Posts Tagged ‘Secession’

Twitter cuts (#117)

This blog had some concerns about sacrificing Silicon Valley to the post-Calexit People’s Revolutionary Republic of California, but that might be exactly the educational experience it needs.

February 21, 2017admin 26 Comments »

Quote note (#331)


I don’t want revolution, I don’t want “resistance,” I don’t want violence. I don’t want to make others live under my heel (despite the fact they dearly wish to make me live under theirs). […] I just want Done. I want Gone. I want Goodbye.

— The wave of the century.

February 13, 2017admin 76 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

Disintegration II

Secession? (plus)

Why not take it all the way to speciation?

(I can already see it’s going to be hard to keep up.)

November 12, 2016admin 42 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Speciation

Quote note (#294)


I’m rather inclined to believe that neither the UK or the EU will necessarily be around as this century matures, and it won’t be the economic or emotional catastrophe people imagine. Sad though it would be to see ane end of ane auld sang, Scotland would do fine as an independent nation. They gave the world Adam Smith, after all.

(The whole article is a sanity-packed delight.)

October 18, 2016admin 41 Comments »

Twitter cuts (#80)

It’s too early to give up on libertarians.

August 22, 2016admin 26 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

Chaos Patch (#120)

(Open thread + links)

Yarvin on the DAO. No enemies to the right. “Don’t react moralistically to ideas about society.” The weekly round, plus outliers.

The US gun control conundrum. Thoughts on corruption. Academic Stalinism watch. White inertia and insubordination. The death of romance.

What is Xi doing? The Venezuelan apocalypse controversy.

Brexit panic report (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Brexit analysis (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). In crisis, opportunity (plus Becker reference), also. Contagion (plus), and its limits (note). Domestic political fallout. Jim comments (1, 2). Zizek and Walt comment. “A Brexit would deprive the Dutch of an important ally in their desire to reduce the European Union to a simple business venture. But this extremely narrow conception of the purpose of pan-European cooperation is exactly why the EU might, contrary to most popular opinion, benefit from a Brexit. The United Kingdom didn’t join and stay inside the EU to make something of it, but rather, to prevent others from making something of it.”

Trumpenführer panic report (1, 2, 3).

Thiel untoppled at Facebook.

Race and racism. Intelligence and childlessness. The world’s multicultural control group. Parental effects.

Climate contrarianism. The Gambler’s Fallacy. Six millennia of graphic urbanization (reference). Michael Herr on Stanley Kubrick. Hunting humans

June 28, 2016admin 81 Comments »
TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

Quote note (#261)

Brexit in context:

As soon as the focus returns to why the UK bailed in the first place the proper sympathy will shift from the poor Britons in a flimsy rowboat to Europeans still trapped on the Titanic. […] As Ross Douthat observed in Twitter: “the actual disaster isn’t the vote, it’s the eight years of policy that made it thinkable.” Brexit is not the disaster. The disaster is what they’re rowing from.

This (from the same Fernandez piece) also stands out:

Brexit, for all its drama, was merely a warning. The basic demand is for a moderation of the centralizing tendencies, unchecked immigration, runaway political correctness and metastatic government that have characterized the West in these last decades. That’s the bottom line.

Continue Reading

June 25, 2016admin 45 Comments »
TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

Brexit Open Thread


For discussion of UK independence, UK fragmentation, EU disintegration, Pan-secessionism, and catabolic geopolitics in general.

Here‘s Geert Wilders widening the conversation.

(Content coming later, probably in a subsequent post.)

ADDED: There’s a lot of gravy. One little drip. Bye: “Prime Minister David Cameron, who had led the campaign to keep Britain in the EU, said he would resign by October and left it to his successor to decide when to invoke Article 50, which triggers a departure from European Union.”

Continue Reading

June 24, 2016admin 145 Comments »
TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

Proposition Nations

Xenosystems likes proposition nations so much it wants to see a lot more of them.

America is a problem for the world for two main (and conflicting) reasons:

1) Its proposition contains enough productive innovation to be scary. Independence war, foundational liberalism, constitutionally-restricted government, and laissez-faire capitalism have been a memetic-cocktail-from-hell for those in thrall to competitively-inferior ideas. But, undoing all of this, is the legacy of the American Civil War (in particular) —

2) The suppression of the propositional principle — i.e. geopolitical ideological sorting — under an idealization of national unity. Upon this pyre the liberal tradition has been incinerated, until it exists only as a charred parody of itself. The Proposition is by now little more than the State of the Union. Mandatory agreement, within an undivided territory, is policed by the democratic mechanism. That we remain one is left as the only strictly axiomatic propositional content (as the Trump and Sanders presidential candidacies in their different ways illustrate).

Spatial Metapolitics recommends that America do both Trumpist ethno-nationalism, and Sanderista democratic socialism, and a large number of other (more interesting) things, even also more stupid ones, if such can be devised. The critical point is the precise inverse of the late-modern axiom: As long as mandatory unity is dissolved, ideological tolerance can be extended without definite limit — across a disintegrated territory.

First-order ideological preferences, elaborated under an assumption of dominant unity, are a trap entirely irrespective of their specific content.

Here’s a proposition: Abolish the Union. Only disintegration is worth doing.

May 17, 2016admin 42 Comments »
TAGGED WITH : , , , ,


The philosophical antonym to ‘universality‘ is ‘particularity’. Its broader, ideological antonym is something closer to independence.

This isn’t a word greatly emphasized by NRx up to this point, or — for that matter — one figuring prominently in contemporary discussions of any kind. That’s strange, because it orchestrates an extraordinary set of conceptual connections.

Independence is a rough synonym for sovereignty, to begin with. The profound association between these terms bears quite extreme analytical pressure. The sovereign is that instance capable of independent decision. An independent state is indistinguishable from a sovereign one, and to impugn its real sovereignty is to question its effective independence. Secession is a process of independence. A (Moldbuggian) Patchwork is a network of independent geopolitical entities. All relevant trends to geopolitical fragmentation are independence-oriented. Each executed Exit option (even on a shopping expedition) is an implicit declaration of independence, at least in miniature. (The relations between independence and connectivity are subtle and complex.)

Remaining (for a moment) in the narrowest NRx channel, the entire passivism discussion is independence related. Protest (‘activism’) is disdained on account of its fundamental dependency (upon sympathetic political toleration). No social process genuinely directed towards independence would fall within the scope of this criticism. (The ‘Benedict Option’ is one obvious example.) ‘Build something’ epitomizes independence process.

Cannot the entire range of contentions over the individualism / collectivism dyad be recast in terms of independence? Dependency exists on a spectrum, but the defining attitude towards it tends to polarization. Is dependence to be embraced, or configured as a problem to be worked against? This blog is highly tempted to project the Left / Right or ‘principal political’ dimension along the axis these distinct responses define. The Left is enthused by inter-dependency, and (to a greater or lesser extent) accepts comparative independence, while for the Right this attitudinal system is exactly reversed. (The most fundamental tensions within the reactosphere are clearly related to this articulation.)

One inevitable point of contention — honed over decades of objection to libertarianism — is captured by the question: Are not children essentially dependents? Yes, of course they are, but is growing up anything other than a process of independence? From one perspective, a family can be interpreted as a model of inter-dependence (without obvious inaccuracy). Yet, from another, a family is an independence-production unit, both in its comparative autonomy in respect to the wider society, and as a child-rearing matrix. Families are loci of independence struggle (to which the Left response is: They shouldn’t have to be). Dependency culture is the Left heartland.

Independence and autonomy are very closely related terms. All discussions of autonomy, and even of automation, click quite neatly onto this template, but this is a point exceeding the ambitions of the present post.

Abstraction, too, is a topic the tantalizingly overlaps independence. Whether cognitive independence entirely accommodates intelligence optimization is also a question for another occasion.

NRx, XS tentatively proposes, is a political philosophy oriented to the promotion of independence. (Much pushback is, naturally, expected.)

May 3, 2016admin 66 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy
TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,