The Sad Left

It’s probably unrealistic right now to think the non-demented Left is going to be able to cut the hysterical weeping long enough to realize: You’re going to have to put your social ideals into Neocameral format if you want to play in the 21st century.

They really could do that. Sovereign stock distribution could be wholly egalitarian. If Neo-Maoism seeks a sensible sized patch, they should clearly be given one. (That would be a Neo-Maoist garbage disposal program, as far as everyone else is concerned.) At the highest level, NRx is first-order politics neutral. Do whatever you want, within precisely formalized bounds.

There’s no audience for this point yet. Eventually there will be.

“But … but .. the whole point of the Left is that we don’t think government is a business!” — Then call it a ‘co-op’ or some equivalent bullshit. Jesus, use some imagination.

March 4, 2017admin 70 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

70 Responses to this entry

  • Torpe Konyvek Says:

    😉

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 5:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    In case you hadn’t noticed, the world is already, and has always been in known history, an anarchy of nation states.
    What is developing now, is not any innovation on the state form, but rather, the proliferation of ‘cameralist’ networks. Nation states are going to disappear into virtualised formality. A profusion of ‘cameralist’ networks, just as virtual, but of increasing relevance, supersedes all large-scale political forms. With any luck, self-emergent global awareness necessarily arises out of this profusion. It doesn’t need to be forced, it’s happening anyway.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    ON ONEIRIC ECONOMY: THE TRANSACTION OF DREAMY EQUIVALENCES

    Trump and Bannon, through ‘Cambridge Analytics’, are using the ‘Kosinski’ algorithm, which is just an updated data analysis technique, of the ‘markey survey’ type that enabled Thatcher and Reagan to win power in the last century. The irony is that through the ‘Kosinski’ algorithm, the USA is essentially governing itself, through its online behaviours, and wherever else data sets are sourced from. This self-governance tracks desires in ‘real-time’, the results controlling the delivery and logic of Trump’s public statements. It’s a libidinal economy of desires; an oneiric one, governed by dream. I wrote about this oneiric economics, back in the early 1990s.

    It’s truly ‘consumer-driven’, as they say, a true reflection of the people. Because of this, it generates the responses typical of social hypocrisy; horror; displacement and projection of horror onto others; and entrenched identification with horror, universalising the horror as unavoidable, in order to justify the identification.
    When a so-called ‘culture’ has no self-understanding, it loses confidence; and when the misunderstood forces of its emergence are spent, because of this lack of self-understanding, it looks to nostalgic repetition for replenishment.

    The dominant sign of economy is no longer even ‘consumption’, but rather, that of ‘dream’. That consumer desire is retained, as a powerful motivic force, but does not at all displace its circulations and configurations according to oneiric hegemony.
    Under the sign of oneiric hegemony; ‘industry’, ‘consumption’, ‘virtue’, ‘morality’, ‘reality’, and even ‘identity’; all of these are forms of capital, in the dominant oneiric economy.

    [Reply]

    johnny law Reply:

    The dominant sign of economy is no longer even ‘consumption’, but rather, that of ‘dream’. That consumer desire is retained, as a powerful motivic force, but does not at all displace its circulations and configurations according to oneiric hegemony.
    Under the sign of oneiric hegemony; ‘industry’, ‘consumption’, ‘virtue’, ‘morality’, ‘reality’, and even ‘identity’; all of these are forms of capital, in the dominant oneiric economy.

    Baudrillard made the right call in the 80’s- “communication”, which has invaded the commodity and the economy as much as anything else has. A hallmark of this is the way that American Left has no marxism at all. The American Left long ago lost any concern about the commodity and production because it has punted on the fight for the means of production. They don’t want to seize it. They don’t want it at all.

    Like a cargo cult, they expect remote forces to make stuff appear. It could be Chinese factories, or their proxy factories that they’ve outsourced, for the samsara. The intellectual property will come from the Silicon Valley barons, or the “foundation” variants. It no longer critiques the centralization of the means of production or the problem of automation. They dropped all pretense of sentiment over lost jobs and decided that it was a harbinger of the end of work and wage slavery. This is all predicated on that universal basic income idea-another cargo cult doctrine, where the forces of production can be counted on for transfer payments.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    You’re right.
    I like the ‘cargo cult’ metaphor, lol.

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 5:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nulle Terre Sans Seigneur Says:

    Emile de Puydt’s old ideal of panarchy. I do not think it squares with progressivism. As classical progressives like Walter Weyl emphasized, the industrial goal of democracy is the socialization of industry. Industry having diminished relative to services, it creeps in there as well in a completely extra-economic fashion with no regard for the actual conditions of the people who practice these vocations.

    Neocameralism is what you get when you take the man on the street’s statement that “government should be run like a business” seriously. But business is precisely the most loathsome thing to a progressive. The spirit of republican vigilance so perfected by the muckrakers is one where robber barons are ever conspiring to subvert the virtuous citizenry and its trustworthy stewards, the men of letters and the public officials. The idea that property is governance, is simply alien.

    In order for your proposed shift to happen, the first and foremost thing that needs to occur is for the left to cease regarding themselves as underdogs and realize that they are the rulers. Right now, the minor revolt that is Trumo’s American Whiggery a la Henry Clay and Mathew Carey is making them feel more persecuted than ever. You are asking that the left become cold and calculating profit maximizers when they think they’re the last remnant of noblesse oblige, and who by their misinterpreting public-spiritedness and charity thus embark on self-destructive status-seeking games of Fabianism.

    This is not the century of cameralism, but of identity (for the foreseeable future) – whether we like it or not.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 5:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Even better, tell the Left that it is going to be a patchwork and go set up identitarian empires elsewhere. The problem with Leftism is that it is viral by nature, so unless you have a hierarchy where the best oppress the rest, it will take over. For this reason, the best long-term defense is someplace to which we can send all of our Leftists, like Brazil.

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    It will not satisfy them.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 6:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Electric Philosopher Says:

    Isn’t this, in a sense, what the left-accelerationist project is? Constructing a post-capitalist society out of the mechanisms of capitalism, in an at least partially literal sense (information networks, smart tech etc)?

    What such a thing would rely on is the ‘withering away’ of nation states to occur in such a way that something like the neocamerlaist programme/Patchwork can happen, obviously.

    To make an unoriginal comment, one of the biggest strategic project the Left faces is its failure to come up with a convincing, energising (marketable) vision to replace the calamity that was 20th century socialism. If things do go in the direction NRx predicts/desires (from where I’m standing, nationalist populism doesn’t seem to be going anywhere but up), then yes, absolutely, go with the flow of history, update the software, work with social tools as they are, and so on, and so on…

    As a degenerate leftist myself, that doesn’t strike me as the worst possible outcome. Its likelihood, like you say, is a whole other matter…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Why, though, doesn’t the Left put more emphasis on geopolitical fragmentation? To the right, that naturally looks as if they still insist on having it all. That’s not going to happen.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    Indeed. “No borders!” sounds more like “One ring to rule them all” than geopolitical fragmentation.

    [Reply]

    Post Alley Crackpot Reply:

    Seth: Sounds like sociological averaging down, with the economic effects that implies …

    The neo-cam solution sounds like arranging things so these groups of people have the freedom to terrorise themselves without terrorising too many other people.

    Blowback’s a bitch, but it doesn’t have to be everyone’s bitch.

    Our beloved philosopher of the post-national grid:
    ” …one of the biggest strategic [projects] the Left faces is its failure to come up with a convincing … vision to replace the calamity that was 20th century socialism …”

    Why wouldn’t the neo-cam solution consist of arranging things so the contagion eventually burns itself out in a socialist city-state?

    Keep in mind that what’s playing them probably isn’t really ready yet for Level 2, let alone Level 50, and that the world’s sentimentalists will enjoy having their own little socialist petting zoo for their concerns. Besides, we’ll benefit from the data that we can glean from the “showroom model failure” at the peak of its collapse.

    One mistake that seems to be made repeatedly is that involvement from the so-called Left is thought of as actually desirable in and of itself …

    Why not give these people something so deeply troubling, deeply worrying, and deeply corrosive to their weakened constitutions that it ages them faster, causes them to die younger, and occupies their time to the point that they’re no longer as much of a bunch of pests?

    Y. Ilan Reply:

    It seems obvious to me that they are still in thrall to a world-conquering Universalism. Even the moderates are still Progressives to the core, and cladistically still a part of a thing which yearns for certainty and domination, and one cannot have complete certainty with a bunch of competing patches ruining one’s frame. Well, we all yearn for certainty; maybe the difference lies in a certainty in one’s ability to achieve certainty. 😉

    [Reply]

    The Electric Philosopher Reply:

    Although we’d likely quibble on the details — maybe, yes. Communism’s roots back into Hegel are into a system that has, as its ambition, absolute knowledge!

    Coupled with contemporary leftism’s tendency towards puritanical moralism, this produces a powerful ‘all-or-nothing’ attitude.

    As well as this, it thinks in terms of nation states precisely because, frankly, that’s what most people do.

    There is no good reason why disintegration can’t be a great opportunity for the Left to precisely establish, on the micro-scale, the kinds of social and economic zones (communes, co-operatives, autonomous zones) it has been seeking to do on a macro-scale for generations. And micro-scale can mean pretty big numbers, in this context. All it would take would be imagination and a healthy dose of pragmatism.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    a great opportunity for the Left to precisely establish, on the micro-scale, the kinds of social and economic zones (communes, co-operatives, autonomous zones) it has been seeking to do on a macro-scale for generations.

    Utopian communes of the 19th century come to mind; most of them crashed and burned due either to the increasing tyrannical demands of their leaders or to economic successes that simply plugged them back into the larger capitalist system (John Noyes’ Oneida Community exhibited both failures—Oneida silverware was too good for the Christian Perfections not to morph from commune to corporation.)

    As a more successful example, anyone who wants free or nearly-free health care can simply join a church or get plugged into something like Christian Healthcare Ministries. My local parish just raised $10k to allay the costs of a premature baby recently born to a parishioner; most churches carry an Emergency Fund for their members.

    As a secular example, locally sourced food co-ops are to be found in every college town in America.

    Leftism—which I’ll define here simply as a system of shared costs and sacrifices in order to promote just relations and outcomes—works well at small, local scales: the neighborhood, the parish, etc. Human nature ensures, however, that it’s never going to work at scales beyond the local. I don’t mind giving up property or capital to help out my friends and neighbors; I will always mind giving it to a nameless bureaucracy who will decide the most “just” way to redistribute it.

    To be a force for good rather than an incubator of fascist backlash, Leftism must adopt Michel de Certeau’s tactics of local, everyday subversion of systems it finds unjust. And as de Certeau himself recognized, such tactics are more spiritual than political in nature.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Seems as though you’re a supporter of the Black Panthers?

    “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

    This famous quote, was actually written by Karl Hess, who was a big admirer of the Black Panthers, calling them “straight Republican, in their actions”. He hung out with them quite a bit.

    “There was a historical moment in the late 1960s when the movement for “community control” seemed to promise hope for the creation a new direction for the left in North America. The movement focused heavily on grassroots control of schools and the police, but hinted at a more all-encompassing vision of “power to the people” in the concrete, meaningful sense of effective power from below. What might have been was envisioned in David Morris and Karl Hess’s almost-forgotten small classic Neighborhood Power: The New Localism [1], which was published just as the practical hopes of the movement for grassroots power were in the process of fading away. Hess, who also wrote the complementary work Community Technology [2], credited the Black Panthers very explicitly for their central role in inspiring these hopes. He praises the Panthers for being “neighborhood-oriented” and “for demanding freedom where they lived, freedom to have communities rather than colonies.”” (“Power to the Community: The Black Panthers’ Living Legacy of Grassroots Organization“)

    Seth Largo Reply:

    @ Artxell

    Neighborhood Power may be promising, but in general, no, the Panthers’ 10 Point Plan was universalism in its worst and most parasitic form.

    When it comes to black liberation struggles, my heroes are Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, and Booker T. (the original Hotep Jesus). Personally, I wish black and white Americans could figure their shit out together (they share 400 years of history, for Christ’s sake), but from a purely descriptive standpoint, mutual disengagement seems the most peaceful solution. (Though, along meta-neocameralist lines, nothing should prevent the emergence of “port cities,” as it were, in which blacks and whites might meet for mutually beneficial reasons as it so suited certain personality types.)

    Related: A History of White and Black Nationalist Alliances

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 6:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    Do members in a neocameral sovereignty in theory have to share the same geography?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    They do, in Land’s nostalgic backwardness.
    They don’t, in what’s already going on; and won’t, in the ‘futures’ that follow.
    ‘Geography’, takes on a different significance.

    [Reply]

    Johan Schmidt Reply:

    This is nonsense. Proximity determines the necessary level of political coupling. People I see and touch every day (and no, teleconferencing doesn’t count) require more exhaustively specified relations than people on the other side of the world.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ‘PROXIMITY’ INTO NETWORKS

    OF ELECTRICAL REPRESENTATION

    [Johan Schmidt] “This is nonsense. Proximity determines the necessary level of political coupling. People I see and touch every day (and no, teleconferencing doesn’t count) require more exhaustively specified relations than people on the other side of the world.”

    {AK}: Yes, I agree with you, it’s so much nonsense, that you wasted 10 seconds responding to its alleged non-proximity.
    How much of your ‘proximate life’ truly explores the relational richness that you seem to enjoy so ‘exhaustively specifying’?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The easy and unquestioned transactions of ‘Necessity’ have often been the pretext for countless structures of social and political coercion, all of which have their alibi in various images of ‘Necessity’. ‘Vested interests’ use the opportunistic proximities of power to enable disingenuous constructions of administrative necessity favouring only themselves. The desire to secure such convenient forms of distribution, as it were, exercises considerable ideological constraint on the general culture, on its interpretations, practices and world-views. Management of reaction to these constraints is easily achieved through tactical delimitation, around intuitive, issue-based polarities.” (Aeolian Inquiry: Quest(ion)s of the Whirlwind
    By Artxell Knaphni in Aeolian Inquiries, Birds of Theory on July 16, 2015. )

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I dumped some excerpts of an unfinished work, on FaceBook. It mentions ‘proximity’ a lot. So, might as well dump it here, too.

    “Modality of Presence

    Under the modality of Presence, there are collective instantiations of different features, not only regimented by the homogeneous orders of their own principia, but by other relations, such as spatiotemporal proximity. These are held to belong to the regime of the hic et nunc, & it is this regime that constitutes that which goes under the rubric of immanence.

    It’s distinguishing characteristic is a literally informal form of access & availability. This formalisation of the allegedly informal, this idealisation of immanence, is, too, a movement of essentialisation, like any other. An abstraction denoting the collective instantiation of different features. Such collectivity, through a unifying metonymy: emphasising spatiotemporal proximity; eliding & emphasising, to varying degrees, the merely formal distinctness of features supporting that proximity; in favour of their performative interactions, that the abstracted element of proximity affords:[“that the abstracted element of proximity affords”
    Is it ‘abstract’?
    No, not if space & time are indexes of the ‘concrete’.
    Yet, there is a movement of ‘withdrawal’, an abstraction, as it were. The essentialisation of the ‘zonal’, releasing the possibilities it affords.] brings into relief, the regime of the hic et nunc; a regime serving corollary generalisations such as situation, or, more historically, traditionally, & comprehensively, all that falls, under the sign of presence. The two terms, situation & presence, though not strictly synonymous, bear a systematic interrelation, with respect to the hic et nunc.
    This “regime of the hic et nunc”, as habitat of recurrent featural differentia;[Recurrencies?] allowing the inhabitation of ‘featural elision & emphasis’, as situational performance; all this, as a ‘this’, suggests, through another collective gesture, a ‘world’, & moreover, a ‘world’ that presents itself, according to the functional regimentation of the hic et nunc.
    This ‘world’, as hypothetical & functional horizon or limit of the sphere of ‘featural elision & emphasis’, together with possibilities of situational performance located therein, in turn, suggests the hypostasis of “Reality”. The notion of “Reality” is a projection of the logic of realisation, a logic of featural realisation; hypostatically, it refers to the sphere of such realisations, in general.
    Presence, is both a foundational & a supervenient conceptualisation. Supervenient on the multi-featured instantiations it brings together through the hic et nunc, yet the very form by which those multi-featured instantiations are brought together, & by which they achieve their contrastive origination.
    In both foundational & supervenient aspects, it forms a systematic level of ludicity of emergent syntheses; it is both the founding possibility of synthesis & a contingency supervenient on that which it synthesizes.

    I) Another Synthesis, Another Kind of Collection; Recollective

    However, there is another synthesis, another kind of collection; the re-collective traversal of:
    i) that which resides outside of the collective multi-featured instantiations of whatever is held to be, & accessed through, the hic et nunc;
    ii) the featural variation supposedly ‘external’ to the multi-featured, collective instantiations of its alleged synthesis in the hic et nunc, yet necessarily deriving from those collective instantiations, as ‘instantiations’, as suggestions of an ‘externality’ that they instantiate.

    At this point, there is a problem.
    Does objective measure of the hic et nunc, turn it into a feature of its context of measurement, necessarily introducing a transcendence of it, & a context that exceeds it?
    What are the limits of the hic et nunc? How are they determined? From whence do they arise?

    II) Absent Exteriorities

    If the recollection & reconsideration of past situational performances & featural arrangements, occur through memory; & the retrieval of future situational performance & featural arrangements, through hypothetical possibility; the speculative anticipations, or anticipatory speculations, of a mnemonic futurity; then, under what rubric of allegedly absent exteriority, can such historicity & prospective futurity be said to occur?.

    III) Representation

    It is the Modality of Presence, itself; identified as such, abstracted, & presented again; re-presented; it is the Modality of Presence, under its own sign, as self-reflective Representation; not only as aspiration towards replication of empty self-identity; but as mnemonic continuity, marked through constancies of feature, which it appropriates as ‘archival moments’ of an economics of mnemonic continuity, through which can be discerned & registered, the play of featural variations.
    However, both the ‘archival moments’ of an economics of mnemonic continuity, & the featural variations such an economy processes through comparative registration, necessarily resort to detours beyond the usual characterised limits, the ‘present momentariness’, of the hic et nunc.
    This ‘externality’, however, though characteristic of any limited system in which forces are co-present to each other through performative interaction; in sited or situational performance(s); in such ways as to suggest an interiority of dual proximity, of the hic et nunc; most strongly obtains, perhaps, with respect to one received notion of Presence, that which identifies it with the hic et nunc of consciousness, as configured by instantial embodiment, & by experiential conventions of that configuration. It arises as an artifact of discrepant conjunction between different modes of experiential availability, as they occur through configurational conventions. (cf. Essential Movements 04)

    IV) Identified as Consciousness

    At this stage, it can be seen that the hic et nunc, identified as consciousness; though relatively ‘autonomous’ with respect to collective multi-featured instantiations; to their memories & their future featural-temporal possibilities; & if hypostatised according to an absolutisation of this autonomy; then it can no longer be identified or marked, in its hypostatic form, through any featurality; except for that of an ‘autonomy’ supervenient on the featurality it is relatively ‘autonomous’ from. Insofar as such ‘autonomy’ can be considered as featural, then the hic et nunc, identified as consciousness, is a feature.
    As to what such ‘autonomy’ could consist in, or of; what ‘legislative’ structure such ‘self-law’ could have; the usual sphere of appeal & exemplification has been that of the featural; the effects of ‘autonomy’ on the featurality it both inhabits, & marks, through its inhabitation.
    ‘For the moment’, this circularity of feature is not problematic, being the very modality of the hic et nunc, of its own form, of its apprehensions & receptions, & of its productions. Yet it can be seen, in the itinerary of the concept of feature, in the configuring tendencies it exercises & that are exercised on it; in all its inflations as Ur-concept; from its initial differential identification as ‘concrete instantiation’, to its subsequent expansions as ‘immanence’ & the Modality of Presence; that a systematicity is at work.

    There’s five section intro called “Essentialisation” that precedes this.

    It’s a kind of tangential investigation that spun off from this:

    [redacted]
    24 January at 04:43
    Alexander Galloway, “Laruelle, Anti-Capitalist”

    from the comments”

    collen ryan Reply:

    Not true lands techno futurism has always implied a virtual exit possibility its how he sustains his denial about their being no fucking exit

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Oh hell not just virtual exit as humans but virtual exits from being human, its positively christian or hindu in its millennialism and transubstantiation of the chosen

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Ok.
    But one can do it with a word, easily.
    There are lots of ways.

    collen ryan Reply:

    you know it occurs if Land can have virtual exits then universalists can claim they have virtual competition from virtual patches “we are not the only patch theres an infinite number of possible patches we compete with” People are free to outrun uor robot drones and establish these patches we cant be responsible for the startup costs of others patches that would be socialism and we are an authoritarian patch.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Sol Yurick has done all that, & a lot more, in ‘Metatron’ (1985).
    To be honest, he’s done everything Land has been doing, and a lot more than that, too.

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 6:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • darkreformation101 Says:

    In light of Undiscovered Jew’s analysis, I think there needs to be some reformulation of the structure, scope and nature of the current crop of leftists:

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/how-comte-overthrew-marx-part-ii/

    In short, how committed are they really to equalitarianism, in contrast to technocratic control that satisfies their disappointed, disenchanted soul?

    Moldbug views the operations of government as one giant real estate enterprise.

    GNON has given us a President who began as a real estate developer…….

    The market for meaning is underserved…….

    In the future, leftism will be all about the “equal” satisfaction of lifestyles.

    I take a stab at what such a leftist Neo-Cam might look like here:

    https://darkreformation101.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/dark-reformation-part-12-the-return-of-the-kings-neo-royalism-design-and-defence/

    Commcorp

    Progcorp

    Cathcorp

    Jewcorp

    Progcorp

    Sunnicorp

    Shiacorp

    Sinacorp

    Indiacorp.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 7:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • AMK Says:

    I myself have recommended a garage disposal patch for Marxists. Ha

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    “(That would be a Neo-Maoist garbage disposal program, as far as everyone else is concerned.)”

    Heh! He’s showing the unrestrainedness of Trump with this “joke”. It’s bound to inflame the closet-tankies of the Brahmin-caste. I’d call you tankies literally Hitler, but you’re literally worse than Hitler haha! Interestingly, in Shanghai–and I know you can trust anecdote about as far as you can throw it–I asked lots of natives what they thought of Mao and 90% exclaimed “He is the greatest man that ever lived!” almost verbatim; I don’t know if they believe that or they’re afraid to dissent but it sure was creepy.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 8:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    The point of leftism is parasitism, and they’re fully aware at the relevant level. Even leftists know Thanatos when they see him. They’re intrinsically opposed to any form of separation or formalization, as either results in death.

    [Reply]

    pyrrhus Reply:

    Right. But in addition, the left gets their kicks by ordering other citizens around, and locking them up or murdering them if they don’t comply fast enough….That’s why there can be no peace with them….

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    No the point of leftism is to empower leftist leaders, parasitism democracy religion are simply tools they use to transfer power from people to themselves once accomplished all pretence of parasitism religion democracy are dispensed with and raw power is the foundation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 8:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ed Miliband Says:

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/04/basic-income-birthright-eliminating-poverty

    NRx BTFO

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    I didn’t know so much retard could be packed into so small a space.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Pretty much everything labelled ‘btfo’ is transcendentally lame.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Assuming you refer to the article Im curious. Im probably agreed that a guaranteed income is a euphemism for welfare and will have the same consequences. However i think the article raises some points I have always been concerned with. One is an old one I have probably since reading at about 9 years of age huckleberry finn been an exitist. Unlike Land i recognize exit is not easy because the land is all taken which begins a series of compromises with one exit that can easily end in no exit. If one thinks deeper than the cartoons of moldbug where all kings are as smart as Musk and all serfs are as stupid as cows it becomes difficult to console yourself the land is in the most productive hands. I think at best all we can say is it worth dying to find out.
    The other problem is on we are facing today in a new context, this idea of the commons and this idea that we should sell it off, The commons I mean not as the wilderness of unclaimed lands americans still believe somehow are still out there, but rather the well worn public spaces and infrastructure we all use, the natural resources we hold in common and the national sovereignty. The authors argument for a guaranteed income in exchange for selling our birthright to global inc is problematic. yes of course hes proposing to sell the whites commons for nigger babies though he pretends otherwise.and we both know he will attempt to sell it as many times as he can get away with. But my concern is with the actual owners the whites who built these nations and whether they could cut a better deal than an outright sale. Would Halliburton sell the rights to the Cathedrals infrastructure for a an annuity I think not. I dont think Halliburton would even short term lease it without a partnership agreement and It sounds to me like all this talk of the inevitability of a robot world is a scare tactic by jews to get a cheap sale by the owners of the western world.

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    After having seen the effect of UBI welfare and similar endeavors in Finland, I have lost my faith in its ability to do much beyond promote depression.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    Insofar as UBI is supposed to replace the welfare state, I can see it working in certain places. The problem is, no one argues for UBI as a replacement for the welfare state. It’s UBI + the welfare state. Which is fucking insane.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 11:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Goth Eiríksson Says:

    *There is no way to determine for sure whether Hurtak’s apparent conflation of events is purposeful, the result of a faulty news source, or a common American tendency to disregard the complexities of Middle Eastern politics. Whatever the case, Hurtak declares that Enoch transported him to the location of the Kaaba, in much the same way that Jabriel was said to have transported Muhammad to the Temple Mount during his Night Journey. From his exalted standpoint, Enoch revealed to Hurtak how the cubic structure of the Kaaba acts like a black hole, sucking in and trapping the Light of the Father and feeding the Children of Darkness. The stone inside the Kaaba, it is said holds and traps the accumulated and unredeemed sins of humanity inside the cube as Muslims, guided by extraterrestrial forces from alpha Draconis, are vampirically infected by the resulting energies of degeneration, vengeance and anti-evolution. In any event, even if King Faisal had reiterated his earlier call for jihad at some point in 1973, Hurtak’s account makes no mention of the possible contexts that may have given rise to such a pronouncement. It’s as if King Faisal, symbol of all entrapped Muslims, in a fit of irrational, unmediated and fanatic fury, without cause, enticed his followers into an orgy of violence against the “Keystone of the Pyramid of God.”14 Hurtak’s sublimation of the historical context of King Faisal’s call for jihad also obscures one Christian’s participation in initiating events that inflamed Muslim sentiment, and at least in Egypt, influenced Sadat’s determination to organize a possible attack on Israel in 1973. Hurtak’s commentary also suggests that Muslims are not simply a benighted people beholden to a dark religion promoted by a fallen species that promotes bad molecular geometry; they are in the process of becoming a separate, genetically degenerate race.*

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2017 at 11:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chuck Says:

    re: “That would be a Neo-Maoist garbage disposal program, as far as everyone else is concerned.”

    Well said.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 5:47 am Reply | Quote
  • wu-wei Says:

    Wait, does anyone REALLY believe that the Zuckerbergs, Soros’, Bezos’, etc. of the world really give a damn about egalitarianism? Egalitarianism for the hypothetical future mulatto underclass perhaps, but not for THEM.

    These guys aren’t sick or malevolent; they really do believe they can create a future no-borders progressive ‘open society’, just one more or less ruled and administered by their own descendants (although surely they don’t think consciously in such grotesque Machiavellian terms).

    Obviously, such a regime can still be theoretically conceptualized along a formal NeoCam framework. But the only people who actually want ‘full-communism’ are the worms who will never, ever rule; and if they somehow did rule, they wouldn’t want full-communism.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Ahhh youre starting to see, now make the next leap. Lands Elysium is simply Davos with Land and Moldbug running it. This sounds peachy as long as we all imagine we are invited and the others are all badwhites you know the type nigger like but not as amusing.

    Someone’s going to test your theory Land ;and they are going to see if all those badwhites are really as inept as you claim or whether they can be inspired to cut your fucking head off and put it on a pike next to the clintons and soros’. Then you will understand where property rights come from when your head is auctioned by its owner on ebay.Maybe i will buy it and keep it on my desk to remind me about hubris.

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    Funny, I’ve always assumed that Land is just scheming to replace the human species with Skynet…

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 6:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Frog Do Says:

    Rojava. Bootstrapped off of Kurdish nationalism, exploiting chaos in USian authority in the MENA region.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 8:26 am Reply | Quote
  • Goth Eiríksson Says:

    I don’t know about y’all niggas, but I’m learning French so I can listen to René Girard dans sa propre langue!

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 2:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    Hate to break it to you Admin they put their socialist ideas into neocameral framework 30 years ago its called globalism, an unholy alliance between marxists and capitalists.They hire goldman sachs and some other jews to manage the patch they call the whole fucking universe got a problem with that, meet Africom Eurocom Asiacom etc.And they hire the other jews to break it to the former employees (sefs) theyre being downsized and how grateful they should be for the white privilege of training their replacements.
    Here I am commenting on the idea of selling off the american infrastructure because the taxes paid to maintain the american infrastructure was used to pay goldman sachs interest on the costs of diversity

    Certainly true and years ago Id have raised you one galts gulch. Its not that Im no longer a Austrian its I think we have worked our way into a situation where blind adherence to what we thought will make things worse.
    Infrastructure is a good place to look at where Im coming from (and I think Bannon is too). If we allow formerly American corporations to become international corporations that extract the technology, capital, etc then pass on the domestic labor but come back for the consumer market and then again pass on the taxation, or import the labor but have the labor subsidized by welfare paid for either by the few lucky americans who still have jobs or to offer to loan the government money at interest to pay for the welfare. The inflation that we now lie about that has made everything from housing, medicine, education, fuel,cars,pretty much everything but imported electronics 2-10 times more expensive than a decade or three ago; is directly tied to the cost of this a la carte capitalism. Capitalism where third world misery (caused by oligarchy and communism but sustained by emigration ) Is triangulated against first world labor markets. Its not sustainable eventually americans are going to be able to compete with third world wages, but not the way they told us. that any day africans would be just like canadians and all would be well, no america is halfway to brazilification.
    Now heres the thing My problem with libertarianism is they cuck on on property rights when it comes to the nation itself. Its as if every border contract one property right is sacred to them except the most important one the one that is the impetus of all civilization and law; the national boundary the one that keeps the other tribe from raping and pillaging, the one the violent men banded together to enforce giving the traders a safe space to operate in.And giving a safe space for all the benefits of civilization that also support trade.
    The nation, the school system that fosters tech development, the court and law making system and police that enforce contracts, the idaho farm boy on an aircraft carrier protecting the trade routes, The transportation and communication infrastructure that facilitates everything from shipping to financial trading,The first world labor market, access to the wealthiest consumer market in the world, etc etc is worth a lot. Its not moochers demanding free stuff. Oh sure their are moochers demanding free stuff for minorities, but its not them that own this infrastructure it the generation of americans that pioneered built maintained and defend it. If you doubt its value Imagine somehow say to support the subsidies globalists insist are basic human rights, our government sold it all off and Halliburton owned it. Do you think Halliburton would give it away to all these corporations that enjoy it.Do you think Halliburton would let amazon just use the highways for free, do you think it would allow Apple to simply sell iphones here while eschewing the labor and Halliburton’s potential income tax? Do you think Halliburton would allow Tyson and walmart to import third world peasants paying them $11 hr while Halliburton fed clothed medecined educated policed their entire peasant family and the family of whites they displaced? You think Halliburton would protect the property enforce the contracts and manage the 350 million inhabitants of their consumer market for free while they offshored their profits and bribed halliburton’s middle managers for deals? No of course not.
    No doubt the author is likely a commie and we dont want to give commies an inch.But in some ways blind loyalty to the outer party is how we got into this headlock.The capitalists have made a devils deal with the globalist marxists. Maybe they each plan to doublecross the other in the future or maybe they have both given up on the 60s version of capitalism and communism and settled for a 1000 year reich of corporatism.Lets not forget they are supported by cuck christianity and Israel, and of course because immigration and HBD its inescapable this becomes a racial issue, appalling the neocons and reactionaries. But of course the commies realized a long time ago communism didnt sell well in wealthy white countries so they morphed into racial redistributionists and hit on a way to partner with christians and capitalists,and of course the power hungry who wish to remake the world.
    This is the hope I think that some have with trump that he will break the dynamic, hes trying to beat the commies to the pivot back to white socialism while there’s an opening and hold the banksters over the hole they dug. Its doesnt look to be working, Trumps an idiot who only intuits vaguely, Bannon may not be fully woke or able to control trump and of course the deep state seems pretty much committed to killing trump if they have to. That might set off a civil war.But they probably wont have to hes pretty much been pwnd by the confederacy of dunces having no consistent outlook hes easily swayed piecemeal out of his gut feelings by his jew and neocon advisors

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 2:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @

    ” If Neo-Maoism seeks a sensible sized patch, they should clearly be given one.”

    – yeah this kind of has the same problem as your exit idea. Who exactly is going to be giving what property on what authority? How about this Nick we can solve two problems at once Ill give you liberia for your patch and the other commies can have haiti good luck dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Meta-Meta-Neocameralism

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Ok Ive called ahead and explained to the niggers that youll be coming to rule and that they are now serfs but that you say life will be better eventually and if they disagree they can move to the congo. I think they are cool with it but you might want to leave your family in another patch till you get settled. They seemed particularly interested in this idea that you would own everything in the country and would let whoever you thought best administer it for you they wonder if that includes their AK47s or if their is some amount of personal property they retain title to

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    You raise a good point: Nick “Land” wants to be the landlord of the whole Earth. Patchwork smacks of crypto “oriental despotism” in that it always begs rather than addresses the question of WHO is going to divvy up the land. It’s almost like an inversion of the Marxian will to propertilessness because it presupposes that the NRx cog-elites FIRST will own all the property for themselves and THEN divvy it up–and if they do divvy it up is there still going to be a King of Kings in the background making sure Patchwork is running smoothly? Like I said before, patchworkian pluralism seems like a mere front for neo-globalist tyranny.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    which if they did an excellent job is hard to argue, although guys like me probably would, guys like me would love to exit and run our own show but reality is theres no more land.
    One explanation for cathedral is they actually have christian values or slave morality and back in the 50s when the Rand corp told them about how things would be they decided to manage the transition to soylent green as humanely as possible and people who object are basically guys like me who are like fuck em fuck em all I dont care. Nick pretends hes down with the horror but hes not cause when i suggest sterilizing the third world and the jews to if they get in the way he gets all triggered. He seems tyo claim with zero evidence that he will do what the cathedral does but better, well it cant be better unless you at least kill all the niggers if you know what i mean. even then -and this he gets in a 100 years same problem with left half of whites, but of course i think a ethno state could be bred more carefully.Thing is i dont see his plan theres no fucking exit, theres no life saving tech and if there were darpa would have it. its not new and exciting edgy but all we really have is this same old. the only way i see of being able to make any radical changes to order is a big fucking war and that wont be an option forever and its going to get racial like it or not blacks and browns are the biggest problem on earth and about to get orders worse.

    Wagner Reply:

    Do we need to kill the blacks directly? I don’t think many whites will be on board with that, even the Johnny Rednecks. Why not let them have the Virginias or the Carolinas? If they manage to sustain it, all power to them, but they probably won’t, and once it becomes a population-thinned jungle-ghetto we can move in and reclaim it. Also I don’t really mind intelligent “oreo” blacks, I think there’s a difference between blacks and niggers–do the former undermine white homogeneity, group-cohesion, maybe, but we’re talking about white people here, I don’t think many are going to stand for an exclusion of all PoC, whites are Christians, they pity, whether we like it or not, that’s what we’re working with. I think even more plausible than sacrificing a chunk of the south is cutting the US in half between white-n-rightists and shitlibs and their pet monkeys. If shitlibs decide to convert they can come to our side, if pet monkeys show they can act like decent white folks they can come too, but again, the shitlib patch would probably turn out to be as admin calls it a garbage-disposal program and after a white we can reclaim it.

    collen ryan Reply:

    well in a sense i mean it metaphorically and for the record when i say niggers i mean nams generally.
    I currently live half my life in brooklyn and as i have all my life have good relations of ethnicities being on one level a street kid i can comfortably pass inany ghetto and do and I generally like a lot of blacks. the problem is not with the individuals its the impact of the race and the other negative races and not simply their drag as parasites but the effect multiculturalism has on us that makes it impossible to pursue excellence. I agree i cant see a race war happening on the other hand i can see a culture war going hot and I think a culture war could turn into a race war easilly. I dont relish it either im not a nazi or even really a wn except by default in other words i see no other way to survive.yes we all are really interwoven at this point. the problem with good blacks is they are tribal and they do revert and even the good ones are not really self supporting. The other problem is we have tried every type of apartheid slavery jim crow thats possible and they always fail, separate countries out of sight is the only way but how.only war can open the amount of change needed.

    Wagner Reply:

    “For here some awful spirit has struck out all redundancy and created a background worthy of a tragedy that far exceeds the pitch of any poet. Hence man has no choice but to become a bit of nature, subjected to its inscrutable decrees and used as a thing of blood and sinew, tooth and claw. Tomorrow, perhaps, men of two civilized countries will meet in battle on this strip of land; and the proof that it must happen is that it does. For otherwise we should have stopped it long ago, as we have stopped sacrificing to Wotan, torturing on the rack, burning witches, or grasping red-hot iron to invoke the decision of God. But we have never stopped it and never shall, because war is not the law of one age or civilization, but of eternal nature itself, out of which every civilization proceeds, and into which it must sink again if it is not hard enough to withstand the iron ordeal. For this reason those who seek to abolish war by civilized means are just as ridiculous as those ascetics who preach against propagation in order to usher in the millennium. They form the belated rearguard of an enlightenment that sought to dispose by the intellect of matters that draw their life from a depth beyond its reach. But they are the real pests of civilization though they have it always on their lips. Wherever they are left undisturbed at their work, there civilization emits the first scent of decay. May they ever be a laughingstock to the youth of our land. The blood shall circle in it fresh and earthy as the sap of a wood in spring and beat with as manly a pulse as in the veins of our forefathers who made a saint of the Messiah. Rather than be weak and timorous, let us be hard and merciless on ourselves and on others. Because we think in this way that becomes us best we here have made ourselves its living example, and shall so continue till the end of the war and after. As long as we have a youth that stands for all that is strong and manly our future is assured.”

    — Ernst Jünger, Copse 125: A Chronicle from the Trench Warfare of 1918

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 3:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    collen ryan Reply:
    March 4th, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    you realize this NRX is just NRO 2.0

    admin Reply:
    March 4th, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    Sure, if “NRO 2.0” is zero-democracy commercialized government. That seems a stretch, but whatever.

    Really Nick a stretch?

    So you actually think America would look like this if the people’s will had been followed over the past 200 100 50 ? years? You think american voted to bring in 175 million niggers in 64? They voted for sitcoms with 7 year old trannys wearing ballgags? Please spare me the BS about they could watch something else, just tewll me exactly what else they could watch, what other university they could attend, Party they could vote for.

    My reading of MM and his cathedral is its designed specifically an end run around democracy, It’s a way to brainwash from birth as many as possible, intimidate as many more and when all else fails have the courts or massive third world immigration override the peoples democratically expressed wishes.So Nick land for the 1000th time where is your evidence that all this is the result of dumb white proles and not smart elite globalists? You can take this as a pro democracy rant but for the 100th time its not its simply that democracy and proles are not the real culprit.

    Commercialized Govt? How many Goldman sachs cabinet members have their been? where do retired civil servant go when they leave service? who funds the think tanks that end up as law? Who profited of the liar loans and the quadrillion in CDOs since? Do you really think the trillions spent in foreign wars was the proles idea?What happened to the 200 years of american workers efforts? Did they spend it on themselves or did globalists decide how to and who to transfer it. Lets just take the last 16 years trillions.What of switzerland’s democracy? Again Im not opposed to market force but lets be honest capitalists actually will sell the rope that hangs them they will destroy the nations that support them.

    and so when you refuse to see the reality that “capitalists” have gutted the west and colluded with cog-elite marxists not dumb pitchfork proles. you are just like a NRO cuck, or a libertarian cuck.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Just to be clear as i am always misinterpreted this is also not saying capitalism is the problem. since the 70s i began as a teen ayn randian let them eat cake hardcore austrian I never had a marxist period, im a natural monarch patriarch elitist. I exercise absolute rule in my personal life. I have become worthy i conquered you live in my patch at my pleasure under my rules. But by nature Im an engineer as opposed to a philosopher. You like to gloss over the details I get it all comes down to the details. Moldbug has never seen the inside of a garage let alone tinkered hes a jew he hires people to tinker. My garages are full of engines and gang boxes of tools.
    I dont argue to save democracy because im demotic or have some sentimental attachment to muh jefferson, I look at what it would take to replace it as opposed to tweek it. I dont ignore the problems with capitalism because its got such a great record if it misfiring I see whats wrong with the timing advance.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 4:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @collen ryan

    Here nick let me put this is terms you can understand

    “The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins’ day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. By this test alone, we can see that the conspiracy is imaginary (Brown Scare) rather than real (Red Scare).

    Think about it. Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn’t waste their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They’re getting burned right and left, for Christ’s sake! Priorities! No, they’d turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won’t see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there’s a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.”

    Now Imagine dumb democratic white proles are witches and cognitive elites wanting to remake the world are witch hunters.. Exactly where are these proles with torches rounding up The Clintons Soros Zuckerbergs and Yarvins and Goldman Sachs? Or are you going to claim BLM and pussy marches and riots are not correlated with cog elites? You cant see it but you and MM are simply the latest elite fad world order another experiment you want to try because you can and it wont cost you if it doesnt work.meet the boss same as the old boss

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    What do you propose in the place of cog-elites? Yourself as a cog-elite? Meet the boss same as the old boss. Nein. I think if Moldbug and Land became the new cog-elites they would be fools not to consider the advice you’re constantly posting here, and you’d be a fool not to enlist in the cog-elite.

    Your argument that it’s the cog-elites’ fault begs the question of who let them get into power in the first place, and that was the dumbmasses.

    Sure you’re right that it is part of human dignity for the government to leave families be and fuck up and learn from their mistakes but at the same time that’s quite a libertarian sentiment, believing billions of quasi-retards know what’s best for themselves and don’t need the outside help of more evolved species of humanity.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Wag I think I can best answer your question and explain my argument by saying I categorically reject your assertion that cog elites are in power because proles elected them, if proles will were being followed sarah Palin would be President. Cog Elites get power by battling other cog elites for it elections are a formality cog elites developed to head off pitchforks, election give non cog elites the impression this mess is somehow their fault. And anyway rarely do actual cog elites themselves seek office usually they put up others for the job or ignore politics entirely and concentrate on the p[ower centers that can control politicians.

    I certainly dont think cog elites should not run the show, I certainly believe in hierarchy. My point is the problem is not proles thinking they have influence over rulers, its that cog elites while potentially the best rulers, are in fact not ruling well for reasons entirely apart from democracy.Those reasons are many and complicated, Im really surprised this is controversial its so obvious. Let’s say we are not raising our children right. Lets remember when the left planned to take over they decided to go after the culture not the voting booth, that they win no matter which party is elected.

    Yes yes Lands snobishness annoys me as much as his antihumanism trolls. I do think the white middle and blue collar class are much more intelligent and functional than he gives them credit for. But I dont pretend they any better than they are only that on average I find them more sensible than the urban elites running the nations.

    But the point I make many times is part of the responsibility of cog elite ruling classes is to cultivate the lower classes. yet cog elites have done as much class cultivation as space exploration over the past half century. Again we are talking about culture.The lower classes are more vulnerable to the poor choices cog elites have made. Cog elites can make a poor choice about public school curriculum,immigration policy,public moral standards, and a thousand other things that cog elites can then use their wealth to opt out of, but blue collar and white collars must endure, and which all the best instincts and parenting can not overcome. So in any degenerate nation the cog elites have crafted the lower classes will degenerate faster or ought to, the fact they still actually seem less degenerate than may elites makes me admire them to a certain extent.
    I think maybe MM hit on something with his religious analogy although as you point out it does single out wasps while leaving the other cog elite religion jews suspiciously blameless. I notice your neitzche stuff and while not smart enough or maybe just not educated enough to have a firm grasp on him as I understand it he understood the cucked nature of christianity and its inevitable collapse after science and that there would first be a long period of post christian christian morality, followed by horror because reality is hortiffic if not carefully managed.So my attraction to neo reaction is I am probably in agreement with neitzche since childhood in the 60s Ive thought the same things dinosaurs led me to darwin early like i was thrown out of a third grade catholic school because i couldnt shut up about it. and the better the catholic schools taught me to think the less catholic I became and i thank them for that.

    I think we have a problem though beyond culture and elites failure to lead culture properly. I think HBD is the next level down and land is right we are chimps I simply disagree he has transcended his apeiness.What I am saying is no matter what i plug in to the scenarios of civilizational order i keep getting chimps all the way down and this goes equally for nrx. Im not convinced we can with this dna have a sustainable civilization. we are not wired for it we are wired for survival of the fittest all against all tribe against tribe. every instince emotion we might utilize for a civilizational response was selected for something else entirely. So when land thinks like stalin he can simply radically reorder civilization Im skeptical, yes hierarchy is genetic maybe the most genetic order of all life forms. But it’s a consensual order and a contingent hierarchical order. And I dont believe as important as cognition is that it is the sole arbiteur of who ought to lead. so i guess yeah i think Id make a better king than land or yarvin though they are smarter. And yes i think a nation should be a people and maybe ruled a bit holistically from the middle in a sense as one organism that is evolving, Of course this is my lifes experience i live between classes between intellectual abilities and between geographic cultures. I obviously think this perspective gives me a less ghetto parochial outlook.

    I never seem to get make this clear I absolutely want the best to lead IQ is the biggest part of that bestness but i also think the brightest do lead and lead badly and democracy is not the problem culture is.So if you can solve that we are good

    I actually do like some things about democracy and or have some problems with monarchy.
    Im half convinced euroman is genetically selected for democratically informed hierarchy call it consensual authority. While i think all great apes are to some extent socially determine leadership i think we whites have a more sophisticated formal selection process that has worked well for us.

    I think overturning that system would be very difficult even if it turns out to be more social than genetic its already in place and the alternatives face incredible obstacles i dont think we have time to fuck around with more elite social experiments, but of course i dont see democracy as the cause of our problems

    I think democracy answered some very difficult problems. Kings were selected by violence. a king becomes worthy by conquering all opponents, certainly IQ helped but all sorts of other things like geopolitics, luck, weather, family ties and maybe mainly superior violence capability all contributed.Sometimes these favored a good king sometimes not rarely did that good king have an equally good heir. The sytem required alliances of other violent gangs er aristocrats. the payment for these aliance was tyranny over the vast majority of the land and people its pretty inefficient system and as the realms become more sophisticated power has to be dispersed to courtiers themselves selected sub optimally- if this reminds you of the cathedral youre right aristocrats have been handing out baronies to thugs and estates to courtiers for a long time and its a bad system. But until firearms became ubiquitous hard to overthrow so was only overthrown rarely.

    capitalism darwin and democracy seem really similar to me. Instead of wasting the vast majority of resources and wearing out the few that are utilized competition is introduced to determine who is really worthy.not who had a worth great great grandfather or is rent seeking or has interests locked into the past.
    Right now evolution is selecting for niggers and capitalism is selecting for leftism our universities are selecting for leftism,why is that ,why is democracy also not selecting for the best solutions the best leaders. all our institutions are being driven by a toxic ideology. is it slave morality? why did christianity work for a while, i think because its altruism accrued to other whites, and it operated still under classical legacy morality so it could not go full cuck, it could absorb a bit of good ideas from other cultures but still keep them at arms length greco roman byzantine morality was then what christian slave morality is now to us.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 5:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • cyborg_nomade Says:

    fuck. you anticipated one of my posts XD

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    yeah … most psychiatric thread ever on XS

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 5th, 2017 at 11:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    If I hafe to choose I would rather be better be melancholically right, then suicidally left

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 6th, 2017 at 1:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Blogospheroid Says:

    For a while, I had some doubts about the free exit paradigm. This is as good a thread as any to voice that.

    How does this deal with debts incurred by the people exiting? More importantly, what debts of other sovcorps does a given sovcorp acknowledge? This comes from multiple contexts.

    Recently an Indian businessman had left India for the UK after running his company into losses with a lot of loans from public sector banks in India. He says he’s being prosecuted , witch hunted, etc. A charitable interpretation is that he got unlucky, while an uncharitable one is that he milked the Indian taxpayers through a lot of bribery to the bank officials. Should he have been allowed to exit? Probably not.

    On the other hand, I recently heard that the church of scientology slaps huge bills on people exiting their church for psycho-therapy and other stuff. Are those valid bills? Most of them, Probably not.

    Consider the IQ shredder debate. The SanFranciscan patch can perennially survive by pulling in talent from other patches and the other patches get the remittances, but the system is not stable overall. If the patch of eugenia which produced talented individuals wants to slap a $100000 exit charge to properly compensate the birthing and nurturing community, I wouldn’t know whether to call that charge a valid one or not. From the perspective of overall stability , it seems to be the right thing to do, but individually, the act of slapping this charge on exit seems to be bad as per accepted patchwork rules.

    The point is that free exit without a due consideration of debt does not seem to fully satisfy the criteria that it should take into account the costs in question.

    A point could be made that this is wholly irrelevant to the outside in paradigm as patches that give talented people away will become poor and unable to do that in the future, but this also means lesser investment in the future. The IQ shredders are surely not doing enough to compensate the rest for their fecundity.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    The official cathedral position is you can exit after you divest yourself of all property including mental capacity and turn over your life

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 6th, 2017 at 6:19 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    regardless of number of issues free exit is free exit, responsibility to recover loan is on those who provided it. it has no issues with exit what so ever. same goes with any other kind of property, if it is your property you take care of it, or dont have it. if there is property dispute and sides fighting not able to resolve it I would kill all of them, Madagascar style. at least no body goin to bother me with any more property disputes.

    [Reply]

    Blogospheroid Reply:

    Recovering loans requires men with guns. When men with guns cross national lines, that is typically considered an act of war. So, resolution of the debt question is intimately tied in with the structure of the system. In the case of informal obligations like having to take care of your parents and give back to the community, making them formal could be one way out. But if you want peaceful resolution and human capital development, then some kind of a cross – sovereign treaty formally acknowledging which debts of people exiting jurisdictions will be considered valid by all other jurisidictions may be necessary.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    my view on function of government is different.

    1 no police
    2 no military
    3 high priority on intelligence

    if gov want to use force they can use contractors as erybody else. ofcourse those contractors can be gov subdidiaries. only way in human society to stop violence and crime is to make it cost very high. in Turmkenistan level of crime was enourmouse during Soviet time. they solved it in 2 weeks, just by shooting in place those who were comiting any crimes. when cost so high crime is unprofitable.

    ‘So, resolution of the debt question is intimately tied in with the structure of the system.’

    yes, right and even more it is ‘imprinted’ in the structure, you cant change it later on. I will do mediation in debt cases if it is profitable for me. otherwise I dont want to have it in structure of my patch at all. I would not akt as intermediary in property conficts if it not make money. why would one incorporate into structure of his organisation such elements which will destroy it eventually.

    Debt resolution is huge business, why gov cannot take part in it, take a look at booming international litigation market. large number of cases resolved by mediation begore it efen reach international courts. if you run government as corp then it is good place to start.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    war is bad for business well at least for business other than war profiteering so capitalists agree to arbitration, what you describe is first stage where the violent still have all the booty later they get pwnd if not also smart eventually very complex society nd we watch Tv shows like dexter and breaking bad and dream of how our ancestors could simply kill that motherfucker next door

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 6th, 2017 at 8:36 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Ok I think I understand how patchwork relates to horror now.

    “Do whatever you want”

    If people are allowed to do whatever they want it won’t only be the Neo-Maoist patch that is a garbage-disposal system, it will be most of the world. Patchwork is a covert eugenics operation.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    oh yes thats the whole patch idea competition, but the gnon horror operates no matter what is the horror that its so cold it takes your warm hearted nigger love and breeds a trillion nigger zombie apocalypse to mock rape and destroy your love. It takes your barren feminist and forces fecund islamic submission. it turns the economist into BLM. It operates on every level you devise to thwart it it follows you in the dark the more you attempt to avoid it to edit it to deny it the worse it mocks you

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 6th, 2017 at 4:21 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment