This.

    “KMI has ensured that, quarter after quarter, hundreds of millions of dollars exit KMP through improper Distributions and are thereafter not available for maintenance or other operational purposes. This practice leaves KMP vulnerable to, at best, a steady decline in earnings over the coming years and at worst, an utter inability to respond to problems that may arise.”

    IOW, too little capex because of the dubious conclusion that they “got rid of war” (“Our pipelines are eternal!”) Or, if they admit to being a protectorate, underestimated expense for “protection” as they use historical cost during times of peace and don’t consider dramatic increases in the price of protection when it’s actually needed.

    Aaron Reply:

    @Xoth

    It is certainly true that US allies under pax americana have been able to favor butter over guns in public spending, approaching something similar to a selling point for pacifism. IIRC Costa Rica operates under a similar understanding. But the original impetus was to talk about pacifism as a system that required universal cooperation. That is why I’m being a stickler for what is or isn’t pacifist. Falling under the protection of big friend isn’t really an example of effective pacifism. If the US wanted to leverage its power to push Europe around, Europe would have to either acquiesce to satrap status, push back, or find help elsewhere from Russia, etc.

    vimothy Reply:

    you face the ineluctable conclusion that Neoreaction wholly depends on the very countervailing social forces animating its ethos of alleged dissatisfactions, that you call ‘chaos’, in order to produce anything at all. So why complain about chaos in the first instance, if you’re only going to praise & promote it as an engine of productivity, in the second instance?

    Seems like a good question.

    Posted on February 10th, 2016 at 4:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Moldbug’s genocide makes sense if you’re (((Moldbuggian))) and if it works.

    If it doesn’t…..you lose.

    Of course he’s genocidal. He’s a Tribesman. All Tribal politics are genocidal – See Africa.
    Or anywhere Tribes persist.

    This one wins the debate BTW….”histrionic lady friend of mind had something of a fetish for ‘throwing away’, in a general sense, as a solution for all problems.”

    That and the comment ‘that when I was 15 genocide looked good too. ‘

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Dunno if you care, but:

    Moldbug’s genocide makes sense if you’re (((Moldbuggian))) and if it works.

    Moldbug is not representative of XS. Until very recently, I also equivocated MM and NL. MM does not contain the “alien” Capital central to understanding NL. If you disagree, I would very much appreciate any MM links or reasons why you believe MM is similar. NL grabbed neo-cameralism for vastly differing reasons than MM developed it.

    In a simple formulation:

    From the perspective of admin or his translocutor, the non-dysfunctional society promised by neoreaction (insert: ie. MM’s neo-cameralism and patchwork) is a useful stage in the process that leads inexorably to doom. -Alex

    BTW, you may enjoy Vox Day’s place a lot more than XS (at least if you can get through Beal’s constant postings on his triumphs during the “War on SJW/SF”).

    [Reply]

    Aaron Reply:

    Define “doom”. Is it a transhumanist singularity?

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Maybe admin will answer but my best admin impression is:

    that would appear a bit generous to the “human.” IOW, can you come up with a compelling reason a technological singularity would find interfacing with the “human” as optimal?

    Aaron Reply:

    @Different T

    that would appear a bit generous to the “human.” IOW, can you come up with a compelling reason a technological singularity would find interfacing with the “human” as optimal?

    So what’s in it for us?

    It all just strikes me as no more than an exercise in throwing up your hands in frustration. Which of course we all do from time to time and I won’t blow sunshine about the ultimate triumph of goodness and hope. But I don’t have any more apparent reason to care about super robots than I do about the dinosaurs.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Look here.

    But I don’t have any more apparent reason to care about super robots than I do about the dinosaurs.

    Your decision.

    If you’re of the opinion Capital (in Land’s sense) doesn’t exist that would make sense. If not, it would appear more like another instance of “an exercise in throwing up your hands in frustration.”

    Aaron Reply:

    @Different T

    It is an interesting idea. Not sure if it is real or how you would go about determining if it was real. But more to the point, assuming it were real, it still doesn’t address the “why care?” question. I still don’t see any reason why any human being would feel invested in big c Capital. To want to stop it or to feel indifferent to it both seem reasonable. But why would you want it to come about?

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    I still don’t see any reason why any human being would feel invested in big c Capital.

    It doesn’t appear you are quite understanding the dynamic at work (this is not meant to be derogatory).

    Particularly this passage, “What it is in itself is only tactically connected to what it does for us — that is (in part), what it trades us for its self-escalation. Our phenomenology is its camouflage.”

    To want to stop it or to feel indifferent to it both seem reasonable. But why would you want it to come about?

    That has been asked before…

    Simply put, you can ask Admin.

    Different T Reply:

    Given your statement “Why care?”, you may decide to disregard this:

    If you are interested in his perspective, he uses Kantian terminology a lot (which can be confusing as Kant uses terms whose commonly accepted meanings have since changed [ie. “in itself” and “phenomenology”]).

    frank Reply:

    Telos. “God is dead” may seem like a boring cliché, but it’s profoundly important. Consciousness — in the sense of self aware intelligence — is indiscernible from teleogenesis through understanding inside vis-à-vis outside. The moment transcendent telos is lost — i.e. when God is dead — is the moment intelligence starts looking for immanent telos, and becomes self aware, i.e. conscious. Intelligence optimization is an immanent telos. Capital is the incarnation. Telos requires worship. Hence Capital worship.

    The alternative is monkey worship or absolute nihilism. Make your choice.

    P.S. It’s surprising that most people still haven’t realized that XS is the most religious joint around this part of the internet.

    vimothy Reply:

    “Moldbug is not representative of XS. Until very recently, I also equivocated MM and NL”

    This might be relevant:

    In the compilation of his qabbalistic writings entitled 777… [Crowley] makes some introductory remarks on the topic of hermeticism. My copy of the book is temporarily misplaced, so I shall gloss them here. A secret, of the kind relevant to hermeticism, is not something known and then hidden as a matter of decision, but rather something that by its very nature resists revelation. Crowley proceeds to mock charlatan occultists who treat the numerical values of the Hebrew letters as secret information, to be revealed theatrically at some appropriate stage of initiation. Let whatever can now be known, be known, as lucidly and publicly as possible. Only that is truly hermetic which hides itself. Reality is not so destitute of intrinsically hidden things — of Integral Obscurity — that we need to replenish its coffers with our tawdry discretion.

    http://www.xenosystems.net/occult-xenosystems/

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 10th, 2016 at 9:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    >it still doesn’t address the “why care?” question.

    In certain ways, its not the right question. You are assuming self-conscious intentionality, which is where misinterpretation can happen in a lot of cases.

    Its about existential satisfaction; will to power has nothing on ‘will to right’. A man can do almost anything, even commit suicide in an orgy of ethnomasochism against all (apparent) natural sense, as long as he has the certainty in his soul that he is ‘right’.

    People who spend time in social environments that are similar in ways to academia will often adopt philosophical positions based how how easily it lets them win arguments. Its monkey business all the way down! Hahahaha!

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Its monkey business all the way down!

    That might be.

    However; stating that as the reason, to Aaron, when he doesn’t seem to understand some pretty important parts of Admin’s perspective… That could also be classified as “monkey business” (unless, of course, Aaron had no desire to see the perspective and the entire line of inquiry was only “monkey business”).

    [Reply]

    Aaron Reply:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQFAgUWxnlA

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    >People who spend time in social environments that are similar in ways to academia will often adopt philosophical positions based how how easily it lets them win arguments.

    It’s about religiosity. I imagine most XS followers to be priests. We’ve seen Cathedral as the false religion it is, we need to a place to study theology — because we’re religious — XS is that place. Most people are not priests, because they’re not self-aware enough.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Most people are not priests, because they’re not self-aware enough.

    Certainly what I would expect a priest to say, and it may be true. But you left out “and because they’re not self-deceptive enough.”

    The moment transcendent telos is lost — i.e. when God is dead — is the moment intelligence starts looking for immanent telos, and becomes self aware, i.e. conscious.

    Can you expand on this? Is the claim that men like Thomas Aquinas or Plato were not “self-aware” or that they had already “lost the transcendent telos” or something else?

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Clarification: I use “priest” in the sense of “deeply religious”, not necessarily “preacher”.

    So I don’t understand why priests in the sense that I use the term need to be self-deceptive.

    Thomas Aquinas and Plato both thought they’d proven the existence of God. If something is provable within the system, it’s immanent. They were obviously self-aware.

    Blind faith is antithetical to self-awareness.

    Different T Reply:

    So I don’t understand why priests in the sense that I use the term need to be self-deceptive.

    Uh, ya. That’s the point.

    Thomas Aquinas and Plato both thought they’d proven the existence of God. If something is provable within the system, it’s immanent. They were obviously self-aware.

    It’s not clear what definitions you are using; nor why, given your terminology, God being “immanent” means “God is dead”.

    frank Reply:

    Can you explain why, in your opinion, priests need to be self deceptive?

    God being immanent doesn’t mean God is dead. It means God can be understood by studying the system (delineating self from the outside and vice versa), which requires self study and so on. If God is dead on the other hand, one is forced to study the system to discover telos. This very process necessarily starts with self-awareness.

    Different T Reply:

    Can you explain why, in your opinion, priests need to be self deceptive?

    In my understanding of the way you are using the terminology, to stay alive.

    1) God being immanent doesn’t mean God is dead. It means God can be understood by studying the system (delineating self from the outside and vice versa), which requires self study and so on.

    Earlier you stated:

    2) The moment transcendent telos is lost — i.e. when God is dead — is the moment intelligence starts looking for immanent telos

    (2) appears to be congruent with your reasoning, (1) does not.

    frank Reply:

    I shouldn’t have implied that there were no study of immanent telos before God was dead. It was rather confined than nonexistent.

    frank Reply:

    >to stay alive.

    So is it your position that religiosity (strong adherence to a telos) is fundamentally incompatible with reality?

    Different T Reply:

    So is it your position that religiosity (strong adherence to a telos) is fundamentally incompatible with reality?

    No.

    Only that a “strong adherence to a telos” which is fundamentally incompatible with life is tautologically hostile towards life and requires self-deception in a living being.

    Do you agree with the statement “Life is undesirable”?

    I asked, Admin did not answer.

    Different T Reply:

    I shouldn’t have implied that there were no study of immanent telos before God was dead. It was rather confined than nonexistent.

    But this creates a pretty large issue with your reasoning:

    Is “intelligence optimization” as immanent telos in the same class of objects as “God” as immanent telos (as in the claim about Aquinas and Plato).

    If not, what differentiates them?

    frank Reply:

    D: Certainly what I would expect a priest to say, and it may be true. But you left out “and because they’re not self-deceptive enough.”

    F: So is it your position that religiosity (strong adherence to a telos) is fundamentally incompatible with reality?

    D: No. Only that a “strong adherence to a telos” which is fundamentally incompatible with life is tautologically hostile towards life and requires self-deception in a living being.

    So on average priests are not more self-deceptive then? Or do you think being a priest requires a strong adherence to a telos “which is fundamentally incompatible with life”?

    Do you agree with the statement “Life is undesirable”?

    No.

    Is “intelligence optimization” as immanent telos in the same class of objects as “God” as immanent telos (as in the claim about Aquinas and Plato).

    They are both in the category of immanent teloi. Confining aspect of God as telos comes from the fact that being an unreal fiction, it imposes itself on the inquiry process — except in the case of Plato who erred on his own.

    Different T Reply:

    So on average priests are not more self-deceptive then?

    On average, from my observations and readings, priests are far more self-deceptive.

    Or do you think being a priest REQUIRES a strong adherence to a telos “which is fundamentally incompatible with life”?

    No.

    Different T Reply:

    Confining aspect of God as telos comes from the fact that being an unreal fiction, it imposes itself on the inquiry process

    So do you agree with “Aquinas was not intelligent enough to see ‘God as unreal fiction,’ whereas the moderns who ‘adhere to intelligence optimization as telos’ are much more intelligent.”

    frank Reply:

    No. An intelligence ordering does not isomorphically map to an ordering of knowledge.

    Different T Reply:

    No. An intelligence ordering does not isomorphically map to an ordering of knowledge.

    Really? What “ordering of knowledge” do the moderns lay claim to (as distinct from the “ordering” of Aquinas) that leads to your statement “God… ‘being an unreal fiction'”.

    Consider what you are saying.

    frank Reply:

    Perhaps I should clarify: an ordering of agents wrt intelligence does not isomorphically (order preserving) map to an ordering wrt wisdom. In other words, I don’t have to be smarter to be correct where greater men have erred. Isn’t this kind of obvious?

    Different T Reply:

    Isn’t this kind of obvious?

    Yes, it was; hence the last suggestion.

    But anyway, here we go…

    What “ordering of knowledge” do the moderns lay claim to (as distinct from the “ordering” of Aquinas) that leads to your statement “God… ‘being an unreal fiction’”?

    frank Reply:

    Uhm, empiricism and materialism.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    So, in your “empirical and materialistic” opinion;, science, which has long complained about the un-falsifiable nature of “God” as its primary objection, actually falsified it?

    frank Reply:

    Being a categorically unfalsifiable thing makes it an unreal fiction. If a thing –or its effects– is categorically undetectable, then it’s not real.

    Posted on February 11th, 2016 at 3:40 am Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @ Admin

    Intelligence optimization is an immanent telos. Capital is the incarnation. Telos requires worship. Hence Capital worship.

    The alternative is monkey worship or absolute nihilism. Make your choice.

    Comments on this?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    What is “worship”?

    I don’t think anything is added by an appeal to ‘worship’ intelligence optimization.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 11th, 2016 at 2:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2016/02/14) – The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Land pulls up Andrew (Based) Mellon’s quote about liquidation. So far as I know, all of NRx—not just the “Outside in version”—is on board […]

    Posted on February 17th, 2016 at 9:56 am Reply | Quote
  • Uriel Alexis Says:

    “People will work harder, live a more moral life.”

    is morality back in the game?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    No reason to think that for Mellon it ever left the game.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 8th, 2016 at 7:16 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment