Rift Markers

The commentator going by the tag Saddam Hussein’s Whirling Aluminium Tubes has produced some of the most brilliant criticism this blog has been subjected to. Arguing against the techno-commercial strain of NRx from a hardline paleoreactionary standpoint, his contribution to this thread is the high-water mark of his engagement here. That, even at the climax of the assault, Outside in is unable to decline the diagnosis offered, with the exception of only the very slightest, marginal reservations, is a fact that attests to the lucidity of his vision. (Some minute editorial adjustments have been made for consistency — the original can be checked at the link provided.) SHWAT writes:

Admin’s analogy of Techno-Commercialism to the colonial government structures in the time of the East India company is absolutely correct and it provides a decisive clarification. This is like that time when one group stayed in Europe while the other group went and made their fortune in the New World.

Reaction: Stable order (as a value, if not a practical effect), hereditary position
Techno-commercialism: Disintegrative competition, dynamism

Reaction: Conservatism, tradition, the old ways
Techno-commercialism: Disintegrative competition, innovation

Reaction: Personal authority, sacral Kingship, hereditary privileges
Techno-commercialism: Corporate government, leaning towards the oligarchical, dynamic composition of the oligarchy, based on corporate politics and Social Darwinism

Reaction: Cyclical history, Kali Yuga
Techno-commercialism: Linear history, progress towards the singularity

Reaction: Focus on the old country, the old people, saving the West
Techno-commercialism: Abandoning the old, colonizing new spaces, both in the East and (you hope) in Space

Reaction: Traditional social order, community, belonging, sense of place and rootedness, caste
Techno-commercialism: Modern social dynamism, freedom, meritocracy, rootlessness, atomization, Social Darwinism, a questionable future for certain social classes

Reaction: Conservatively communitarian
Techno-commercialism: Radically individualist

Reaction: Identitarian
Techno-commercialism: Cosmopolitan

Reaction: Claims to end politics, ends up with Byzantine / Ottoman politics
Techno-commercialism: Claims to end politics, ends up with Corporate Politics

Reaction: Martial
Techno-commercialism: Mercantile, post-Martial (Drones > Kshatriyas)

Reaction: Disdainful of crass mercantile endeavors
Techno-commercialism: See mercantile endeavors as primary

Reaction: Fails without good leaders
Techno-commercialism: Focus on innovative governmental structures, so that people won’t need to be good.

Reaction: Conservative, want things to stay the same or go backwards
Techno-commercialism: Disintegrative, dynamic, wants things to change constantly, Forward!

Reaction: Regular, caged capitalism (which to the the Ultra-Capitalist is socialism)
Techno-commercialism: Ultra-Capitalism

Reaction: Religious
Techno-commercialism: Wants to summon a machine god

Reaction: About finding a way for humans to live spiritually fulfilling lives and then die and make a place for their children
Techno-commercialism: About finding a way to summon a machine god to end humanity and/or about finding a way to live forever. Very few children.

Reaction: Would require the creation of a new, legitimate, martial elite or the co-opting of someone like Putin (horrifying to techno-commercialists)
Techno-commercialism: Seeks to co-opt the current progressive merchant elite and put someone like Google guy in charge (horrifying to reactionaries)

Reaction: Romantic lost cause
Techno-commercialism: Disturbingly plausible, in the sense that somebody like Google guy was probably going to end up on top anyway, and he might listen to those who flatter him.

So, I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is that [you techno-commercialists will] probably get a lot of what you want in the future. The bad news is that you’re not reactionaries, not even a little bit. You’re classical liberals, it was just a little bit obscured because you are English classical liberals, rather than American or French ones. Hence the lack of interest in revolutions. The modern equivalent of those East India Company classical liberal guys.

So, it’s your choice. You can certainly keep the neo-reactionary label and turn it into something like the “neo” in “neo-conservative” where “neo” means “pwned”. But that will mean that the traditionalist conservatives and WNs keep wandering in. Or you can cut the cord and complete the fission.

Anyway, at this point we should probably go our separate ways and start plotting against each other. Thanks for some enjoyable reading.

If this really is a good-bye note, it’s the most magnificent example I have ever seen. I’m almost tempted to say, with enemies like this, who needs allies?

There are twists and intricacies to be added to this stark cartography of schism, including those the schism will make to itself. From the current perspective of Outside in (which it of course suspects to be something else), the guideline to these is the complication of time through spiromorphism, or innovative restorations, which neither cycles nor simple escape trajectories can capture. These ultimately re-shape everything, but they can wait (while the wound creatively festers). Fission releases energy. Perhaps ironically — SHWAT has demonstrated that beyond all controversy.

56 Responses to this entry

  • Piano Says:

    This brings us to the question of who can claim MIRI. They’re unabashedly singulatarian, and are a player (however minor) in the race to create God on earth. But, their entire point is to creat a Friendly/ordered/neat/safe and dare I say reactionary AI God. The existence of a primise of focusing on Safe AI throws a monkey wrench is this dichotemy. Safe AI, at least in the run up to its creation, is intended to be:

    – Stable and controllable. The T-c counterparts are WBE and Deep Machine Learning Magic.

    – Extremely conservative, built entirely upon well-tested math before anything actually gets built. Certainly innovative but not disintegrative.

    They’re split between a lot of this, and not for want of relevance.

    Traditional and conservative social order would certainly be Safer than individual freedoms and blind focus on any metric other than some abstract “Friendliness”, including the market.

    One or both of extinction and singularity are inevitable. This doesn’t make traditional order a lost cause; it means that it is even more relevant in the buildup to AI God.

    If NRx vs T-c boils down to Neat vs Scruffy AI, then start the philosophical inquisition there. Otherwise, this “split” is hopelessly vague and counterproductive.


    Handle Reply:

    My position is that Safe AI is an impossible goal to achieve.


    admin Reply:

    Ditto — strict analog of the functioning command economy.


    Piano Reply:

    If reasonably Safe/Friendly AI is not possible, then the inevitable
    singularity will inevitably lead to either extinction or eternal dystopia, and
    the only proper response now is extreme luddism or, failing that,
    nuclear war that kills all the AI scientists and almost everyone
    (but not everyone) else (and then of course repeating the fate every few thousand years as necessary).

    That would be absurd.

    If you can develop a rigorous argument against Friendly AI being
    possible, then that would have a ton of impact on research directions, and
    I’m sure Yudkowsky et all would love to hear it.

    If they then accepted the argument, yet continued to build offensive rather than defensive theory, they’d be firmly in the T-c position. But, that seems unlikely.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    You’re equivocating. “Absurd” can mean logically impossible, but it can also just mean “way outside the course of action that we are willing to contemplate.” Neither extinction nor dystopia nor extreme luddism nor cyclical nuclear war are logically impossible.

    Blogospheroid Reply:

    There is a question that is very popular in career development forums.
    “What would you do if money were not a consideration?”

    Take this question to a sovereignty.

    The answer to this from the neo-traditionalists and monarchists is some variant of a virtuous life within a strongly knit community that is mostly ethnically homogeneous.

    The answer to this from the techno-commercialists is , well, earn more money. Money/Power/ Resources are never enough. They are never, “not a consideration”. You’ve covered the earth in solar panels, getting more real wealth than anyone in history, hell that’s just a start. Make a dyson sphere around the sun.

    The thing is, I like both visions. I’ve come here from the less wrong community and I like the concept of a friendly AI. I like the vision of a gamified world where humans gradually gain in competence and eventually get to colonizing the universe.

    Carl Schulman has written that a eudaemonic payload will not be significantly heavier than an intelligent, but unfeeling payload. http://reflectivedisequilibrium.blogspot.in/2012/09/spreading-happiness-to-stars-seems.html

    If this is the case, then the future where we are there is indeed a much better one than one where we are not.

    Posted on March 25th, 2014 at 4:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alfred Says:

    I want meritocracy AND caste (a malleable meritocratic caste system?); identarian belonging AND competitive social-darwinism (maybe a neocameralist state that simply admits that people tend to gather into like groups and distrust outsiders and allows, rather than forces for, voluntary segregation. Maybe each group could have their own standards within their community and another set of rules when interacting between communities? I don’t know if that’s practical; I’m just brainstorming).

    The point is that I don’t see why all (maybe some) of these positions are mutually exclusive.


    Posted on March 25th, 2014 at 5:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alfred Says:

    On a side note, I’ve discovered a book that seems to deal with this techno-commercialist and neocameralist idea. I haven’t gotten far enough into this book, yet, to give a review of it, but I wanted to make you aware of it.

    It’s called “Oath of Fealty” by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Another irony I just realized as I was typing this is that the two authors even seem similar to this “fission”, though they continue to get along. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle are both center-right, but Larry Niven leans toward a commercialist libertarianism and Pournelle leans toward a martialist traditional conservatism.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Yes, a nice “exit in place” story. It gave us the expression, “Think of it as evolution in action.”

    I also recommend _The Burning City_ as an allegory for modern Los Angeles. There are three castes: Lords (high), Kinless (middle), and Lordkin (low). The high and low castes have been allied against the middle for a long time.


    Handle Reply:

    I recommend you take a look at Deirdre McCloskey’s Bourgeois Virtues and take a gander at page 3 / 179 comparing Aristocrat Patrician, Peasant Plebian, and Bourgeois Mercantile class virtues.

    I would also recommend Nietzsche’s Antichrist and Genealogy of Morals which also contrasts the idealized values of different classes and cultures and articulates his concepts of the Master vs. Slave moralities.


    Posted on March 25th, 2014 at 5:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • peppermint Says:

    English classical liberal? Try out-and-out Progressive.

    Focus on innovative governmental structures, so that people won’t need to be good.

    If one man can be associated with this idea, it’s Justice Brandeis.

    Carlyle says that men need to be ruled by men, not beavers or foxes, and must live as men, not owls or pigs.


    Posted on March 25th, 2014 at 6:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “Techno-commercialism: Focus on innovative governmental structures, so that people won’t need to be good.”

    We have that and pretty much most of techno-commercialism now. It just happens to be ..evil. Of course we got to evil – here – from there, and there was rule by technocrats. It was a matter of simply realizing they had no check on their behavior but their own virtue. So rule by technocrats will lead us right back..here.

    Our government is extremely innovative, it’s just that it’s structured towards harm and peculation. Look at what they actually do, not the silly statutes on the books. The actual scams are far more interesting. The many failures noted in public are due to having people in the loop who don’t realize it’s about stealing and shakedowns. They actually try and do work and leave a paper trail. The ones that get the purpose of governance since the 90s have smooth running operations. You’ll rarely if ever hear about them.


    Posted on March 25th, 2014 at 8:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nicholas Pell Says:

    I also loved this, mostly because I love diagrams and juxtapositions and what not. It’s the autist in me.

    Anyway, if we’re “classical liberals” (and boy do I think there are far worse things to be called), why are we all opposed to democracy? I agree with him up until this point. However, as stated in my “instant classic” comment: We’re an idiosyncratic offshoot of ancap in opposition to demotism and without much of a problem with authoritarianism, provided that it’s of the private, not the public type.

    If the Anissimovites are neo-Evolaists, the Landites (a term I am choosing precisely because I know Land will object) are post-Hoppeans; And I’ll still be sticking with the term “Tory Anarchist” for the duration.

    In any event, the fissure and rivalry will likely result in a lot of good intellectual energy spent by both camps, though I’ll believe in the Great Idahoan Migration when it actually materializes. If their solution is an intentional community, it strikes me that ours ought to be a think tank.


    Alfred Reply:

    Post-Hoppean? I like that. The thing is, I see less difference between the two than others seem to see. I see much similarity between corporate hierarchical structure and feudalism. I can even see neocameralism as, basically, neofeudalism, and that’s not a bad thing in my eyes.


    soapjackal Reply:

    Feudalism has serfs tied to the land. MMs joint stock republic relies on exit>voice.

    They are similar in ends but foundationally differ in a distinct manner


    Alfred Reply:

    This, from Aimless Gromar, is what I’ve been trying to say, but worded better:

    “At its most fundamental level, I take the ‘neo’ to be the rationalist side (rigorous justifications using economics and social science) and the reaction to be the traditionalist/anti-progressive element. Neoreaction is the two parts married together. That to me sums up things fairly well.”



    Alfred Reply:

    Sorry, Nicholas Pell, this post was meant as a new comment, not a reply. I wasn’t paying sufficient attention.


    Deogolwulf Reply:

    “I take the ‘neo’ to be the rationalist side (rigorous justifications using economics and social science) and the reaction to be the traditionalist/anti-progressive element. Neoreaction is the two parts married together.”

    Rationalist-traditionalists (e.g., amongst Aristotelians, other Platonists, Scholastics, etc) were predominant until the irrationalist-progressivists of modernity came to the fore. Most people today calling themselves rationalists would be better named irrationalists, since, as empiricist-materialists, they believe that reason and rational argumentation are in the last analysis just non-rational, physical mechanics. Actual rationalists understand reason to be fundamental and irreducible. But then their understanding has deep roots in a deep intellectual tradition, hence is not easily blown over by the strong and changeable winds of subjective instrumentalism, aka “rationalism”.

    “Anyway, if we’re “classical liberals” . . ., why are we all opposed to democracy?”

    Opposition to democracy has been fairly common amongst classical liberals. That liberalism (in one shape or another) has also embraced democracy is another sign of its whim-to-power.


    vimothy Reply:

    “At its most fundamental level, I take the ‘neo’ to be the rationalist side (rigorous justifications using economics and social science) and the reaction to be the traditionalist/anti-progressive element. Neoreaction is the two parts married together. That to me sums up things fairly well.”

    It sums things up well in the sense that it’s an accurate description of how the people involved think of themselves. But it doesn’t sum things up well in the sense of providing a coherent way of thinking about the world — the quote-unquote ‘rationalist’ (Deogolwulf suggests ‘instrumentalist’ as a more appropriate appellation) and reactionary parts being radically antagonistic, to the point that “rationalist-reactionary”, if understood as the author intends, is oxymoronic.


    Mr. Archenemy Reply:

    Running off to form a Utopian Community in the woods is practically a progressive tradition here in the US.


    Soapjackal Reply:

    This is where I give VXXC his credit for forcing me to recognize the benefits of atavism. Creating utopian communities is not an action that works out usually. Ignorance in action can be very chaotic.

    I like the archeofuturistic approach in this case since it recognizes archaic forms of governance but is still capable of dealing with the technological progress we have on our hands.


    RiverC Reply:

    Although, running off into the woods to form an ideal community was reactionary before it was ever progressive (monasteries)

    Posted on March 25th, 2014 at 8:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • piwtd Says:

    Let me quote a famous passage in which Chesterton defends Christianity:

    Thus, for instance, I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin. Insincere pessimism is a social accomplishment, rather agreeable than otherwise; and fortunately nearly all pessimism is insincere. But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow up St. Paul’s Cathedral. But the extraordinary thing is this. They did prove to me in Chapter I. (to my complete satisfaction) that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in Chapter II., they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic. One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery. One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough, and why it was hard to be free. Another great
    agnostic objected that Christian optimism, “the garment of make-believe woven by pious hands,” hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool’s paradise. This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it. If it falsified human vision it must falsify it one way or another; it could not wear both green and rose-coloured spectacles.

    The parallel should be obvious. Half of you are criticizing the current system for destroying the old forms and the other half are criticizing it for retarding the process of accelerating novelty-production. Half of you are calling for the return to the old religion and the other half are cheering the Promethean/Luciferian project of god-building. Half of you are calling for ethnic solidarity and the other half are exiting to China. The correct step in such a situation is to pause, realize that the universe, with its zen-Gödel sense of irony, is playing some kind of cosmic joke on you, and reconsider the first premises. Alternatively, you can just stick to the lowest common denominator and keep making fun of feminists.


    admin Reply:

    You’re really not getting neoreaction, cybergothic, or archeofuturism, are you?


    piwtd Reply:

    I’m really not. For years now I have been searching obscure corners of the internet for any traces of … I don’t know, gnosis? I feel an insatiable craving to overcome the fragmentation of the ideas inside my head by synthesis into a grand recursive narrative accounting not only for the metaphysical structure of the universe and the existential condition of man but also for its own self-reflexive process of accounting for its own self-reflexive process of… ad infinitum. In parallel lines of investigation, like cognitive tentacles grasping in memetic space, I have searched through new-age cults, heretical sects of Trotskyism, heterodox schools of economics, William Lawvere’s attempts to formalize Hegelian dialectic in mathematics of category theory, and innumerable other weird extravaganzas of human speculation and imagination, until last year several of those lines (LessWrong, austrian school of economics, traditionalist school of comparative religion, Rachel Haywire, “the game”, “the guy Ray Brassier has a hour-long talk about on youtube”) suddenly converged to a single point: Neoreaction, Mencius Moldbug, Mencius? Moldbug? is that it? is that what I have been looking for? MENCIUS FUCKING MOLDBUG? As you said, I’am really not getting it.

    When I encounter a person who to my assessment seems insane and who presents to me an internally consistent theory explaining why it is in fact I who am insane, and that what I mistake for his insanity is in fact his liberation from the matrix, and that the fact that I mistake his gnosis for insanity is simply another consequence of my insanity, what is the rational procedure to go about evaluating his claim? He might be right, I may be insane, but if I am, then how can I trust my own thinking to evaluate whether or not I am? Since every insanity is consistent by its own inner logic, and since every thought is articulated by a particular ape in a particular social context, the only way to arbitrate two contradicting claims asserting mutual insanity is by defaulting to an evolutionarily proven method of using one’s apish intuition for evaluating other apes as to their character. Who is Mencius Moldbug as a man? I am not sure if there is a way, given the limitations of our monkey emotional constitution, to describe a disgust with another human being in a way that does not trigger in the target audience automatic defense mechanisms shutting down thought to protect social alliances, but I think it is a worthy aspiration for civilized men to be able to discuss feelings of revulsion in a matter-of-factly way without taking it personally, so let’s give it a try.

    If I had to distill my problem with MM into its essence, it would be the picture you chose as graphics to your article here. The aesthetics of neocameralism would be the aesthetics of that picture. Slightly over-weight aspiring Gordon Gekko pretending to be nobility. I understand that this might seem like ridiculously superficial assessment but ever since I saw this documentary I became sensitive to the possibility of catastrophic consequences of bad taste.


    Alfred Reply:

    Well, your rant DOES appear to have a schizotypal structure to it.

    Alfred Reply:

    I’m only joking, by the way. Don’t take it personally. Moldbug’s posts appear to have a schizotypal structure most times, as well.

    soapjackal Reply:

    When reading moldbug you shouldn’t expect to gain gnosis or total understanding. I’m in your boat as far as reaching that point. That’s why I stick with the NRx at all.

    That said he is a helpful guide to very good historical sources that uncover edges of the metaphysical ruby.

    piwtd Reply:

    “Well, your rant DOES appear to have a schizotypal structure to it.” As moldbug said ” If that scares you, it should. Replacing your own ideology is a lot like do-it-yourself brain surgery. It requires patience, tolerance, a high pain threshold, and very steady hands.”

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Making fun of feminists is never an “or”. It is always an “and.”


    Soapjackal Reply:

    I just commented on what you are talking about here inadvertently


    Posted on March 25th, 2014 at 10:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Soapjackal Says:

    It is indeed a great comment.

    WARNING: Soapjackal has garned a tangent from the article, wall of text to follow

    I personally am happy that the techno commercialist position is extrapolated upon since it allows the labels neo-reaction, dark enlightenment, and neocameralism is to be differentiated. While I do like all 3 of those names I have more of an archeofuturist view on the split which boils down to:

    “a little bit of column A a little bit of column B”

    I don’t think a total fission of enemies is required, but I think that the DE and neoreaction should be more properly defined (also totally differentiated from eachother) so that the stage of conversation can be set and differences on politics, economics, metaphysics, and observations can be compared and argued. Competitors, not enemies.
    There are many non-exclusive values and sources of attraction to neoreactionary conceptions. There are some great observations and conclusions out there, but there are 2 main observational paths.

    Atavists who see old school American and old school European governing structures and comparing them to todays structures and noticing how much progressive liberal democracy sucks compared to it. They recommend using old school tried and true governing structures such as religious institutions and republics/monarchies as the hierarchal structure that can institute order from above when presented with chaos.

    Post-libertarians who like classical liberal values who use economic and ideological critiques of modernity to come to the conclusion that progressive liberal democracy is leading to chaos and ruin for any society that applies them. The solution is to protect the legal freedom of individuals to the maximum extent, which can include anarchism and the incentivized limited state. Nicholas pell mentions 3 sources of people also likely to engage in NRx discourse: neoevolans, post-hoppeans, and tory anarchists. The neo-evolans focus more on aristocracy and caged capitalism so slightly more atavistic but the libertarian sense of planning for the future is very apparent in his writing so there comes to a difference between the atavist and the anarchocapitalist that’s slightly more meta.

    The time difference.

    One group focuses on the past, the other focus on the future. This makes me think there isn’t that big of a sprawling difference between the two. Just a linguistic and aesthetic preference that creates labels inducing fission.
    Competitors, not enemies.

    So the DE -> NRx -> Neocameralism

    Dark enlightenment is the rejection of the moral rational state of man, accepting that there are inherent differences between men/women of all creeds, classes, races, brain types, etc etc. It needs a better name but it’s an inclusive label for a large series of observations on how humanity as a species operates.
    Neoreaction is the reaction to modernities usage of human organizations. It basically expresses a preference for hierarchal organizations with purpose as opposed to decentralized tribalism. Procivilizational attitude. I think that the name is only useful in of that the movement has inspiration from reactionary thinkers. I would also consider that neoreaction is part of a general study of human organization (i.e. governance – not just the state). This general form of study of human organizational could be described oikonometrics.

    Neocameralism is moldbugs gararge tinker form of governance that operates as a joint stock republic. It’s the classical liberal extension of capitalism effect on governance in formalist terms. At least that’s how its used by moldbug.

    Now I dig moldbug. His long rambling posts have many kernels of truth and critiques of modernity. I can even get behind seeing a joint stock city state in the real world. That said I had a moment of reflection when I read the entry on Cameralism. Cameralism is the study of public administration. Neo also generally is used to prefix a concept as a ‘modern’ concept. So linguistically I see it as the modern study of public administration. A subset of oikonometry.

    Its his word so I wont steal it from him and try to claim it as something else, even though I agree with anarcho papists opinion on the fission.

    It gets me thinking about my reality tunnel and my metaphysical ruby.

    My metaphysical ruby is a great dark red gem with many sides and even more edges. It is a mental construct I use to describe my perspective and what knowledge is out there. Unfortunately every time I learn anything I realize that the edge I’ve found of truth only further reinforces the vast size, complexity, and seeming unknowable recesses of the ruby. I think that the ruby probably resembles the erisian/discordian apple with order/chaos being the basic distinction. However this is like trying to visualize the Dao i.e a inherently impossible proposition.

    Now before I begin describing the ruby I am a ktype non-euclidean. Left/right doesn’t bother me as much as k-type preference and I don’t try to limit the metaphor with how a real Euclidean style gem would function.

    I then realize that the Dark Enlightenment is a large part of that ruby. It has many sides, and multiple edges to each of those sides. Full of meaning and use.

    There is a subset of the DE for which I have no name. It resembles praxeology, human action, but it as slightly different priors and logical implications of the action axiom. I wont call in neoprax, but anti-prax has a nice name. Regardless it’s a few sides under the DE assumptions that studies human action. It may actually encompass anti-praxelogy, praxeology, and all other studies of human action, but this may just be a reorganizational technique so lets just focus on anti-prax.

    The next level is oikonometrics (whose name I made up, there may be a real term for this). The study of human organization that people take action under anti-prax. The two are very much entangled and oikonmetrics extends outside of DE, but it is still under it in a hierarchal sense. All human organization. States, schools, churches, families, tribes, phyles, etc etc.

    Under oikonometrics we get neoreaction. It’s a bigger subset then ‘family’ since it encompasses the preference for hierarchy and uses influences from reactionary thinkers. Neoreaction, due to its lack of power, is currently just focusing on critiquing modernity for its structuring and consequences.

    Cameralism is on a lower level of oikonometrics but it is not under neoreaction.
    For that we got neocameralism. It’s the study of governance of a state. Public administration within a framework of neoreaction. Honesty at this stage the ancaps and the atavists are both neocameralists.

    Formalism is a different side of the oikonometrics which is used as a perspective tool, It forces the legal formalization of where power and influence exist within a human organization. It’s a DE tool because more often then not when relationships are formalized human biology and culture reflect neoreactionary conclusions on organization. NRx successfully describes oikonometric evolution.

    Now ancaps and atavists occupy much more than just governance, formally, they have to defend their beliefs. This draws across the whole gem. As we see in Saddams comment. Classical Liberalism and traditionalism have tons of values and assertion that span over the function of human action and human organization. This can be described with the political triangle that extends on this side of the ruby (even though the communist point is the furthest out) however even though the historical and intellectual roots of traditionalism and classical liberalism differ on many topics, the ultimate formal results both fall under the purview on neocameralism.

    Personally I like the NRx as a tool for a specific oikonometric and cameralist goal (which leads to a further goal or application): the search and clarification for effective, just, and virtuous human governance (especially in the context of the political).

    I think that many of you in the movement are also interested in this. I think that’s what ties the NRx together. That’s why it isn’t leftist or r-type in general. That’s why it generally sits on the right side of the political triangle.
    Lets use these disagreements on the sides of the ruby and continue to clear up the dark gem for understanding and eventual application.

    P.S. when it comes to fission remember the lesson of the Rhodes society. You need economic resources, ideology, personal connections, and political influence to make anything happen. Right now we are discovering the ideological side but there is much to find within the gem that needs to worked on for any application. Why not start with fraternity?


    Hurlock Reply:

    Dude…wow, just wow.
    Will need time to properly process this, but it’s great.
    Another comment which is a blog post all by itself.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Land has the best comment section on the internet.


    Alfred Reply:

    You ain’t kidding, by Jove.


    Posted on March 25th, 2014 at 11:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    This is indeed awesome.
    In full agreement with the discription SHWAT gives, this is my basic summary of tense union that is NRx.

    Basically, two things about the relationship between trads and neo-cams/techno-commercialists

    (1) The area where we overlap is where techno-commercialists want to bring back the old forms and social structures because they were not retarding the process of acceleration (or at the very least not to this level) and where the trads want to bring back the old forms because everything was just so much better back then (the good ol’ days)

    (2) The area of divergence is where techno-commercialists don’t want to just stop there, but from that point they also want to accelerate through disintegrative social dynamics and go further, beyond, into “god-building” while the trads are not really sure how to feel about that. (but “heresy” probably springs to the minds of a lot of them)

    But I think that as long as we can all agree on (1), NRx can proceed as a union of both techno-commericalists and traditionalists. (+ a proximity conflict is much more beneficial for the development of both strands than peace from a distance)


    Posted on March 26th, 2014 at 12:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Mr. Archenemy Says:


    That’s half of a Frank Herbert character, right?


    Alfred Reply:

    You must mean Thufir Hawat. http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Thufir_Hawat


    Posted on March 26th, 2014 at 1:40 am Reply | Quote
  • Traditionalism is the Future, Not the Past | More Right Says:

    […] response to the accusation that traditionalist monarchists want things to “stay the same or go backwards,” I must repeatedly reference the following Evola […]

    Posted on March 26th, 2014 at 7:52 am Reply | Quote
  • RiverC Says:

    One could view neo-cameralism as the Liberal strand (‘liberte!’) pre-emptively making peace with the Fraternity (‘fraternite!’) and the Old Right (Religious Traditionalism) to ensure that the egregore released with the ascendance of the Equality (‘equalite!’) party doesn’t devour it entirely, since it is partly responsible for allowing it to grow.

    While everyone talks about fissions Moldbug links approvingly to French identitarians trashing the socalist headquarters. Disruption for some, stability for others. Sounds suspiciously like a human metabolism.


    Posted on March 26th, 2014 at 3:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • survivingbabel Says:

    I am still of the (apparently minority) opinion that *all three legs* of the Trichotomy must remain extant within NRx in order to prevent the Sins of Excess.

    Without ethno-thedism, NRx will eventually succumb to the lies of Human Neurological Uniformity, instead of remembering that different peoples require different forms of governance. It will stop privileging the expanding circle of trust (household, extended family, tribe/thede, nation/state) in favor of a cosmopolitanism that at best will continue to strip thedes of their natural elites. Without an integrated sense of place and belonging, it will be unable to address tribal conflicts or recruit “boots on the ground.”

    Without religious theonomy, NRx will eventually succumb to its own Hubris and will neglect its own Noblesse Oblige in favor of the Aggrandizement of either the Heroic Individual or of the Chosen Thede. It will forget that commoners/plebs/proles are actually worthy of love and consideration, and will cease to concern itself with building paternalistic/Patriarchal structures in order to see that through. Without an integrated reverence for human life, it will be unable to address moral questions or recruit compassionate leaders.

    (and importantly)

    Without techno-commercialism, NRx will eventually succumb to extreme Luddism, with a fetishization of the Nation or religious Tradition that will be psychologically comforting but entirely helpless against the technological changes that are inevitable (barring worldwide collapse that would render all of this moot anyway.) Without an integrated openness to innovation, it will be unable to address modern problems or recruit adaptable leaders.

    Now, it’s not as though each individual neoreactionary has to accomplish a Grand Alchemy of the three positions, but at the very least we all must be respectful of the Trichotomy and resistant to any moves to privilege one leg over the other two. Remember, there are entryists waiting at every leg.

    Too techno-commercialist: Disaffected Prog libertarians
    Too ethno-thedic: Populist ethnic nationalists
    Too theonomic: Myopic sedevacantists

    Lest we forget the lessons of the Gray Council.


    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    SB, you’re absolutely reading my mind.


    Roi Reply:

    There could actually be a point to splitting the movement.

    Preach the techo-commercial creed to the google guys who will end up having their business all over the globe anyways. These will be the people in charge of the meta-systems, like international law and finance.

    Meanwhile, teach identitarianism to the masses, who at most should worry about what happens at their local town hall.

    The later point is what I like about the manosphere: they really are apolitical in a very real sense: all they care about is changeing a dysfunctional culture, one man at the time.


    admin Reply:

    Actually, I strongly agree — it’s just that I think the trichotomy is a coherent (catallactic) set of controlled fission reactions. We need to get all the squabbles properly ignited in order to see that.


    survivingbabel Reply:

    That would make this our most dangerous time. Stoking fission reactions has to be just about the best way for entryists to gain a foothold, since our dander will be up and our critical thinking will be on the back-burner. Especially if the apparently “dominant” leg is T-c. Person Justine Tunney has shown some great insights in her interactions with us, and she’s exactly the kind of personality to hijack NRx to serve alternate aims.

    “Ask not at whom the monkey throws feces; it is thrown by thee.” (Directed generally at the group.)


    Hurlock Reply:

    I disagree.

    Critical though is operating on a much higher level when there are theoretical squabbles going on rather than when there is a communitarian circlejerk.
    If anything, such squabbles will help us better define neoreaction as a whole and consequently make it tougher for entryists to get in.
    Who is an entryist and who is not will be clearly demonstrated by their ability to adequately participate (or not) in these discussions.

    I think a lot of people are overreacting about Tunney. Jeez guys, we are not THAT gullible. If she thinks she can succesfuly “use” NRx for w/e, she is in for an unpleasant surprise. She is obviously a sort of an attention whore, that much is for sure (that whole stunt with publicly calling for corporate governance was 1st class attention whoring). And ironically, it is Anissimov, who is most worried about her being an entryist, giving her the most attention. (so beta, lol)

    fotrkd Reply:

    I’ll talk about Derrida, because I know you guys like him… Derrida had a big issue with the true descendants of Austin ‘eclipsing’ any other interpretations. Derrida’s engagement – for Searle (for Derrida) – was forever failed (because he wasn’t a true descendant… or he was a false representative). The ward off entryists at all costs approach is almost as funny as Limited Inc. Whoever does most with ‘NRx’ will own ‘NRx’. Everyone else will look like a Wimbledon F.C. football fan complaining when they move to Milton Keynes (niche cultural reference for you there). Still, there’s always Wimbledon A.F.C.

    admin Reply:

    The ‘entryism’ discussion is fun — but I’m much more concerned about smart people dropping out of engagement, demoralized by a stagnant consensus. Agreement is dull — that’s just a fact. It also tends towards deterioration, as ideas that once had to be actively seized become assumptions, then second-hand opinions, then mindless group identity signals, and so on … down.

    Most of the entryism that does real harm is innocent, and takes the form of increasingly vulgarized ‘support’. Keeping up a tone of creative tension is likely to reduce that. If certain segments of NRx want to build a cognitively-inert applause chorus (as obedient material to be used for ‘practical’ purposes), I think they need to be explicitly ring-fenced, so they don’t feed noise into discussions. Once NRx ceases to be an theoretical challenge, and subsides into a set of off-the-shelf beliefs, it’s over. (Maybe somebody could then use it as a dead tool to make a revolution with, but I seriously doubt it.)

    If we get real entryists — moles or subversives — it will sharpen us up. Without intellectual ferment, NRx is nothing.

    (I agree with Hurlock and fotrkd on this stuff.)

    survivingbabel Reply:

    If we get real entryists — moles or subversives — it will sharpen us up.

    My fear is that it will have the opposite effect; the smart, valuable members of the community will quickly tire of the social out-grouping and status games required to exclude or stigmatize entryists. They will leave and the second tier thinkers will in-fight and break along the fission lines.

    This is all speculation, of course, but I think the discourse is important now, before things metastasize.

    Posted on March 26th, 2014 at 9:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Foseti Says:

    The trick with reaction is that we’re stuck political ideas that have been out of practice for at least 400 years.

    Frankly, I sympathize with many critiques of techno-utopians made by SHWAT (the singularity sounds terrifying to me, not to mention obviously derived from low church Protestantism : )), but it’s too easy to criticize a reactionary for not being sufficiently ideologically pure with respect to the long dead ideas. I see several big problems.

    First, It’s not fair to the great reactionaries of yore to assume that their ideas would have remained static for four centuries, like Amish farming techniques. They were much smarter than that. The real genius is in figuring out how they would have improved had they been allowed to flourish or if they had been corrected sufficiently to flourish in actual competition – or better yet, both.

    Second, we know how progressivism deals with ideological enemies – it brutally wipes them out. A non-capitalistic, Luddite reaction might be ideologically pure, but it has a zero percent survival rate in a progressive world against capitalism. Ask a Confederate, if you can find one.

    Third, it’s just silly. Four hundred years ago was a long time. Perhaps things would be better if we were all Amish, but we’re not. Nor is there any non-horrible path from here to there.

    Finally, it’s lazy. If The Victorians could essentially eradicate crime with their level of technology, to think that if they were given today’s technology they’d start whining about social isolation or whatever instead of doing something awesome sells them just as short as progressives sell them by pretending they didn’t exist (it’s really only a slightly better response than, “yeah, but they were racist”). Figuring out what they would have done may take some work, but that’s no reason not to try.


    Posted on March 27th, 2014 at 3:36 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    The apparent contradiction between reaction and techno commercialism is resolved by my favorite state: Restoration England, where the government was what Reaction would like, and, in consequence, the economy was what Techno commercialists would like.


    admin Reply:

    It’s unfortunate that Moldbug’s flamboyant Jacobitism has skewed appreciation of Restoration England within the NRx. It was clearly a socio-cultural peak.


    Posted on March 27th, 2014 at 6:45 am Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Hussein’s Whirling Aluminum Tubes puts a particularly perspicacious spin on what two corners of the Reactionary Trichotomy® have always known. If you do not have or […]

    Posted on March 27th, 2014 at 9:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2014/04/02 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] rifts in neoreaction. Related: Traditionalism is the future, not the past. Related: The need for rejecting […]

    Posted on April 2nd, 2014 at 5:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Marcadores de Fendas – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 12:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Another paleoreactionary heard from | vulture of critique Says:

    […] Moldbug as soon as he opened up his blog. But – possibly for the first time – the neoreactionaries have actually devoted more than two seconds of brainpower to the […]

    Posted on August 25th, 2018 at 11:46 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment