The NRx Moment

This isn’t it.

The Trump phenomenon is really something, a crisis of democracy and a shattering of the Overton Window very much included, but it is not an intrinsically right-wing thing, and it is radically populist in nature. A reactionary exploitation of demotism is not a neoreactionary episode. The Alt-Right is properly credited with capturing the spirit of this development. It is not us.

NRx is situated absolutely outside mass politics. Its moment dawns only when the Age of the Masses is done.

It will be done. The emergence of sovereign (primary) property, liberated from the criterion of democratic legitimation, is its sign. Government, on this basis, is Neocameral. The deep historical trends supporting it include:

(1) Apolitical property. No such reality, or conception, has yet been historically actualized. For as long as property is determined as a social relation, it cannot be. Absolute property is cryptographic. It is held not by social consent, and thus political agreement, but by keys. Fnargl is a provocative thought-experiment, but PKE private keys are a non-negotiable fact. They define the property relation with a rigor the entire preceding history of philosophy and political economy has been unable to attain. Everything that follows from the cryptographic transition — Bitcoin most notably — contributes to the establishment of a property system beyond democratic accountability (and thus insensitive to Voice). Neocameral administration implements a cryptographic state, strictly equivalent to a fully-commercialized government.

(2) Autonomous capital. The definition of the corporation as a legal person lays the foundation, within modernity, for the abstracted commercial agency soon to be actualized in ‘Digital Autonomous Corporations’ (or DACs). The scale of the economic transition thus implied is difficult to over-estimate. Mass consumption, as the basic revenue source for capitalist enterprise, is superceded in principle. The impending convulsion is immense. Self-propelling industrial development becomes its own market, freed from dependency upon arbitrary popular (or popularizable) consumption desires. Demand management, as the staple of macroeconomic governance, is over. (No one is yet remotely ready for this.)

(3) Robotic security. Definitive relegation of the mass military completes the trifecta. The armed mass as a model for the revolutionary citizenry declines into senselessness, replaced by drones. Asabiyyah ceases entirely to matter, however much it remains a focus for romantic attachment. Industrialization closes the loop, and protects itself.

The great game, for human agencies (of whatever social scale) becomes one of productive cooperation with formations of sovereign property, with the menace of mass political violence swept off the table. The Alt-Right is no kind of preparation for this. Its adventure is quite different, which is not to say it is uninteresting, or — in the near-term — entirely inconsequential, but it is exhausted by its demotism. It belongs to the age that is dying, not to the one that is being born.

Socio-political modernity has been an argument over property distributions, and the Alt-Right has now demonstrated that the (self-conscious) Left has no monopoly over it. As senescence deepens, the dialectic rips the whole rotten structure to pieces. NRx — when it understands itself — isn’t arguing.

April 5, 2016admin 42 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

42 Responses to this entry

  • The NRx Moment | Neoreactive Says:

    […] The NRx Moment […]

    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 6:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:


    Don’t interfere with our Grand Adventure then and we shan’t interfere with the Drone Armies.
    Probably. As long as we’re holding all the keys for Phase IV or whatever it’s called.


    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 7:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Paul Ennis Says:

    Yes, but can the blockchain stop my friend posting about Sanders on Facebook?

    (Answer: Yes, but only in Panama).


    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 7:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Self-propelling industrial development becomes its own market, freed from dependency upon arbitrary popular (or popularizable) consumption desires.

    The real post-scarcity society: we redirect our resources back to important stuff instead of pro forma activity, the incompetent die off and civilization restarts.


    Irving Reply:

    >The real post-scarcity society: we redirect our resources back to important stuff instead of pro forma activity, the incompetent die off and civilization restarts.

    Maybe ‘incompetent’ is the wrong word to use here, given that many otherwise ‘competent’ people, in the sense of being law-abiding, civilized, smart, etc., are certainly not going to be exempt from the impending die-off. In fact, it may be that many supposedly ‘incompetent’ people are better prepared for what’s coming than many ‘competent’ people. E.g., I’d bet that those third-world populations that are still engaged in subsistence farming with stone age technology are probably less likely to perish in the die-off than, say, your typically 130-IQ financier in London who will shortly be thoroughly disintermediated out of a job by blockchain technology.


    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 7:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Time preference collapses. Capital accumulates at the lower end. High time preference fertility heads to zero.

    The meek (lowest time preference) will inherit the Earth.


    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 8:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anomaly UK Says:

    Do note that without DACs, bitcoin does not qualify as apolitical property. Ultimately, it is just a voting system.


    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 8:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Fatalist Says:

    All very good points, but I do have some objections.

    (1) What exactly stops anyone with sufficient skills/funds from using “social consent” or even brute force (both figuratively and literally) to acquire “keys”? As far as I understand with my loose grasp on cryptography, there is no such thing as an unbreakable code, the math behind encryption is a lot more complicated and nuanced than it seems and security is a process, not a state of being.

    (2) The “sovereignty” aspect of DACs seems shaky at best. Can’t say anything about the rest – looks like an awfully abstract concept.

    (3) Asymmetric warfare stays asymmetric. Your robots become more sophisticated, they get better at bringing their EMP bombs closer to you. Your drones fly higher and carry more rockets, they get better at using anthrax on the air vents in your drone hangar. It’s an eternal cycle with no foreseeable end.


    Alan J. Perrick Reply:

    1. Isn’t hard to understand. B/c the technology needed to “bruce force” is prohibitively expensive to maintain, it’s basically the opposite of universal sufferage, where lots of low-rent individuals who formerly (in the future, today would be former) voted for largess would not be able to vote nor unlock since they weren’t able to stay organised enough.

    3. There’s always enough peace for the rebuilding period, “Fatalist”…

    Best regards,



    Rhetocrates Reply:

    I see you’ve never heard of rubber-hose cryptanalysis.

    The technology to break or acquire keys to any code, no matter how complicated, is one of the oldest technologies on Earth. You get five guys together with crowbars and go pay Mr Private Owner a visit for an intimate chat on the subject of kneecaps.

    Ergo, ownership will always be socially conditioned, unless and until you can break man of the habit of being a social animal.


    admin Reply:

    Anonymization helps (and that’s definitely happening). You can’t extort from someone that which you don’t even know they have.

    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 8:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Arkon Says:

    Not buying the techno-revolution Singularity fantasies. It sounds like another species of the Pol Pot mentality, which imagines making a total break with history, declaring Year Zero and trasvaluating all values, using technology instead of ideology. Socio-political modernity has been an argument over property distributions? That’s it? Ridiculous nihilism!


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Sounds like you forgot about horrorism (

    ‘Terrorism can never work towards right wing ends. All forms of activism, including folk activism, are pwned by their very nature. “Demotist activism finds its rigorous neoreactionary ‘counterpart’ in fatalism—trichotomized as providence, heredity, and catallaxy.” In other words, our strength lies in our understanding of Gnon’s laws, our realization that Prog methods will always and everywhere lead to ruin. Fatalism requires no positive action. If the Cathedral is wrong then indeed their own ideas and actions will destroy themselves. “The horrorist message (to its enemies): Nothing that you are doing can possibly work.” We need not lift a finger, reality will do its work “Cathedral. Despair!”. A populace cannot be terrified into reaction, but the ruling class can be horrified.’

    In light of horrorism (which, put bluntly but truthfully, amounts to knowing you’re right and smugly waiting for the Kali Yuga to end) the change would look very different to anything the Khmer Rouge were doing.


    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 8:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    The idea of autonomous corporations seems similar to multinationals


    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 10:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Joe Says:

    It would be interesting if the admin could provide some examples of how a cryptographic, apolitical property system is going to work for the average citizen going about the business of living. I’m having difficulty understanding the concept.

    If I want some food at the local farmer’s market, I can imagine a system where I pay the farmer with a Bitcoin-like encrypted digitally-based form of money. But if the government, which may not control encryption but does control the physical territory, doesn’t want such transactions occurring, it seems to me all they have to do is put a big penalty on making such transactions and then surreptitiously send out enforcement agents to the farmer’s market to attempt to make such banned transactions with the farmers, who will quickly stop making such transactions once it’s clear that there’s a big penalty for doing so.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “it seems to me all they have to do is put a big penalty on making such transactions and then surreptitiously send out enforcement agents to the farmer’s market to attempt to make such banned transactions with the farmers, who will quickly stop making such transactions once it’s clear that there’s a big penalty for doing so.”

    Yes, followed by farmers (along with all other private enterprises) departing en masse for polities that aren’t so hostile to commerce. The feral government in your scenario goes full 1980s Soviet Union due to capital flight, until it starts acting like an adult and permitting crypto so that happy merchants can generate wealth again.


    Reactionary Expat Reply:

    The overwhelming majority of people will do as they’re told, i.e. use whatever currency the local authorities insist upon. That one person out of ten thousand who wants to use Bitcoin is not going to matter to the farmer for two reasons.

    Firstly, he’ll probably be able to sell his produce to someone else in five minutes anyway.

    Secondly, 99% of his net worth is tied up in his land, livestock and machinery. It’s not like he can just leave the country with them, and if he were to leave without them, it might not be that easy to find somewhere new to farm. Further to that, he might not have any other skills. He’s not going to risk all of that for a $5 Bitcoin transaction for a couple of cucumbers and a tomato once every two and a half years when there is a line nine deep right now behind the guy who wants to use Bitcoin.

    I could see other situations where it might very well be a better deal to exit, but farmers are probably about the worst possible example.


    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 11:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rogue Planet Says:

    It’s interesting that the escape from modernity requires not only the tools but also a good portion of the conceptual edifice that developed within and because of the transitions to modern ways of life.

    There’s a paradox here, but I gather that the superficial appearance of contradiction is just part of the fun around here. Is that getting close?


    SVErshov Reply:

    perhaps, it can be attributed in binarity of a concept, once you grasp its visible (political?) part, techinical part escapes into the future. no drama, as we know it goes into unpolitical space. later we can kind find it there. if we ignore the “fact” of escape and keep splitting concept soon we going to need nano knives.

    that kind of realisation can be essential in building practical framework, as we know that something always going to escape, out of the frame, and it is all right. not a perfect, but much better compared to alt right’s templatework.


    Posted on April 6th, 2016 at 1:39 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    Last time I checked cryptography had been pawned at the source by the NSA, i.e. it´s political.

    Robotic armies aren’t happening. Drones are remotely controlled by humans. When the alt-right holds a rally at Calais, it’s meat and bone human policemen who come out with water tanks to beat them up.

    You could say that mercenary forces pumped up with modern tech are enough of a match to any opposition, but that’s not Robotic Security.


    admin Reply:

    Oh c’mon, you’re seriously arguing that hard crypto only exists at the pleasure of the intelligence services?


    spandrell Reply:

    That should be obvious. If it happened that it doesn’t, the intelligence services would physically make sure that it becomes so.

    In the end, “the political” is about violence. Cryptography no matter how strong is always vulnerable to a gun in the head.


    Joe Reply:


    Mariani Reply:


    Setra Reply:

    This is bullshit. One of the key points is that the gun is controlled by the cryptography. Next current crypto implementations such as openssl probably have protocol backdoors, or implementation bugs. There is nearly no evidence that the algorithms are bad. If I give you a SHA 512 hash from openssl every computer of the planet would take a long time to generate collisions. The int agencies don’t use special computers, and are standard data center stuff. They do not have the power to break crypto. Perhaps they have a quantum computer for breaking (certain not all types) so crypto. If thats the case we can be user it is not being used in scale or one of the tens of thousands of security cleared people working on it would have pointed out that they have amazing future tech. Corporations are usually ahead of the government is computer tech, and corporations have nothing like this. While you can always beat someone to get their key if the key controls a robot army good luck. You cant steal the gun.

    Posted on April 6th, 2016 at 4:42 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2016/04/06 | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Right-wing activism always fails. Related: This is not the neoreactionary moment. […]

    Posted on April 6th, 2016 at 5:11 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    Cryptography sounds a lot like a nerd wet dream to me – the simplest alternative is the rule of warrior aristocrats i.e. soldiers, through simple force. Why would they ever agree to have their weapons crypto-locked? To be fair, I never understood why do soldiers agree to civilian rule, be that democratic or not, it just makes no sense for them. The weirdest part is that even the most militaristic e.g. fascist regimes were under civilian rule. Does anyone have an idea how nazis or soviets prevented the army from taking over? Mostly via the secret police and political terror, but why the generals complied to that beats me. When Stalin decapitated them army, why didn’t the officers just ordered the secret police and the political elite shot? There is something I really don’t understand here, but I suspect civilian rule cannot be the end of history, it is just so illogical and unlikely.


    spandrell Reply:

    They get paid to obey, and you have many generals to play divide and conquer if somebody wants to take over. It’s not that hard.


    admin Reply:

    The “arc of history” has a fairly conspicuous nerd bias.


    TheDividualist Reply:

    Let me try to get this straight. Suppose we agree that leftism is about the intellectual class competing with other classes, you propose that the intellectual class, as it approaches winning, is going to split and turn against each other, split into two tribes, with leftish humanities intellectuals waging ever more sophisticated memetic and socio-political mindfuck weapons and rightish STEM nerds making ever more sophisticated technological “weapons” in this struggle, defensive mostly? Well, that would at least make a good comics book or cartoon, not saying it the wrong way, imagine something like Ghost In The Shell amongst those lines, it would be mega-awesome. And may actually be correct.

    But still, why crypto? Because every fight reduces to hiding it, finding it, then hitting it, and crypto is about the first two? Easier to hide stuff than to make stuff that hits with a big bang or conversely, make armored stuff that withstand it? Broadly and metaphorically speaking. Can’t fight the state and can’t really compete with the humanities type about taking over the state, so the only thing is hiding your stuff from the state?


    admin Reply:

    It’s more like this.

    Grotesque Body Reply:


    ‘in 2000, de Garis noted, “Just out of curiosity, I asked Kevin Warwick whether he was a Terran or a Cosmist. He said he was against the idea of artilects being built (i.e., he is Terran). I was surprised, and felt a shiver go up my spine.That moment reminded me of a biography of Lenin that I had read in my 20s in which the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks first started debating the future government of Russia. What began as an intellectual difference ended up as a Russian civil war after 1917 between the white and the red Russians”.’

    I’m being trolled, right?

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    If you think about why Kissinger didn’t just stay in the army his entire career the answer becomes obvious.


    Herbert Z. Oinlein Reply:

    The military has always selected for loyalty.


    Chris B Reply:

    Isn’t all this tech-comm stuff just political platform creation using flimsy premises that don’t really follow? You wan’t X, and therefore marshall arguments for it that are at best hypotheticals.


    SVErshov Reply:

    it is much more then that. first humans got elightenment, then it comes as electricity. in that sense, technology which we have now is something what remains unrealised in previouse discourse (escaped). thinking in the line of this equation can be very productive.


    Posted on April 6th, 2016 at 9:04 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    From the DAC link –

    “…. as his 30 minute talk draws to a close, Buterin rattles through a final slide which lists functions that could be built using his tools …. The final point on the list reads: ‘Skynet?'”

    Is that when the NRx moment dawns?


    John Hannon Reply:

    BTW – looks like the military are getting there without using Buterin’s tools –


    Posted on April 6th, 2016 at 9:07 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    I look forward to the crypto-locked guns Second Amendment Debate.

    May I suggest a Town Hall in West Virginia, Upstate NY or perhaps Waziristan or other locales in the Punjab?


    Posted on April 6th, 2016 at 7:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • morkyz Says:

    lol weev

    I've no assets outside a small amount of Bitcoin. A billion dollar fine's no different from a 100k one, except it's funnier. Printing more.— Andrew Auernheimer (@rabite) April 6, 2016


    Posted on April 8th, 2016 at 3:13 am Reply | Quote
  • Platform building | reactionaryfuture Says:

    […] This situation seems to be assisted by the pervasive idea that what happens in society is a matter of collecting a group of ideas together (a political platform) and then advocating for your leaders to then implement the collection of wishes which then come true. So a Libertarian will make a list as so: I want liberty for all, weed legalization, free exit, small governance etc, while a designated socialist will demand a list as so: equality, social security, social justice etc. Here is another good example, and so is here, and here. […]

    Posted on April 9th, 2016 at 2:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Normative, Punitive and Coercive states – reactionaryfuture Says:

    […] itself like an ouroboros. The ultimate, Satanic expression of the latter would be the LandPlan: Contrary to Land’s claims, democracy is an obvious expression of the same thing. It’s […]

    Posted on May 15th, 2016 at 12:56 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment