Trichotomy

The ‘Spandrellian Trichotomy’ (Nick B. Steves’ coinage, based on this post) has become an awesome engine of discussion. The topic is seething to such an extent that any linkage list will be out of date as soon as it is compiled. Among the most obvious way-markers are this, this, this, this, and this. Given the need to refer to this complex succinctly, I trust that abbreviating it to ‘the Trichotomy’ will not be interpreted as a clumsy attempt to obstruct Spandrell’s Nobel Peace Prize candidacy.

What is already broadly agreed?

(1) There is a substratum of neoreactionary consensus, involving a variety of abominated realist insights, especially the contribution of deep heritage to socio-political outcomes. Whilst emphasis differs, an ultra-Burkean attitude is tacitly shared, and among those writers who self-identify with the Dark Enlightenment, the importance of HBD is generally foregrounded.

(2) Neoreaction also shares an enemy: the Cathedral (as delineated by Mencius Moldbug). On the nature of this enemy much is agreed, not least that it is defined by a project of deep heritage erasure — both ideological and practical — which simultaneously effaces its own deep heritage as a profound religious syndrome, of a peculiar type. Further elaboration of Cathedral genealogy, however, ventures into controversy. (In particular, its consistency with Christianity is a fiercely contested topic.)

(3) As neoreactionary perspectives are systematized, they tend to fall into a trichotomous pattern of dissensus. This, ironically, is something that can be agreed. The Trichotomy, or neoreactionary triad, is determined by divergent identifications of the Western tradition that the Cathedral primarily suppresses: Christian, Caucasian, or Capitalist. My preferred terms for the resultant neoreactionary strains are, respectively, the Theonomist; the Ethno-Nationalist; and the Techno-Commercial. These labels are intended to be accurate, neutral descriptions, without intrinsic polemical baggage.

It is to be expected — at least initially, and occasionally — that each strain will seek to dismiss, subordinate, or amalgamate the other two. If they were not so tempted, their trichotomous disintegration would never have arisen. Each must believe that it, alone, has the truth, or the road to truth, unless sheer insincerity reigns.

Outside in does not pretend to impartiality, but it asserts an invincible disillusionment.
— If the Trichotomy was reducible, the new reaction would already be one thing. It isn’t, and it isn’t (soon) going to be.
— As astrology reveals, and more ‘sophisticated’ systems confirm, people delight in being categorized, accepting non-universality as the real price of identification. (The response to Scharlach’s diagram attests to that.)
— Accepting the Trichotomy and the arguments it organizes is a way to be tested, and any neoreactionary position that refuses it will die a flabby death.
— The Trichotomy makes it impossible for neoreaction to play at dialectics with the Cathedral. For that reason alone, we should be grateful to it. Unity — even oppositional unity — was never on our side.

April 30, 2013admin 68 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : ,

68 Responses to this entry

  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    “Deep heritage” is I think a good, succinct name for something I’ve been trying (and largely failing) to name for a while.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 30th, 2013 at 5:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    It is to be expected — at least initially, and occasionally — that each strain will seek to dismiss, subordinate, or amalgamate the other two. If they were not so tempted, their trichotomous disintegration would never have arisen. Each must believe that it, alone, has the truth, or the road to truth, unless sheer insincerity reigns.

    I’ve been noticing a lot of this: The A+BC trichotomy is not nearly A enough for me. A lot of people think they’ve been suddenly subsumed in a heretofore unknown club which now happens to include the A group. I think this is very wrong way to think of it. All Christian Trads haven’t suddenly been deemed part of neoraction. On the contrary, reaction (neo or otherwise) is a set of principles. Full-stop. Some or most of those principles tend to be attractive to certain, but far from all, members of A, B, and C: sets Ar, Br, and Cr respectively.

    So it remains a point of interest, both as observer and active representative of one of the Legs, to continue to articulate and build upon those unifying principles, “abominated realist insights”.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    darn… <sub>r</sub> didn’t render…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’ve checked for subscript, and it’s not easily executed. I think it will require experimentation to know whether it’s supported … not before a cup of coffee

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    A LaTex-based front-end would be preferred.

    Posted on April 30th, 2013 at 6:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • survivingbabel Says:

    I appreciate the elegance of your Trichotomy, even if I don’t necessarily fall comfortably in any of the three camps. Specifically, Theonomy as a reactionary concept forces certain… concessions from traditional Christians. While I am an ethnopagan (and lapsed Catholic… cue the “same thing!” jokes), I could get behind and support an ethno-Christianity, but I could not support “The Church”, who seeks to gain the world but lose its Essence.

    In the Occam’s Razor article comments, Novaseeker makes a point about the nature of Christian universality, that nations are baptized in Christ but retain their uniqueness (a contradictory stance). However, it is difficult to see how hard monotheism won’t always slouch towards the Cathedral. Monotheism subsumes, suppresses, or destroys; see how Rome eventually chooses to eclipse the other four Mediterranean sees (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople). The Greek Orthodox, Copts, etc. are still ethno-religions, whereas the one thing they say about Catholics is they’ll take you as soon as you’re warm.

    Our host is very concerned with exit. Isn’t revealed monotheism basically “no voice, no exit”, the worst spot in the truth table? A return to even ethno-Christianity (which is what the endless schisms of the Middle Ages seemed to be heralding) would at least be a step in the right direction.

    P.S. Apologies if my HTML fails horribly.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    “Revealed monotheism”, at least of the Christian variety, is quite a bit more epistemologically humble than “no voice, no exit”. In the limits, it could be in theory, but on the vast majority of questions of public import, the revealed part of the Christian faith (i.e., actually revealed, and not divined by Cathedral Talmudic scholars), is willing to leave it up to prudential judgement. Slavery good or bad? The Christian faith doesn’t know, but it does know you should treat your slaves with kindness if you have them. Evolution true or false? The Christian faith doesn’t know, but Original Sin is part of human nature. Free markets or socialism? The Christian faith doesn’t know, but both private property and the inherent dignity of all persons should be respected.

    [Reply]

    survivingbabel Reply:

    @Nick B. Steves

    This misses the forest for the trees, though. Yes, there may be some room to maneuver on the explicit policy matters, but at the higher level, where societies organize themselves, the choices are Accept Jehovah and Jesus or Apostasy. It’s great that I could theoretically find a Christian state where the free market reigns and another where self-sufficient communes are the building blocks of society. It’s not so great if I can’t find a place where I can worship Apollo or Odin without risking at the very least public redress and attempts at conversion. If you could convince me that Christian states and non-Christian states could peacefully coexist in the Patchwork, then I’ll happily withdraw my objection. History, though, suggests that revealed monotheism can never long go without violent expansionism.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    My quick and dirty answer would be that violent expansionism is a latent tendency of political actors of all stripes at all times. I doubt that Christianity (qua Christianity) brings much in the way of fresh vitalism to that fundamental drive. I would argue on balance that Christianity (qua Christianity) lessens this tendency of political actors, and that Christianity (qua Christianity) is quite, if not entirely, apolitical.

    I’ll have to get back to you on the long (and dirty) answer 😉

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Where is the problem? Under Restoration Anglicanism, you could not go the right universities unless you affirm that God is Three and God is One, and so on and so forth, but under the Cathedral, you cannot go the right universities unless you affirm that differences between the races are entirely environmental and the fault of white racism, especially your own white racism.

    No one can say if God is one, three, or a dozen, but one can say whether there are inherent differences between the races, so it seems to me that the Cathedral Demand is a lot more oppressive and intrusive than the Restoration Anglican demand.

    survivingbabel Reply:

    @jim

    I agree that the Cathedral is more oppressive than Restoration Anglicism, but didn’t the former arise as a result of the latter? The Cathedral seems to be the logical conclusion to, not the perversion of, revealed monotheism. It just went one step further and elevated Revelation over God. Even today, you can still be a “good” “moderate” Christian, or Muslim, as long as you parrot the Cathedral doctrine prior to that of your preferred religion.

    My assertion is that “no voice, no exit” is a general feature of all revealed monotheistic religions, although “moderating” forces within a religion can control this impulse for a time. Consider how Rome dealt with the faiths of its alien populations. The early Empire was pluralistic; everyone was free to worship their own Gods, as longs as the Gods of Rome were honored as well. A certain revealed monotheistic sect seemed to have a problem with this arrangement, and they eventually took over and ended worship of all Gods except theirs. When Roman Catholics spread the faith into Northern and Western Europe, local customs were either destroyed or subsumed into the faith, and dissenters were put to the sword (I supposed that’s one “exit” after all).

    I just don’t see how Re-Restoration Anglicism is a long-term solution to the problem. Sure, it might buy us a hundred years or so, but the same extreme failure modes are an essential part of the system, unless you believe that we only need some more time to engineer against them. I am, to put it lightly, skeptical.

    Posted on April 30th, 2013 at 7:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Nick, I’ve got a little png diagram of the trichotomy with no way to post or send it. Could you email me at the gmail.com address?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Great, done.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 30th, 2013 at 7:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    Neo-reactionaries are united in their pursuit of truth, but the trichotomy model prevails because each is attacking a different pillar of the Cathedral: internationalism (blank-slatism), scientism (materialism/atheism) or socialism (economic collectivism/central banking).

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Three blind men touching different parts of the Velociraptor…

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 30th, 2013 at 10:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    “If the Trichotomy was reducible, the new reaction would already be one thing. It isn’t, and it isn’t (soon) going to be.”

    I accept your challenge, and tonight, I’ll drink to your bones.

    Well, maybe not, you know, ‘tonight’. I’m a busy man, and while my impression is that a Universal Reconciliation of the Particularists is possible (in a sense…), it requires embracing a certain kind of (nearly) extinct metaphysical perspective, and that in turn requires more elucidation than I can do justice to in a short time. So stay tuned, but don’t stay up. Bone-feasting is not that near.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If that a blog-launch promise?
    Bone-feasting eagerly awaited …

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    It better be good.

    [Reply]

    Perfidy Reply:

    I think it isn’t coincidental that the three-part split lines up with the ages old divisions in indo-european society – the trifunctional hypothesis – along priest/warrior/commoner lines.

    The traditional colors were white for the priests, red for the warriors and black for the commoners – the productive class. Assign those colors to the factions for added fun.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That adds something for sure, thanks, and it means I get to keep the black flag.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 30th, 2013 at 11:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    [I made this point on my own space, and over at Spandrell’s, too, so I may as well make it here, in the hopes of convincing the ethno-nationalists in America to switch reactionary sides.]

    The possibility of ethno-nationalism depends on the demographics of the state in which one resides. In certain tiny European states, it might be possible to actualize, if it’s not already a reality (e.g., Liechtenstein). In America, however, ethno-nationalism is impossible. Impossible. Impossible. I repeat: not gonna happen. The ship’s sailed. White Anglos are gonna be at fifty percent of the national population once the 40s-50s generation starts dying. In California, from whence I hail, whites are already a minority. We made up 30% of the town I was living in until recently.

    So, any attempts to realize ethno-nationalism On The Ground in this context will just result in tiny ethnic enclaves that are certainly NOT optimized for advancement. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orania,_Northern_Cape). To be a committed ethno-nationalist in America—and, I imagine, in much of Britain and Western Europe–one must look at the example of Orania and say, “I’m willing to commit to that kind of segregation.”

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Don’t neo-reactionaries need to become a bit more nomadic? For a start the state (which you don’t believe in) is the creator of national unity (including boundaries etc). Britain, for example, has not lost its ethnic purity anytime in recent history – it’s long been a mongrel nation and for large periods of history that has served it well. But I don’t see why, even if you want to go down the ethno-nationalist route, the Celts (Welsh, Irish, Scottish or their non-UK cousins) for instance, would need to reclaim a homeland – go make a new one. Or once we go beyond white and non-white does it get too confusing anyway? More practically, if whatever pre-requisite collapse occurs there’s no telling what will be left anyway… so you might want to get used to the idea of wandering and dispersal sooner rather than later.

    [Reply]

    vimothy Reply:

    Britain, for example, has not lost its ethnic purity anytime in recent history – it’s long been a mongrel nation

    It has?

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Umm, yes. And yes. Amusingly Scotland (Laurentia) and England (Avalonia) are even geological adversaries – maybe there’s something trickling from the rocks into the drinking water driving the Scottish Independence thing. Whisky possibly.

    fotrkd Reply:

    Admin: I’m in quarantine – twice (once is unfortunate, twice is..?) – once you’ve finished your spicy dinner can you release me? Thanks.

    vimothy Reply:

    Here is our history as a “mongrel people,” according to your WIki link:

    “Modern humans first arrived in Great Britain during the Palaeolithic era, but until the arrival of the Romans (1st century BC) there was no historical record. With the fall of the Roman Empire, Anglo-Saxons (c. 5th century AD) and Vikings (8th century AD) migrated to Great Britain. In 1066, the Normans successfully took control of England and, in subsequent years, there was some migration from France. In the 19th century, immigration by people outside Europe began on a small scale as people arrived from the British colonies. This increased during the 20th century.”

    fotrkd Reply:

    Here is our history as a “mongrel people,” according to your WIki link

    OK(?)

    nydwracu Reply:

    I’m not an ethnonationalist, but if I were, here’s what my program would be:

    1. Accept Brazilification. All that talk about the death of the middle class is real. Now how can it be used?
    2. Continue the trend of higher education as entryway to non-prole life.
    3. End affirmative action and smash everything that tries to promote it. Push Republican entryism. Turn the GOP as much as possible into an anti-affirmative action machine and make sure they mean it. Meanwhile, push rural (i.e. white prole) outreach programs in academia.
    4. Ignore the Asians; they’ll self-segregate into harmless Chinatowns, and the few who won’t will assimilate.
    5. Watch as newly racialized Brazilification + public schools + the fascism of the rich in their own domain leads to the establishment of white enclaves, big-city Oranias, heavily guarded by militarized police ordered to harass anyone who looks like they don’t belong. (This is already happening in NYC.)

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Spot on. But sad.

    Obviously, it leaves a lot of people behind. It works like the myth of how the life-boats on the Titanic were distributed; not enough for everyone and the rich get first dibs (in truth, chivalry reigned).

    And the enclaves don’t have labor-autarky, which – I’m guessing here – is both the ethnonationalists’ solution for the ones that would be left behind, and also what they really want in their enclaves.

    Can you enclave something that resembles an entire upper-midwestern town from the 1950’s?

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    “I’m willing to commit to that kind of segregation.”

    Orania is theirs, if they can hold it. Viva la reconquista!

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Well yeah, OK – you had me looking for a ‘like’ button [apologies for any shudders that caused casual readers]. When did it go wrong for Spain? When Philip married an English Queen? 57% youth unemployment – I honestly don’t get how it’s still standing.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    A ‘like’ button here would be like teets on a bull. Although it would be a bit funny if the like and the dis-like buttons were both wired to down-vote.

    Christopher Reply:

    “The ship’s sailed.”

    Aye aye. Hull down, full sail.

    Next-generation WNs (self-described “WN 2.0”) have concluded that the total victory over the Cathedral (“ZOG”) as currently structured is impossible (they conclude that they’ve lost) and that partition is therefore their best hope. They just differ on the natural cleavages.

    Occidental Dissent from your graph favors the Lost Cause Mark II.

    Others favor a Northwest Front.

    Etc

    “convincing the ethno-nationalists in America to switch reactionary sides”

    Ethno-nationalism is just segregation with a little more de jure on top of the de facto. Don’t see the need for side switching, but maybe I’m missing something.

    Ethno-nationalists want their own country/countries but they don’t have to be *existing* countries.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    Exactly, the point isn’t the make the United States into a white ethnostate, but to secede from it and/or partition it into several countries, one or more of which will be a white ethnostate.

    Take a look at one of those maps where they show the continent of Europe overlaid on top of the continental United States. The United States is huge. We won’t get Texas, but Texas alone is bigger than France and nearly twice the size of Germany.

    There are plenty of areas where setting up a white ethnostate would involve a minimum of unpleasantness, especially since there will be other nearby states for undesirables to voluntarily relocate / self deport to.

    I don’t think you guys are really thinking this one through. The Democratic rainbow coalition is going to be running the country. Affirmative action, social welfare, disparate impact, quotas and set asides, that stuff isn’t going away.

    So we’re not going to have a techno-capitalist future here, as long as the United States continues to exist in its current form. We’re going to have a future of anarcho-tyranny, not techno-capitalism. Unless you believe that Brazil Norte is going to have the cognitive juice to push for the singularity.

    China has the luxury of starting on the techno-commercial future immediately, but the United States won’t be able to contribute in the long term unless it sorts out its demographic problem. If that issue isn’t dealt with we’ll just fade away into another Latin American country that produces no science. The only way to deal with our demographic problem is partition / secession and the creation of an ethnostate, either implicitly or explicitly.

    So I choose ethnostate + techno-commercial future. The only alternative for me is emigration.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    I made the same argument a while ago, and my impression was that our host thinks is that the techno-commercialist elite would find ways to ignore the rainbow coalition and go on pushing for the singularity. The idea is that the state, especially if it becomes Brazil, does not have the capability to stop capitalism. Hence the fascination with bitcoin et al.

    It’s an exciting argument, I wonder though.

    survivingbabel Reply:

    It’s not even secession or partition, but dissolution. Think of the US like Iraq, a collection of people held by force under a single State government. Even in New England, there are secessionist undercurrents. USG is well on the road to financial ruin, so this could potentially happen very organically, but there would still be a lot of death in the chaos.

    Posted on May 1st, 2013 at 12:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Randoms | Foseti Says:

    […] – Lots of good stuff on the dark enlightenment. […]

    Posted on May 1st, 2013 at 2:12 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    By the way I just talked with the Norwegian Nobel Committee and they are not amused.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 1st, 2013 at 10:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Big Bill Says:

    Please compare Christianity and Judaism. The Jews advance a God that is both universal and particular. Judaism is, in effect, a dual caste system in which God has plans for both castes. He insists on rules for the First Caste (the Jews) while having a separate reduced set of rules for the Second Caste (“the Nations”). This reduced set of Jewish laws for the Second Caste are called “the Noachide laws”.

    Under Judaism God does not deny the existence of different castes (Jews versus “the Nations”) but has different plans for each, and hence requires different rules for each caste. 613 laws for Jews and 7 laws (the Noachide laws) for Gentiles.

    To maintain this caste difference under Judaism God requires that certain caste barriers be maintained.

    This system of universalist+ethnoparticularist rules has enabled the Jews to maintain their own “Deep Heritage” for 2000 years.

    The caste walls are not inpenetrable. Some migration into the First Caste (Jews) from the Second Caste (gentiles) is allowed, as long as certain rather severe requirements be met, among which is a confession that one is definitely leaving the Second Caste (the “Nations”) and committing to the First Caste.

    In short, one can be a good Judaist (follower of Jewish law) by being a member of the Second Caste (the “Nations”) and following the Noachide Laws.

    One is NOT, however, a member of the First Caste (the Jews) by doing so. Belief in Judaism and Jewish laws does NOT require a change of caste. Those gentiles that follow Jewish law are called “Righteous Gentiles” by the Jews. And, yes, there is an element of servanthood to the First Caste (JewS) that is required.

    This caste-based nature of Judaism permits many different peoples to live together in harmony, yet follow their own ethnic/tribal/caste interests. Judaism, in short, and unlike Christianity, has the structure of Hinduism but with only two castes.

    The “Christian Identity” movement sensed this inchoate caste arrangement years ago and copied the caste-based structure of Judaism by asserting White Christians (or people of white heritage, generally) as their First Caste, and all others (particularly Negroids and Jews) as their Second Caste. They did not promote or adopt rules for their Second Caste by which they could live in peace with the Second Caste. There are no “Noachide Laws” in the Christian Identity movement–no provision for “Righteous Jews” or “Righteous Blacks”. This permitted the Christian Identity movement to be demonized as racist.

    The two-caste theology of Judaism suggests a way to advance one’s tribal/cultural/racial interests while not oppressing all others and permitting others to follow their interests as well.

    The fundamental idea worth reflecting on is that Judaism is universalist (monotheistic) but with a strong tribal/caste/ethnic component living side-by-side by law.

    A better understanding of the Jewish model may provide a model for our future development by helping resolve the tension between the Theonomist and Ethno-nationalist vectors of the Trisonomy.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    Awesome post.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 1st, 2013 at 3:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Enlightenment News from Around the Web | Occam's Razor Says:

    […] Nick Land on the neoreactionary trichotomy. […]

    Posted on May 1st, 2013 at 4:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • unamused Says:

    the REAL reactionary trichotomy is

    kittehs vs. ferrets

    which is cuter/wrigglier?

    some may say “hey this is only two things NOT three which is a tricohtumy”

    to them i say: do not make me tickle you

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Awesome. As always.

    All these people are wrong about the singularity you know.

    In my Laboratory, I have a machine which will combine the minds, bodies, and souls of the patients that lie on two reserved stretchers. One is labelled, “Unamused”. The other, “Great Books For Men.”

    And when I throw that switch …. it breaks the seventh seal, and it’s the ferretlozllzlzl-ularity.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 1st, 2013 at 5:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    survivingbabel Reply:May 1st, 2013 at 12:44 pm@jim

    My assertion is that “no voice, no exit” is a general feature of all revealed monotheistic religions,

    If you want exit, you are asking for anarcho capitalism. State and religion always marry. They are far too useful to each other. Our first stab at a state without a state religion was Britain after the execution of Charles the first, and that turned out to be more theocratic than ever.

    So, the only solution is to have a relatively innocuous state religion that forcefully suppresses the more dangerous religions. That, or anarcho capitalism.

    [Reply]

    survivingbabel Reply:

    @Jim

    Yes, but this was a non-religious state imposed on a populace that expected and desired their state religion. If we can implement the Patchwork, perhaps an ethno-Christian state may border a techno-futurist state (whose religion, of course, would be Free Marketism.) Under Patchwork rules, these two bordering states should have no interest whatsoever in the lives of each other’s residents; they should only deal as single-actors on the Patchwork stage.

    My assertion about “no voice, no exit” stems from the assumption that any revealed monotheistic religion must inevitably become universalist and expansionist. The heathens to the West can only be tolerated for so long, Monsignor. Of course, the Patchwork has never been tested, so I may be totally wrong about this.

    (“No voice, no exit” would also, of course, apply to the religion of peace and the chosen people.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 1st, 2013 at 9:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    I have some heartburn regarding this discussion of universalism vs. particularism. It isn’t a binary choice. It’s more like a distribution function of how much concern one person has for another as a function of how separated they are by various tribal or religious boundaries. My beef with Progressivism is that there is a double standard. I’m going to try some ASCII art. This may require cutting and pasting into an editor with a fixed-width font (or forcing monospace fonts in Iceweasel).

    Normal people:

    |——|

    | |———|

    concern | | |——–|

    | | | |————|

    | | | | |———–|

    ———————————————————–

    self brother cousin countryman foreigner

    Progressives (“Liberals”), per Steve Sailer:

    |——|

    | |——–|

    concern | | | |—————————-|

    | | | | |

    | | | | |

    ———————————————————–

    self allies countrymen 10′ tall blue space aliens

    What Progressives demand of people who are not members of the Progressive’ votebank:

    | |————|

    | | |

    concern | | |—————————-|

    | | | |

    |——|——–| | |

    ———————————————————–

    self allies enemies 10′ tall blue space aliens

    There needs to be a high degree of reciprocity and trust between two groups of people who are going to live together peacefully and have elections and trial-by-jury. The situation we have now is double standards.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Sailer is good on this stuff. I confess that, whilst laughing at his joke about Libertarians facing an alien invasion — “but do they believe in free markets?” — the natural trend of my sympathies runs similarly. This is obviously the Techno-Commercial / Ethno-Capitalist faultline.
    How would you feel going to war (on the side of ‘your’ people) against an enemy enjoying and representing a substantially higher level of economic freedom?
    Ethno-Nationalists: What’s the problem exactly? They’d probably be easier to kill.
    Techno-Commercialists: What do you mean, ‘enemies’? They’re not invaders, they’re liberators …

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    The Japanese in WW2 had the right idea. “What’s that, Hitler? The Jews run the world? Time to get on their good side and figure out what we can do with them.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2013 at 12:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    My apologies for that ASCII art FAIL.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2013 at 1:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Here’s my uncorrupted ASCII art:

    http://home.earthlink.net/~peter.a.taylor/particular.txt

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s fun, but it precludes rationality to a degree that is simply unrealistic. Do the objective characteristics of different people mean nothing? Somalis and Hong Kong Chinese are both simply ‘distant’ and ‘foreign’? I can’t even get to first base with this.
    Yes, there’s natural tribal skewing, but any sane society wants civilized productive people, and not aggressive dysfunctional parasites. It’s also true that mature liberalism turns this on its head, making an open invitation to aggressive dysfunctional parasites a test of progressive virtue, which is genuine ethnomasochism — the red carpet specifically reserved for frothing anti-capitalist rapists. That really doesn’t have anything to do with ‘otherness’ though, it’s just globalist kakocracy and kakophilia.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    Now THAT is funny…because it’s true.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2013 at 1:19 am Reply | Quote
  • Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian? | Occam's Razor Says:

    […] Land discusses the […]

    Posted on May 4th, 2013 at 1:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Reactionary Consensus? | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] over the past few weeks, we’ve been having much discussion (and here and here and here and here and a zillion other places) in the Reactosphere about the […]

    Posted on May 7th, 2013 at 9:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Reactionary Consensus II: Deep Heritage | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] the second volume of the planned ten part series on the Reactionary Consensus, I cover something Nick Land dubbed “Deep Heritage”. And while I’m not entirely certain that I mean by the phrase precisely the same thing Land […]

    Posted on May 14th, 2013 at 7:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • 2.8 Heroes of the Dark Enlightenment | Radish Says:

    […] 30: Nick Land sketches the boundaries of broad agreement among the new reactionaries, while Spandrell expounds on […]

    Posted on May 25th, 2013 at 12:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish Says:

    […] Nick Land sketches the boundaries of broad agreement, while […]

    Posted on January 1st, 2014 at 5:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Announcing: The Neoreactionary Canon! | This Rough Beast Says:

    […] Trichotomy […]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2014 at 7:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Neoreactionary Canon | More Right Says:

    […] Trichotomy […]

    Posted on February 3rd, 2014 at 2:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Driftforge Says:

    Value truths in tension; treasure the paradox of seemingly contradictory truths that yet remain true. In these is found the flexibility to present the truth required in place and moment, which is inherently different from the truth required at some other time and place. While each truth remains true, the importance and relevance of each truth varies dependant on the situation.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Tension is a motor.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2014 at 11:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Meanwhile, in India … Says:

    […] attention to this yet. That’s odd, upon reflection, because the Modi BJP seems to be juggling Trichotomy issues of a familiar kind within its Hindutva platform, which glues together a quasi-stable raft of […]

    Posted on May 5th, 2014 at 10:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • The tension within neoreaction | spreadtheinfestation Says:

    […] familiar with NRx knows that there is a conflicted “trichotomy” to it: “Christian, Caucasian, and Capitalist.”  Nick Land rightfully asserts that among the […]

    Posted on May 29th, 2015 at 10:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tricotomia – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on July 22nd, 2016 at 11:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Part 13: Meta Reaction. | "The Horror! The Horror!" Says:

    […] http://www.xenosystems.net/trichotomy/ […]

    Posted on October 18th, 2016 at 10:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ascending The Tower – Solo Climb 2 – The Trichotomoy - Social Matter Says:

    […] I had a lot of learning to do… http://www.xenosystems.net/trichotomy/#comment-2796 […]

    Posted on December 4th, 2016 at 1:47 am Reply | Quote
  • STEEL-cameralism v Steel anarchism. – IMPERIAL ENERGY Says:

    […] the ethos, pathos and logos of the elite (and only for the elite) is neither religion or race (Ethno-Nationalism) or “Techno-Commercialism” (Capitalism) but Aristocratic, Militaristic […]

    Posted on May 17th, 2017 at 9:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • STEEL-cameralism v Absolutism Round 2. – IMPERIAL ENERGY Says:

    […] 1. […]

    Posted on June 20th, 2017 at 1:35 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment