Reaction Space

Mapped — and clickable* — here.

(Blogrolls are so yesterday.)

* Well, not quite yet

ADDED: Take the test.

April 21, 2013admin 51 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : ,

51 Responses to this entry

  • Federico Says:

    It might also be interesting to depict philosophers and authors on the chart. Moldbug, for example, is linked to Carlyle, Froude, Mises and several others. I would be linked to Hayek, Dalrymple and Richard Joyce; our host would be linked to continental philosophers.

    One way to create a more sophisticated graph would be to conduct a survey of all these bloggers. Who is your favourite fiction author; from which five philosophers or authors have you learnt most; which three bloggers most perfectly share your views; to which three articles and which three websites do you most often link?

    That would supply a more condensed, unbiased and accurate picture than blogrolls. It is efficient, and probably quite easy to do. Anyone with a blog is, on that evidence, willing and eager to fill in a survey all about himself. 🙂

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 22nd, 2013 at 12:01 am Reply | Quote
  • Federico Says:

    To make the survey less alienating to those who don’t accept the “reactionary” label but are nonetheless linked to this volume of blog-space, it could be titled “Reactosphere plus neighbours”, or something along those lines.

    [Reply]

    LSD Reply:

    Thanks for the feedback. What I need to figure out is how to make each ‘node’ in the network interactive: you hover over it or click it and a pop-up window provides the kind of info you’re talking about: philosophical influence, similarity to other bloggers, et cet.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    You’ve just reminded me of this (apologies to all non-UK readers and no offence… It’s just a funny scene):

    TED: This is terrible. People think I’m, I’m some sort of nazi racist; and I’m not. What can I do?
    DOUGAL: Ted, here’s an idea right off the top of me head. Now I haven’t thought it through so it’s probably not brilliant but what the hell, sure I’ll just talk and see what comes out. Anyway, how about some sort of special event, eh, celebrating all the different cultures on Craggy Island and then people will think you’re a fantastic man instead of a big racist.
    TED: My God!
    DOUGAL: What?
    TED: That’s a good idea!
    DOUGAL: No it isn’t.
    TED: It is Dougal, it is!
    DOUGAL: No Ted there’s probably something wrong with it. You just haven’t thought it through.
    TED: No, no dougal, you’ve had a brilliant idea. Hah! But break it down for me a bit more. What would an event celebrating all the different cultures in Craggy Island actually be like?
    DOUGAL: What?
    TED: What would it involve? I mean, celebration yes but what form could it take?
    DOUGAL: Ted I want out.
    TED: What do you mean?
    DOUGAL: I went too far too soon. I didn’t know what I was gettin’ into Ted. I didn’t know you had to follow a good idea with loads more little good ideas. I’m sorry Ted. I’m going to sleep in the spare room.

    [Reply]

    raptros_ Reply:

    well that took some googling, but you could build off of http://flowingdata.com/2012/08/02/how-to-make-an-interactive-network-visualization/

    basically you’d have to do some javascript stuff, so good luck.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    Interactive, yes, so’s I can don my transumanic VR goggles and powergloves to navigate reactosphereic cyberspace via gesticulation and verbally commanding a “computer” possessing both feminine name and voice.

    (“You miss the 90’s, don’t you?”
    “I do!”)

    [Reply]

    Federico Reply:

    Thanks for the feedback. What I need to figure out is how to make each ‘node’ in the network interactive: you hover over it or click it and a pop-up window provides the kind of info you’re talking about: philosophical influence, similarity to other bloggers, et cet.

    I envisage authors, websites and bloggers as nodes on the graph, links being drawn between them according to the surveyed influence, mentions or similarity. Then, clusters in reaction-space would emerge from the graph spontaneously.

    We might be surprised or enlightened by the emergent structure; I take that to be the point of such a chart. We already know that some bloggers talk about “game”, others about “HBD” and so on, but we would like to learn more of the deep, hidden interconnections. E.g. are LessWrongians particularly concentrated in certain clusters or linked to certain authors, and what does that tell us?

    I agree that blog and other website URLs should be linked from the graph—perhaps bibliographies in the case of authors.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    Federico, agreed. I’m a recovering (cynical) lefist. In fact, I probably was never of the left. With Stirner, Nietszche and Junger being my major influences; and my constant veering towards individual anarchism. Yet, I’m still not at ease with the implications of ‘race’ realism; and I’m strongly at odds with ethnic-nationalism and theocratic dreams – so yeah, I’m probably a conflicted ‘neighbour’, reactionary is a little too head-on for me.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 22nd, 2013 at 12:08 am Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    A nice addendum to the Spandrellian Trichotomy. (Yes, it is capitalized now. Things move fast on teh interwebz.) More complete actually, although as Frederico points out, its starts spreading out pretty far into the hinterlands.

    I had forgotten about the Race Realist and Sex Realist folks. Race realists sometimes fit into the ethno-nationalists, but sometimes not very well. Steve Salier: Race Realist? Yes. Ethno-nationalist? Hard to imagine. He claims to be Citizenist. He’s fine with the American tribe the way it is, just so long as we stop dumbing ourselves down with low-skill immigrations and wasting too many more trillions of dollars trying to send the left half of the bell curve to college. You get that vibe from a lot of the HBD crowd. ‘Course, maybe their genteelness on the subject puts them outside the reactionary camp entirely.

    And then the Sex Realists… some more reactionary than others, but where in the Trichotomy do they fit? Not well anywhere. Dalrock, Elusive Wapiti, Vox Day to the extent they are truly reactionary at all would fit smack dab in the Christian Traditionalist camp. Roissy, GLP, quite a bit more on the HBD side. Ferd and Roosh? Not really reactionary at all but my! they sure stir up Reaction’s enemies, plus huge readership…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Perhaps over-hastily, I had assumed that a substantial acceptance of HBD (both racial and sexual) was a neoreactionary staple, cutting across the entire Spandrellian Trichotomy.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    That’s probably about right, assuming you define race and sex realism broadly enough. I guess that get’s back to positive disposition of all reactionaries to believe more or less what is before their eyes. Race and sex differences are obviously real and you’ll get better, saner, more efficient policies if you stop pretending like they’re not.

    [Reply]

    Spandrell Reply:

    Roissy is a regular at Mangans. Never seen him disagree, so I take him as a white nationalist of sorts.

    The rest just want to get laid. Not everybody is a deep thinker. Not everybody gives a shit.

    And if you really believe Sailer is a citizenist you need to learn to read between lines man. He just says that to get in the payroll of the Republican Party.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    And if you really believe Sailer is a citizenist you need to learn to read between lines man. He just says that to get in the payroll of the Republican Party.

    And a lot of good that’s done for him! I really have a hard time believing Salier is any more actual racist than, say Derbyshire; between whom you could barely fit a paperback edition of The Bell Curve. They, like just about all of us, share a mild preference for one’s own kind that, in addition to being the mode level of “racism” for the entire world, is at once reasonable and unlikely to cause you to marry your cousin.

    Maybe I need a clearer definition of “ethno-nationalism”… race realism I get (race is real), but “ethno-nationalism” sounds kinda WN-ish to me, and those clowns are idiots… useful idiots perhaps, but idiots just the same. I mean I can see how Mangan is slightly more white preferenced than Salier or Derbyshire. But it is only slight. And I cannot imagine any of them advocating active ethnic cleansing.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    A lot of idiots tend to be WN, because WN is not feasible. But if it were, it makes way more sense than Citizenism. What are you gonna do with 15% Blacks and 25% Mexicans? Sailer knows that, but he blogs with his real name and he doesn’t want to die.

    I have no problem seeing Mangan push for deportation or geographical separation. None at all.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Segregation is as natural as a mountain spring. It served the US quite well up to circa 1960. Hell, it worked well in Rhodesia up to about 1965 or so. “Equal rights for all civilized men” works just fine for large enough values of “civilized”. That is not to say that it is optimal, but it beats the hell out of genocide.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Dennis Mangan uses his real name too… As does, Jim Donald, who is substantially more radical than either Mangan or Sailer. Everyone at Taki’s is “out”, and they’re mostly a lot meaner than Sailer. This is to say nothing the proprietor of Outside In. Even Moldbug is for all practical purposes “out”, for those who care.

    (Although he doesn’t get mixed up in too much stuff anymore, and has kids, so maybe that’s a strike against my thesis… I got a LOT of kids, the number would almost instantly identify me (to google at least), and haven’t hid my tracks very well at all </doh>)

    Thales Reply:

    If you’re worried about Aunt May, Nick, that’s what the mask/handle is for.

    Suit up!

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    If you’re worried about Aunt May, Nick, that’s what the mask/handle is for.

    Ha! Well, I was thinking more about my employer… Large Multinational Tech Corp (smack dab in the torus around the Cathedral)… whose servers I utilize to type most of what I type.

    Spandrell Reply:

    Thanks for the caps btw.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    “…Sex Realists…”

    I think they’d prefer the term Black Knights.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    The PUAs and the Christian Trads who hate them both believe sex differences are real, that such differences inform us about the right ordering of society, and are ignored at civilization’s peril. They disagree, to put it mildly, on the “on-the-ground” interpretation of this principle.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    Dads and cads may have different personal goals, but both must employ some element of black knighting in contrast to the rampant white knighting that has broken families apart. One is trying to pick up the pieces; the other’s just making the pick-up.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    I prefer to call it “measured assholery”.

    Posted on April 22nd, 2013 at 5:15 am Reply | Quote
  • Rachel Haywire Says:

    I’m wondering why Futurists are automatically associated with techno-commecialism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    My guess is that it’s a statistical anomaly resulting from the small ‘neoreactionary futurist’ sample space. (That and some casual shorthand.)

    [Reply]

    Rachel Haywire Reply:

    Techno-commercialism is quite leftist in its appeal is the techno-progressive activist crowd. A website that is selling some hip new gadget is sure to include some hip new cause with said gadget. Just food for thought.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    ‘Techno-commercialism’ — understood with even minimal rigor — is simply capitalism. I used ‘techno-commercialist’ rather than ‘capitalist’ in my re-statement of the Spandrellian Trichotomy because the latter term is confusingly ambiguous: used to denote the investment class, as well as ideological proponents of capitalism.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Yeah, how anti-progressive is Kurzweil? It’s like trying to take the second derivative of chocolate cake.

    I suppose once you starting getting 4 to 6+ sigma away from the mainstream in any direction, the left/right, liberal/conservative, progressive/reactionary dichotomies no longer apply very well. The Amish are extremely “conservative” yet quakerishly non-violent.

    Posted on April 22nd, 2013 at 6:31 am Reply | Quote
  • LSD Says:

    Yes, Sailer’s ‘citizenism’ is why he got a connection to the ethno-nationalist group and the secular traditionalist group, though I think Nick B’s description is spot on.

    ‘HBD’–race and sex realism–cuts across all neoreactionary flavors, but they got their own node simply because a lot of them–West Hunter, Peter Frost, et cet.–just don’t really talk politics or policy very often. And JayMan identifies as a Democrat (though I think he can get the reactionary label because his leftism is the eugenic, race realist leftism of 19th century liberalism, which is still enough to get ex-communicated from the Cathedral).

    Re: the techno-commercialists. Admin’s explanation is more or less right-on.

    And, of course, let’s not read too deeply into this: it’s an alterable visualization, meant to be at the ‘cool and useful’ level, not a definitive statement of Neoeactionary geekery.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 22nd, 2013 at 11:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Rachel Haywire Says:

    Thanks for clarifying!

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 22nd, 2013 at 1:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    @Nick B. Steves
    “Jim Donald … is substantially more radical than either Mangan or Sailer.” — On this topic (race), I very much doubt that’s true. Jim doesn’t put a lot of energy into restraining himself tonally, but his political philosophy is very casual on the race question. There’s no sign of him edging into WN territory, because that would require too great an investment in the State.

    [‘Casual’ is a compliment btw]

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    I’ve never ventured into WN territory. Is there anything worthwhile there? I’ve always thought the difference between Derbyshire-esque race realism and straight-up, codified, black-bashing White Supremacy is the difference between, say, not eating at the bad sushi restaurant down the street, maybe writing a bad review on Yelp, telling people they shouldn’t eat there . . . and actively seeking out the restaurant owner, dragging him behind a truck, and burning the restaurant down.

    Am I wrong? Is there nuanced political policy being weaved on Stormfront?

    -Scharlach (formerly LSD/SDL)

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    No. But it’s still what I think of when I think of “Ethno-Nationalists” as distinct from the mere and refined HBD crowd.

    @Admin:
    I guess that’s right, but Jim’s tone alone would be enough to get him banished from any Cathedralized post (which I myself sorta possess… large Internat’l Tech Corp, yikes).

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 22nd, 2013 at 10:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Roger Says:

    Why are futurism and techno-commercialism considered neo-reactionary?

    How is ‘reactionary’ and ‘neoreactionary’ defined?

    I don’t see how, say, Robin Hanson’s vision of a future populated by trillions of mind-robot slaves is necessarily a non- or anti-leftist vision.

    In the comment thread to the “Visualizing Neoreaction”, Rachel Haywire writes: “By new humanity I do mean enhancing IQ, genetic optimization, and creating a new race that is better than Humanity 1.0. DIY Transhumanism is my term for this.” Isn’t this sort of vision a progressive one?

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Why are futurism and techno-commercialism considered neo-reactionary?

    Discussed here, here.

    [Reply]

    Roger Reply:

    So something is neoreactionary if it purports to be irrational, to be on the side of history, and to conform to some “deep order of society – whatever that is taken to be”?

    I don’t see why futurism and techno-commercialism should be considered neoreactionary according to this definition. Commercialism has always been based on rationalistic, utilitarian type justifications. And commercialism has never conformed to the “deep order” of societies. Rather it has tended to upend the “deep order” and traditional patterns of societies, replacing blood and kin bonds with money. This is why money has traditionally been viewed as the root of all evil.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    I think ‘being on the side of history’ is misleading when it comes to techno-commercialism (being on the neo side of neo-reaction), but my understanding is that it is reactionary because there is no way it can arise through any progressive development – politics won’t have free markets – so it relies on reaction to become realised. But I imagine admin will be awake soon…

    fotrkd Reply:

    … In the meantime, free markets enable ‘new humans’ where politics would tie such developments up in moral red tape, and the deep order of society in this context, I would wager, refers to evolution.

    admin Reply:

    Hayek provides the template, as an extremely commercially-oriented ultra-Burkean. As fotrkd says, catallaxy is ‘organic’ and traditional, even when it is very rapid it is a type of change that is distinct in principle from progressive innovation. ‘Progress’ — in its political sense — doesn’t just mean ‘moving forwards’, it means advance through state action, and therefore against the spontaneous market order.

    Roger Reply:

    Hayek was a Whiggish liberal, wasn’t he?

    How are markets more “organic” and “traditional” than states? Aren’t states necessary for markets to exist? “Spontaneous” market order presupposes a state that monopolizes violence, enforces the law, etc., doesn’t it?

    I’m not sure progressive innovation is different in principle from catallactic innovation. Perhaps they’re only different in the means used. They both seem mindlessly aimed at creating greater, integrated, corporate bodies. Liberals in the US promote the immigration of more state dependent people to replace more independent natives. The immigrants are thought to be better components or parts of the liberal entity. In Hanson’s vision, mind-robot slaves replace humans as better components or parts of the market entity.

    Posted on April 25th, 2013 at 3:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    @ Roger
    Hayek described himself as an ‘Old Whig’ — by present standards, that’s an extreme reactionary, and nothing at all like a ‘liberal’ today.

    States are not at all ‘organic’ — they originate through catastrophes (conquests and revolutions).

    Common law, hard money, markets, languages, all arise through spontaneous order, not state action. It is historically quite clear that these processes of decentralized emergence did not at all ‘pre-suppose’ the state, since they pre-existed it. The state is fundamentally a parasite — an organization of stationary bandits.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    We’d like our stationary bandits to be as wise and virtuous and tolerant and humble as can possibly be, of course.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    … and the freedom to select among a far wider range of distinctive, competitive brands of stationary banditry would be nice.

    [Reply]

    Roger Reply:

    I understand that “Whiggish liberal” is not the same thing as a contemporary American liberal. But Whiggish or classical liberals aren’t really reactionaries, are they?

    The state does pre-exist the kinds of law, markets, money, language, etc. we’re talking about here. You don’t get dense agglomerations of unrelated people called cities and markets in the first place without the state imposing a monopoly on violence and suppressing male territoriality. Money, written laws and language, accounting, record keeping arose to organize the activity of unrelated masses of people after the state had come in and brought unrelated masses together.

    Prior to the state fostering agglomerations of less related people, people don’t participate in large, anonymous markets, nor do they necessarily need to rely on physical money or written language, since verbal agreements can often suffice among closely related people. You could argue that these verbal agreements and the economic activity of these people are but examples of money and markets, but then you could also say that the ruling male or males also are just examples of the “state” in these societies.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Whiggish or classical liberals aren’t really reactionaries, are they?” — I think this is an extraordinarily interesting question, and I’m grateful to you for raising it so starkly. Clearly, the ‘original’ classical liberals weren’t reactionaries — but rather the exact opposite — and I’m assuming that’s the basis for your skepticism. What, though, about an ‘Old Whig’ in the restrospective, Hayekian (and hyper-Hayekian) mode, someone who knows — as the originals did not — that classical liberalism needs protecting against ‘progress’ and perhaps even against what it, itself, unwittingly pre-programs? What would it take to prevent itself from turning into the (social-democratic or soft-fascist) ‘liberalism’ that eventually triumphs? (That final question almost perfectly defines the neoreactionary problem, as I understand and embrace it.)

    A Paleo-Whig determined to stay paleo-, to de-activate the progressive conveyor belt, after first returning to a far earlier socio-political status quo, cannot be a mere revival of classical liberalism, but is compelled to be something else. A liberal order armed against demotic ‘progress’, it might be argued, is inherently reactionary, because the enemy it defines itself through is not the ancien regime it deposes, but the popular statist politics which it knows lie ahead.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    That might even work with a Paleo-Progressive like Teddy Roosevelt–his benevolent racism, sexism, and jingoism would be quite refreshing these days.

    Posted on April 26th, 2013 at 1:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    The term is spreading . . .

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_neo-reactio.html

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The Kling piece is a minor classic — I think the Codevilla vogue triggered it. Some interesting thoughts there, but describing neoreaction as “neoconservatism with the gloves off” is simply absurd. Neoconservatism is left-ratcheted conservatism (accepting open-ended state welfare obligations, both domestic and international, along with the associated revenue demands, just to start with). The neoconservatives are largely to blame for turning democracy promotion into an overt religious tenet (systematically and idiotically confused with the expansion of freedom). In other words, it’s a departure from conservatism in almost exactly the opposite direction to the one the new reaction takes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 27th, 2013 at 1:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    Ah, apparently that’s an old link. I guess the term HAS BEEN spreading. Or, started to spread, then stopped, and is now starting again.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 27th, 2013 at 1:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Reactionary Consensus? | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] over the past few weeks, we’ve been having much discussion (and here and here and here and here and a zillion other places) in the Reactosphere […]

    Posted on May 7th, 2013 at 8:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jozsef Says:

    Spheres are inadequate to the task because they suggest unified closedness which the escape vector of thought will alwYs punctuate or shatter

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 17th, 2013 at 6:23 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment