Sentences (#56)

Tyler Cowen’s post on “neo-reaction” is quite weird. It has no usable references, so it’s impossible to know what he’s drawing on. Mix of quirky insights and Moron Bites material throughout. Worth a read, if you’re not busy doing anything else.

This struck me as interesting (if also clearly wrong) though:

maybe some of you are upset that I am even covering this topic, but neo-reaction, in varying forms, is a (the?) significant ideology in China, India, Russia, and Japan, and it is growing in popularity in Western Europe and of course America, where it has captured the presidential nomination of one of the two major parties.

(Don’t say you weren’t warned.)

Economical corrective comment here.

June 6, 2016admin 77 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

77 Responses to this entry

  • Frog Do Says:

    An obsession with racial problems and rudeness, and in particular racial problems in the context of rudeness, certainly speaks to the anxieties of contemporary liberals.

    “On top of that, the overwhelming empirical fact is that people are far too willing to go tribal when it comes to politics. We don’t need to encourage that any further, nor am I excited by the notion of setting tribe against tribe.”
    One might ask him how hopes to see this accomplished, but then the entire edifice falls down. But then, isn’t revealing shams contra Carlyle?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 12:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Cryptogenic Says:

    I don’t think NRx is so occult that outsiders can be excused for misunderstanding it so badly. I don’t mean their subjective estimations of NRx, but their inability to give a coherent outline of it at all.

    Then again, Cowen assures us that rape “seems to come largely from white men,” so pardon me if I take everything he says with the net contents of a rock salt mine.

    When is someone going to read Sandifer’s book? Don’t look at me.

    [Reply]

    JJ Reply:

    “rape… seem[s] to come largely from white men”

    Wow. Is he really that ignorant?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    not occult but in fairness quite diverse and large and honestly Race looms large, its takes a lot to even break free of cathedral race think then an observer would have to discern how subtly the varied branches of DENRX treat race even discerning that there are branches would be hard teasing out the irony and the naughty trolling etc would be difficult. Say this blog is the least race interested it woildnt be hard to come on here and find JQ posts Ebola chan post etc yet at the same time this blog is at great pains to distance itself from whats in the past months become called alt right which only a year ago could mean everything from auster to MM to amren and niggermania.And even if a person managed all that unless they had been converted along the way they would still find the least racial minded to be nazis sexist capitalist pigs, you cant even suggest or hint on a place like NRO that anything but culture accounts for outcome what chance against a lib.
    and they are correct when during Trayvon I went back and reread the bell curve and its critics and responses to those critics and then was led to alt right meaning griffe d lion fosetti etc then. Even though being a natural race realist and conservative growing up in nyc i was really devastated for about two years when you finally understand what youve known intuitively and anecdotally as scientific fact and the scale of it its devastating to the entire concept of modern western civilization honestly i think many in the denrx are still in denial, thus the wishful thinking about tech and exit. So some libtard blithely accepting these premises or acknowledging the nuances among us are importance is absurd. The implications go to gender they go to the idea of an IQ arms race even within an ethno state admin takes it beyond specism into AI. Thus all the horror jokes its dark.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 1:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    > First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall. Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men.

    The opening six points he makes outlining the tenants of NRx I find to be fair and relatively accurate. But then he comes out with this nonsense and the entire thing degrades into leftist signaling from there.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Neoliberals are worse than the left. Always were.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Is Cowen actually AIDS Skrillex?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 1:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Johan Schmidt Says:

    Cowen: “obnoxious, self-pleased glee”.

    I guess we hate in others what we see in ourselves.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 1:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Lowercase n “neo-reaction.” He’s saying: what is reaction after the period where liberalism could be stopped has passed.

    Interesting.

    I tend to see the root of neoreaction as simple recognition that egalitarianism is not a substitute for realism.

    From that flow different theories.

    The most important 1990s kickoff to all this were Kaczinski, Houellebecq and black metal, but this movement has been building for some time…

    We either end the Leftism, or our civilization is destroyed; alternately, we need to cut away and push away from the Leftist rot, and form a new civilization.

    Moldbug might be seen as a Libertarian interpretation of Nietzsche. He is more on the neoconservative end than most Nietzscheans, in that he is hoping for a market demotist solution to political/social demotism.

    Schmidt and Gramsci, who informed the New Right, might have some critiques there…

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    egalitarianism was never intended as a sub for reality. It was a discreet solution to IQ escaping the peerage.Which is still an unsolved problem.I still insist leftism is a virus, democracy only one of its hosts. This is not a democracy preservation appeal simply an observation that leftism has infected and thrived in other hosts, while there have been leftist free democracies. Besides cathedral democracy is a sham anyway it doesnt manufacture pitchforks it shills for elites which would be fine if elites hadnt been infected with leftism. Cathedral democracy doesnt move mob input up to elites it moves elite input down to mobs. When some mob input gets out of alignment elite input quickly reframes redirects pwns etc.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    It seems to me that raw IQ was not the problem so much as depth of thinking. The aristocrats possessed a genius; the proles sometimes have raw IQ, but it is not integrated and as a result can analyze details but never capture a larger picture. This is why idiots rule.

    Egalitarianism is a perennially popular method of inducing human mental sleepiness. It makes everyone in a room happy: “Why fight it out? We’ll take a vote!” and it represents entropy more than anything else.

    Otherwise, however, I enjoy your analysis and wish you a happy International Day of Slayer.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    `you seem to be describing the problem young people with high IQs but no experience have.Perhaps aristocrats internalized certain wisdoms from childhood on or were just raised to not question certain orthodoxies. I think there were legitimate flaws in the aristocratic system That meritocracy exploited for the common good. Note the difference between meritocratic and egalitarian. The original idea was that egalitarianism assured that a lack of aristocratic breeding would not get in the way of merit, conversely lack of merit would not be excused by aristocratic breeding. Sure we could find a lot of aristocratic genius but I think we would admit that was because only they were educated.Even today I had JMAN calculate what percent of new genius comes every year from the proletariat and what percent from children of cogelite, he calculated 50% and still ignored several factors i thought would make it greater still. Even if suppressing indefinitely at least half of human intelligence were possible, thats a lot of brainpower to waste larping DnD. But it has problems of its own feminism being part of and illustrative. Despite agreeing that Jims right about women more or less vulgarly lol. Is it really possible to suppress euro women I cant imagine it continuing sustainably even if by magic we could revert, I wonder were they always so clever? theyre almost human.I have suggested crispr stepford wives? Unlike races they cant simply be left on their own. This is one of the reasons I say there may not actually be a solution at all. DENRX hopes to design or revert to a society aligned with HBD etc, HBD is aligned with ancient environments, our DNA has not been updated what on earth makes us think we can do it. what I see is DENRX critiquing discrete problems as if the entire thing didnt have to work as a whole. CRISPR might be an answer one day but I dont see us lasting that long its 1989 and we are in capetown.

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 2:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    It’s incredibly frustrating to watch the game of Telephone that is being played with neoreaction as it gets closer and closer to mainstream coverage. It really makes me wonder how many other ideas I’ve missed out on by reading the seven-writers-removed gloss on the subject.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    any time people going to interpret some complex concept, often not clearly defined (some times even intentionally) there will be some correlatives in play, like narcistism, neurosis, agressivenes, lethargy. no reason to be frustrated. it is reality and cant be other wise. in this form or another original concept is presented in their interpretation, what else to expect. more on that can be found in Lakan’s mirror stage theory.

    in my PoV in very basic state neo-reaction can be defined by trajectory of aproach to point of interest. there is of course many other ways to violate universality of dynamics, that one is just more grafical one.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Vox on line three Mr Kwisatz

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Not much. I looked extensively for hidden nooks, which is why I found Moldbug in the first place.

    I also have a math blog called ‘enigmania’ which is a candidate, if you’re into math. There’s polymath archives but it has a whopping two articles and is unlikely to get any more.

    Mainly remember this for your Gell-Mann amnesia. “Important thinkers” doesn’t mention Carlyle.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 2:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Its just muddled headed progspeak he calls it racist first and foremost then because he knows his audience he qualifies a few reservations [they might have a few minor points].Its muddled because when it comes down to it race is all. DENRX cant really face this either some think IQ is all and other Culture is all. But its bigger than that even if it includes those.It neednt be about hate or national socialism god forbid but theres no better dividing line and lets not kid ourselves if we survive the barbarians we will get along with those with higher IQs; For that to happen would take some doing [maybe we could settle on a new man criprsapien] though I think Huxley had the better idea with several models. IQ is only one trait. And the struggle never stops.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 3:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    @michael

    I think Huxley had the better idea with several models.

    Excellent point.

    [Reply]

    Johan Schmidt Reply:

    On that note, have you come across the new videogame Stellaris? It’s overly simplistic but in many ways I think it’s achingly close to being something that can be used to espouse neoreaction. And yes, you can use “gene tailoring” to modify species to make them more useful.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5rmqiyxxjY

    This looks disturbingly addictive! Thank you for mentioning it.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    There’s even ‘Mega Corporation’ government type, which has CEO as its head.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    alt right seems nationalist not globalist to me where do you get super state? There is no more natural attainable or possible patch than an ethno state its even marginally cathedral sanctioned and its certainly going to function better than anything cooked up in a lab. sorry if that offends your liberal sensibilities but its reality

    michael Reply:

    what can you possibly mean by “an ethno state isnt natural” that they get conquered? Look I dont think lumping all alt right as socialists resenter populists etc is any fairer than leftys rolling NRx into stormfront. This whole whiteness is a social construct from DENRx is pure leftism and while Im no expert on alt right i think the reality is not a call for a pan white state but more like white racial awareness solidarity for french german italian states and a frank admission that nations like the US are better thought of as white than the leftist pretense that niggers and coolies built them fuck that static. And when someone who claims to be a dark enlighten type argues that austrailia as a white nation is not better than australia as multicultural proposition nation I really dont undrstand. some are so enamored of scifi reaction i chalk it up to entry by lefty revenge of the nerd types that want to strut their intelectuial superiority faggotry. But anyone thats actually serious about saving civilization gets that means white civilization primarily and since theres quite a bit of it still left its the place to strt preserving. To instead waste time on space colony and monarchy faggotry is to commit suicide. Its not about resentment its about practicalities and time decay

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 3:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Cowen may be in full Straussian mode, vomiting forth lunch table conversation. The comment about world policeman is a red flag to me, end even if that’s not intended as a Straussian reading, that’s a red flag to the alt-right and NRx. He didn’t put it there absent-mindedly.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 5:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    I’ve already rebranded myself as a Neomonarchanarchist. Reaction requires something to react against, and postmodernity no longer provides that. I’m so reactive, I react to myself.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 6:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    What I was promised: ‘What is neo-reaction?’

    What I got: ‘What is the Alt-Right?’

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Because any race talk is now alt reich? When libertarians or neocons or NRO would suggest, oh I dont know practically anything constructive they were denounced as racists nazis do you really thing DENRX is going to escape.DENRX may not have a fixation on race and only race but its a hell of a lot more racialist than conservative ink; might as well just own it. were you thinking you were going to broker a deal and dont want to mess up your chances? The only reason I see to be fussy about the alt reich denrx line which is a really recent thing is because the jews might possibly make good allies if flipped. admittedly I dont get over there much but I dont need to to know the closest thing to civilization possible today is a white state and where possible things like french italian greek states. They are simply not going to allow exit or voice, All of their efforts are aimed at cutting off both.Any tech type hail marys will need time bought and guerilla politics is the only way besides violence, it doesnt matter wtf MM thinks about the long term on those choices we dont have ten years even unless we find ways to slow the left acceleration.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Where NRx is racist, it is so for very different reasons than the Alt-Right. Cowen’s article, being as superficial as it is, tries to construe NRx race realism as emanating from the same resentment as Alt-Right racism.

    The reason it’s necessary to demarcate between NRx and Alt-Right is that the worst parts of the latter will inevitably used to slander the former. Juenger took care to distinguish himself from his inferior Nazi contemporaries even as he remained a nationalist.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    It’s clear to anyone not of malicious intent that NRx and Alt-Right couldn’t be further apart – NRx wants Patchwork, Alt-Right wants Super-state. In fact, NRx gets flak for E>V in far-right circles all the time, is accused of being just a warmed up Classical Liberalism.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “It’s clear to anyone not of malicious intent”

    Yes. In case it wasn’t clear, I’m saying that Cowen either definitely has malicious intent or is just stupid.

    SVErshov Reply:

    demarkate or not, it is hard to fight left on their own playground. they can always say, – now we nailed this rasist, and he is trying to hide his true nature, and so on. ofence is best defence if they call you rasist, you call them acephalon freedom fighters.

    michael Reply:

    I wish it were so simple but it simply and clearly isnt. They will NEVER EVER accept anything other than blanc state equalism because if they did they are done. They dont even accept the concept of IQ among people of the same race because they know. So your argument that discerning will allow DENRX to slip behind enemy lines is absurd. That said I agree that “scientific racism” free of overt hate speak can better re infiltrate the proles and so if the alt right wont tone it down we ought to differentiate ourselves. I personally think Jews can be flipped if they can be reassured they wont be targetted latter, Thats a tough sell and theyre not stupid but its worth a try while theyre squeezed between islam and a hard place.Its a hard sell because while not a JQ conspiracist if we were to solve the lower IQ problem eventually we would have a high IQ problem so asia and JQ etc
    I may not understand who is lately being referred to as the alt right i dont twitter und I never really considered say stormfront as part of this but i thought amren derb vdare stix and later the theden spencer radish those who can see etc to be a branch.That branch seemed to be joined by some 4chan twitter wits some of whom i gathered were more tied to denrx than whats now called alt right. And i think thats mushroomed since trump and some twitter victories so theres a lot of new blood who dont read much which was always a valid concern but inevitable, yeah its inevitable we will all be lumped together and tagged racist homophobic yad yada

    This resentment thing is really just classist crap yeah i know we like class whatever you ought to be resentful if you understand HBD of course you understand that to a large extent whites are behind it but this isnt 62 today much of racial redistributionism is managed by NAMS even if it were not enough have enough agency to know whats going on yet conservative Nams are as hard to find as good muslims no one in the minority community is protesting what some alt rights resent the same goes for crime if you dont resent black crime Hispanic crime Muslim crime have your testosterone checked.Having these resentments doesnt preclude you from understanding of the DENRX sort as well. Many of us fall somewhere in between. And one reason for that is many of us actually are not content to be wiped off the face of the earth. AI is not going to come in time.We are in an existential struggle its Johannesburg 1989. We are at a point where dep state may already have the ability to have matrix like control free speech and rule of law have been abandoned without a peep in past decade and NAMs have been taking control of that deep state power aparatus all over western world. ANTHING that can buy time is a good, and a philosophy of waiting for collapse and a call from DAVOS is incredibly stupid. Democracy thno nationalism may indeed have valid criticisms but if they are all thats at hand in a street fight they must be used.Probably the wisest course is let it play out on different levels.Which would mean go ahead draw a line but dont drink the koolaid, The alt right is correct an ethno state is the only possible to whatever degree possible type of patch currently likely to succeed and yeah its a very long shot. In the meantime you want to talk putin into giving you prussia as a hongkong like territory, devise apps that eliminate government piecemeal,etc go ahead but if you actually think your going to have a neocameralist patch with MM as king youre deluded. Even if white elites manage to hold on to the western world another decade or two they are never going to let you exit or continue to voice so partner with a second rate super power and hope or fight on your own. The reality is the cathedral could be defeated by smart people

    michael Reply:

    maybe its you guys never build anything sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and do something temporarily that you know will eventual have to be redone, sometimes you have to reuse parts of an old structure or are confined in some other way. The visionary part of yourself is immensely frustrated but the engineer finds solutions.

    If i were an engineer of worlds I wouldnt tear down whats left of pre 1900 european/white civilization when practically every individual in it that i wanted to keep would no longer fit i would fix whats wrong fix what went wrong with an idea towards a possible future complete overhaul. We have no idea of the unintended consequences of what a NRX reboot might cause we have a very good idea of what went wrong in the past. NRX has not actually solved the problems that went wrong say womens emancipation yeah fucked a lot of things up larping about ownership cool but is it realistic to think we could indefinitely keep women in slavery and if so lets be specific

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Ethno-state isn’t natural, it’s something artificial cooked up in the 19th century, but they don’t even want ethno-states. Richard Spencer adores (and writes apologetics for) the EU, and WNs commonly express desire for a white super-state (which is even worse idea than the ethno-state).

    Posted on June 6th, 2016 at 7:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Axel Mckibbin Says:

    He did have malicious intent. He advocated for a non racist version of neoreaction. That is a entryist threat. Racism is the antibody that allows neoreaction to escape Cathedral co-optation. The only thing that can threaten the Cathedral is a science of politics they don’t control, can’t co-opt, and don’t have the patience to learn from.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2016 at 3:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    “Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work.”

    Obscured (incorrect) premise: immigration is the only way populations have ever grown, ever. White people reproducing is unthinkable.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2016 at 5:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    “neo-reaction, in varying forms, is a (the?) significant ideology in China, India, Russia, and Japan, and it is growing in popularity in Western Europe and of course America”

    Very skeptical about all of the above, but watch Turkey. Turks, not being human, are above (or below) leftist moralfagging and virtue signalling, and can be expected to go full neocameralist if they can escape the Islamic Vortex.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2016 at 5:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Aristocles Invictvs Says:

    Is it Cowen or (((Cowen)))? Seems like the latter to me considering his appearance and his name being dangerously close to (((Cohen))). If that’s the case then his screed about White men is simply typical of his tribe.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    As naive as NRx is about Shlomo Shekelberg, it is correct in asserting that plenty of whites are responsible for anti-white vitriol as well. This Cowen fellow might just be one of those, although the fact that he’s a chess prodigy from New Jersey makes me wonder.

    [Reply]

    Tokarev Reply:

    Cowen is a Scottish surname. Tyler is of (actual) Scots-Irish extraction. Cowen is not Jewish, although he is, by his own admission, on the autism spectrum.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2016 at 8:41 am Reply | Quote
  • JJ Says:

    “And there is a cruelness to the humor one finds in neo-reaction which is all too revealing”

    He says that like it’s a bad thing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2016 at 9:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    I am finding your claims (and by extension Neoreaction, because xenosystem is neoreaction frankly) at being anti-democratic, anti-populist and reality based to be odd. You are basically are calling for a purer form of democracy by calling for hyper sovereignty, you are also pandering to populist fantasies of being autonomous and free. You also do not base any of your theory on observable historical events, but instead on a Liberal (and Marxist – same family of theory) basis of an economic source of all events. It simply isn’t credible as a new theory at all, it is just liberalism.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    >Marxist – same family of theory

    This is utter BS. Everyone knows that Marxism is bastard child of romantic Reaction, not Classical Liberalism. In fact, according to your own theory the only problem with Stalin was that his power wasn’t formalized, otherwise he was a reactionary dream-come-true. Also, don’t you think it’s very hypocritical of you to use the Classical Liberal theory (de Jouvenel, etc.) to bash Classical Liberalism?

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @Chris B
    I lay out my position, I take pains to explain it, and you just respond with “lol, wut?!! wow, just, wow!” I don’t care what everyone “knows”. Marxism arose out of liberal thinking, and the liberal tradition – he even makes that clear on many occasions, even if he said it with a sneer and referred to them as “bourgeois.” The whole economic deterministic view of society based on the base and superstructure of Marxism is Liberal inspired. Here is a great article covering the liberal roots of Marxist class analysis https://mises.org/library/classical-liberal-roots-marxist-doctrine-classes#part1
    As for De Jouvenel, in what way is it hypocritical to take his analysis and embrace the one thing he could not do because of his blindness caused by his liberalism? That of embracing the true unity of sovereignty?

    You, and the xenosystem constellation tell me that the Moldbug gambit of trying to turn liberals into royalist has failed. They are too insane.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Back at Social Matter forum you actually agreed with Bramson‘s conclusions about the Reactionary roots of Socialism in general and Marxism in particular (though noting that unlike other Socialists, Marx took from the classical liberals, an at-least-proclaimed devotion to humanism, reason, industry, peace, and the eventual “withering away of the State,” while taking from Reaction much more – including an idealization of the feudal period, grief over commodification of labor, an opposition to individualism on behalf of favored classes and the whole collective society, a determinist belief in laws of history, and the charge that liberal division of labor and the free society “alienated” the laborer from his work, “atomized” the individual, etc.):

    Well…I agree with everything you note, but I have a different view of it all.
    First point, note how Moldbug’s escape into reaction is through Libertarianism involving the application of leadership and therefore non-determinism? No one classifies Libertarianism as reaction, but it is an escape route due to being inherently contradictory and full of shit in a way that leaves open the possibility of free agency, no matter how diseased a concept it is (and libertarianism is utterly diseased.) As for Marx’s rejection of Liberalism and the others calling for “a “reintegration” of the individual in the group and the community, a reestablishment of organicism, the “whole man,” the State, hierarchical order, militarism, mystical irrationalism, etc” – this is something that has been bothering me. Marxist (and Fascist) are a reaction to liberalism, and relatively well thought out ones at that (even if wrong- liberalism on the otherhand is stupid all the way down.) This indicates (and is borne out by current events) that liberalism is more stupid and more dangerous than Marxism and Fascism. Their violence during the pre-war years being something I would put down to the extra insecurity of the elite and the degree of sensibleness of the grouping proposed. God knows what liberalism will do with an elite that is insecure and has passed the murder threshold, but I can see it being far more psychotic than anything communism threw up. They (commies) weren’t pushing transgenderism. Liberalism is really applied cruelty, the conception of man is perverse.
    The real bind we have is that “the right wing” and the whole pro-capitalism, pro-individual thing is badly wrong, cruel even. It ask of people something they cannot do, and then when it breaks down, they just get abusive at the “herd.” The right is radically stupid.
    As for the comment on dissenting Marxist, you have hit close to the mark. Fascists and the concentration of productivity foreshadow Land, Land has just not even bothered with free agency making his position untenable and parasitic. Hence why he is so desperately trying to bring in AI to square the sums.

    You do realize that ye olde Reaction has failed for a reason right? If restoration failed in 19th it sure isn’t going to work in 22nd century.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Xenosystems is better than anti-democracy, it’s anti-monkey tout court.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    reductio ape apesurdum

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Dividing sovereign territory ≠ dividing sovereignty (into infinitesimal pieces)

    Partitioning geography into smaller sovereigns increases formality and internal security of each sovereign — isn’t this basically what you want in the end as well?

    Partitioning sovereignty in a single sovereign unit is democracy — opposition to which defines NRx.

    Neocameralism is a technological update to feudalism. Remove 21st century tech and corporate org. as social technology, and you get Dark Age feudalism. How is that for observable historical events?

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    NRx can’t explain feudalism, nor how it broke down. De Jouvenel and Moldbug can. As for dividing territory, I think you need to pay more attention to what admin has been saying, because that is not really what he is advocating. He is fairly indiscriminate in supporting division, all the way to the individual. It’s liberalism.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    >NRx can’t explain feudalism

    What do you mean? Do you mean it can’t explain how it came to be? Hoppe’s narrative is pretty solid.

    Why do you think Jouvenelian high-low narrative is incompatible with NRx perspective? Hard mode: don’t use the words liberal and liberalism. I really want to understand the actual substance of your hostility against NRx. Can you state what you think admin advocates in operational terms (i.e. without using vague terms and generalizations like “he advocates liberalism”) and why it is delusional.

    >As for dividing territory, I think you need to pay more attention to what admin has been saying, because that is not really what he is advocating. He is fairly indiscriminate in supporting division, all the way to the individual

    I don’t want to put words into admin’s mouth, but as far as I can tell, his program is to discover conditions of apolitical property — which is another way of saying internally secure sovereignty. Determining smallest viable independent polity is part of the process. Individual sovereignty is the limit case — which may or may not be possible.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    You’re wrong. @admin doesn’t care about “muh individuals”.

    Posted on June 7th, 2016 at 9:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @ahote Marx didn’t idealize the feudal period, he idolized “capitalism” and determinism is solidly within the realm of liberalism. If you are going to make errors like this, then communication is going to be nothing short of impossible. Your Whig propaganda is also annoying, but not unexpected given Nrx is just whigism for the political theory illiterate. “we espouse the exact same shit as whigs but are not because…mumble mumble…so there!”

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    That can’t be the case, because as Anissimov recently pointed out, there isn’t unified system or theory that is espoused by all of NRx as a collective.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    It’s liberalism/whigism with denial.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Denial?

    admin Reply:

    As your guy De Jouvenel makes clear (although it’s actually obvious to anyone from Anglo History 101), it was the Tories who spread power to the masses, not the Whigs. This whole “Boo hoo, the Whigs were putting capitalism in power, so we were simply forced to stop them by extending the franchise” BS that you’ve swallowed wholesale gets old. Tougher Whigs were the main thing missing. Wherever they haven’t been subverted by democracy, things have gone swimmingly (for — admittedly quite singular — e.g., Hong Kong).

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Marx the Capitalist? Ha, that’s a good one. He though that capitalism released the human creative potential, that’s only positive thing he had to say about it.
    And please, de Maistre is nothing if not hard determinist.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 2:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @frank That’s not hard mode, that’s easy (but I will need to define them). Having to use words like liberalism etc annoying me greatly but are needed to communicate in quick fashion. Basically the premise seems to me to follow as so: Divided governance in the form of competing power centers (republicanism, church and monarchy in the western tradition etc.) engage in conflict. This is an observable behavior. This conflict, as it involves power involves the dual motivations of power want, and altruism, hence high-low. This is again observable recorded behaviour. High-low is the underlying engine for culture as a result. The power centers sponsor things for their own needs within this web of conflict. So we see the support of Protestantism, the spread of civil rights, “freedom” degeneracy etc. Liberalism (to give a definition) is the name given to this mess of promotion of logically unconnected sillyness, that is instead connected by the underlying process of the high-low mechanism. Nrx in the form of Land took this analysis that is inherent in UR and…ignored it. Why? You tell me, because I think it is because it is incompatible with his personal vision.
    As for exlpaining my understanding of admin’s position, that is difficult, as he has no solid position. Either way admin/Nrx is as far as I can tell:
    – deterministic and working from marxist/liberal theory. Hobbes, Marx, Locke etc This means he takes a basic position that man is divisible, separable from society, an individual and capable of being an individual prior to society and all the other implications of anthropology that stem from Hobbes/ Descartes et al. You can’t have Hobbes without his anthropology.
    – A believer in the economic/ technological deterministic base of society as per Marx and orthodox Marxism. So any explanation which is not within this frame is on the face of it not serious, or plainly wrong – no matter what evidence you provide. The invisible hand/ providence/ dialetical materialism is always right.
    – A believer in (and this is where the incoherence is most obvious) radical sovereignty of the individual, whilst advocating corporations as countries, but without human control – so instead robot/ AI who will inheret the role of superindividuals because humans are bad and stupid and can’t be Randian/ Nietzsche supermen. This is a mess.
    -A believer in democracy. No one should govern. We should govern ourselves.

    [Reply]

    Mark Reply:

    “A believer in (and this is where the incoherence is most obvious) radical sovereignty of the individual, whilst advocating corporations as countries…”

    From what I gathered from his latest talk at Urban Future, Nick has a middle-ground position on the ‘radical sovereign individual’. He avoids positions that tempt simplifications.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Problem is that Liberalism isn’t any one single thing. It can mean Radicalism and Classical Liberalism, and even Classical Liberalism itself isn’t some clear-cut monolithic thing.
    French Liberal School gave us Frédéric Bastiat, Jean-Baptiste Say, Gustave de Molinari, Alexis de Tocqueville and Bertrand de Jouvenel. They were mostly right, but some of them erred on a few key issues. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? Russian Liberal School represented by Boris Chicherin and Konstantin Kavelin didn’t share those errors, it was very conservative and advocated what could be called pre-Neocameralism.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @Ahote I have made my position clear. Liberalism (basically leftism) is just the cultural caste off of the conflict between competing power centers. Hence why approximations of liberalism have been seen on prior occasions, and in many societies. To consider it a tenable position in, and of, itself is laughable.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    You didn’t explain why an acknowledgement of Jouvenelian high-low is incompatible with an NRx vision. As far as I’m concerned, NRx is trying to discover conditions of primary property that’s resistant to high-low attacks. The entire anti-demotic stance, activism aversion, a vision of apolitical property are profoundly about high-low resistance. You seem to think that ideas that emerged as a consequence of the high-low process should be discarded by default. Is this an accurate representation of your position?

    deterministic and working from marxist/liberal theory. Hobbes, Marx, Locke etc This means he takes a basic position that man is divisible, separable from society, an individual and capable of being an individual prior to society and all the other implications of anthropology that stem from Hobbes/ Descartes et al. You can’t have Hobbes without his anthropology.

    I don’t see how this is relevant to apolitical property, neocameralism or intelligence optimization. Do you imply that exit-based meta-politics require an individualized man? Is this individualized man a delusional concept or just evil?

    A believer in the economic/ technological deterministic base of society as per Marx and orthodox Marxism. So any explanation which is not within this frame is on the face of it not serious, or plainly wrong – no matter what evidence you provide. The invisible hand/ providence/ dialetical materialism is always right.

    Do you refer to Cnut and the wolves? Do you reject that sovereignty is checked by game theoretic outside — which is largely determined by economic and technological parameters? This is not determinism but this is the most relevant XS position I could think of.

    A believer in (and this is where the incoherence is most obvious) radical sovereignty of the individual, whilst advocating corporations as countries, but without human control – so instead robot/ AI who will inheret the role of superindividuals because humans are bad and stupid and can’t be Randian/ Nietzsche supermen. This is a mess.

    Come on now. This is not a serious and decorous way of engaging with arguments. Why don’t you try to steelman admin’s positions as you understand them instead of making a caricature out of them?

    A believer in democracy. No one should govern. We should govern ourselves.

    I don’t see an imperative language in XS, but how is apolitical property democracy?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 3:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @admin To try and claim Whigs were the victim of democratization is odd. Though I have no issue with the claim that Tories were in on it. Hence why I am no Tory. I reject…democracy.

    But lets get to the brass tacks here. The split starts at De Jouvenel, and this is where Hoppe derives from, as well as Moldbug. You either support divided sovereignty and make a play for building up greater defense for maintaining imperio in imperio (a solecism) as De Jouvenel and Hoppe and you do, which is structurally the basis of liberalism in all guises, or you take the route of rejecting it. Which is where the uncharted territory is.To claim that these two approaches are maintainable within the same frame is quite frankly foolish.

    I look forward to you actually refuting De Jouvenel at some point, given his centrality.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Globally, sovereignty is divided, end of story. You either work from there, or fantasize about planetary Messianic Kingdoms.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Fantasizing about God-Emperor of Mankind it is then…

    …though even Stalin eventually realized that World Revolution isn’t going to happen.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 3:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Oh hey, there’s that ‘everything not-left must be right’ thing.

    >neo-reaction, in varying forms, is a (the?) significant ideology in China, India, Russia, and Japan

    Did you know? Everything that’s very different from progressivism is actually the same thing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 3:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @Admin “Globally, sovereignty is divided, end of story.” so your refutation is by basing analysis on this, and not on De Jouvenel’s high-low mechanism? OK, fine, but this does not invalidate De Jouvenel at all. The delineation of sovereignty, or even just boundaries is one thing, but once delineated, those sovereign entities have to be absolute in their structure, or they give rise to the solecism of imperium in imperio.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    But absolutism is impossible, it’s an awful idea. Competing power centers can and do arrive at stable equilibrium. Absolutism is an unstable state (unless you have entire population controlled by an orbital mind-control laser). This is why feudalism lasted for well over a millennium, whereas absolutism barely over a century (and it gave rise to the modern totalitarian leviathan). Saying that absolutism removes high-low is like saying that bullet in head cures cancer – while trivially true, the cure is worse than disease.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Well this is great and all, but UR was an absolutist blog, which was critical of fuedalism, which I am to, and which Jouvenel criticises. That you skip from there, to what you and Land and Hestia propose, is worthy of analysis. Objecting to it is one thing, but objecting while claiming influence is another. Moldbug-absolutism critique as per corporate or monarchy theory/no imperium in imperio (put into NRx shredder)-liberalism pops out/we must steelman imperium in imperio.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Cnut the Great >> Sun King
    How is corporation NOT divided sovereignty? CEO isn’t sovereign.

    BTW Moldbug also supported same-sex marriage. Do you support same-sex marriage? If not, how can you be a true Moldbuggian™?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 6:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Axel Mckibbin Says:

    There are two fundamental human impluses that matter in politics: egalitarianism towards insiders (equality) and xenophobia towards outsiders (racism). All politics is attempting to control, suppress or harness these impulses. Equality is actually more deadly than racism–if death tolls count for proof, but equality feels warm and fuzzy while racism does not.

    There are a number of solutions that never fully work: education, propaganda, exit, participation (voting), feedback, financial rewards (capitalism), mind control, stigmatization, etc.

    All try to either suppress human nature or accommodate it in a formalized non-violent fashion. If suppressed, it reroutes into uncontrolled expression, ie. the rise of the alt right. If given formalized accomidation it leads to social discontent (like capitalism).

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 6:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • A.B. Prosper Says:

    Good old cheap chalupas. The same guy was basically saying well fuck the poor they should learn top live on beans a while back because “progress’

    Cohen doesn’t care about anything except economic activity, has no concept of the value of a healthy culture, and can’t understand human nature at ll.

    In other words, bog standard Libertarian Futurist

    This of course means he won’t get .Alt Right or NrX in any way shape or form.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Acknowledging HBD means not reifying a single ‘human nature’ but instead that some natural strains of human are better suited to civilization-building than others.

    Low quality humans, on the other hand, really should live on beans because if you give them more than beans they’ll just spend it on meth and phat Nikes.

    Knowing what a ‘healthy culture’ is doesn’t entail the expectation that the world is ever going to get one, where Nigerians are the fastest reproducing on the planet and (((Anglos)))/Japs/Chinese are sterilising themselves with present-oriented lifestyles.

    If you haven’t let go of your optimism yet, you’re still just as inhibited as the Libertards.

    [Reply]

    A.B. Prosper Reply:

    Who says I’m an optimist ? I think its 50-50 for mass human dieback or extinction before the end of the century and a near global collapse into war and famine is inevitable. 90% certain.

    You are not wrong on the HBD issue at all. however those low quality humans are the majority of the species, always have been, You can’y write them off without consequences non locals simply migrate and take your stuff and locals don’t even have to travel .

    If your ruthless enough to stop that, than you don’t have to worry about Nigerian fertility impacting you anyway. A healthy culture is ruthless.

    However if you while I agree that just knowing what a healthy culture entails may not guarantee one but not knowing guarantees you won’t get one,

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “a near global collapse into war and famine is inevitable”

    If only.

    Posted on June 8th, 2016 at 9:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • R. J. Moore II Says:

    Tyler Cowen is an annoying Hipster leftist that understands Austrian economics not at all but pretends to. Fucking Hayek clones, they’re all Pinkos at heart.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 12th, 2016 at 4:55 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment