Twitter cuts (#47)

Just using this as a link-transporter:


This isn’t meant to be snarky — both writers are XS favorites.

January 28, 2016admin 49 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

49 Responses to this entry

  • Ahote Says:

    But, *our* central planing is going to work ’cause… reasons.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Chris B has a very bad case of not groking economics, so don’t judge him too harshly…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    As a Carlylean, I suspect he’d categorize “groking economics” as “pig philosophy”.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Chris B’s intellectual evolution throughout the last couple of years is quite peculiar.

    In 2014 he was one of the most vocal opponents of Anissimov’s brand of “just put the right guy in power”-reaction, just to come full circle and advocate the same thing a year later…

    admin Reply:

    I’m not at all clear about whether that position is based upon a denial that Moldbug’s NeoCam rigorously subordinates the CEO (‘Monarch’) to sovereign property stockholders, or a disagreement with Moldbug over the model. “Find the right guy for CEO” seems an unobjectionable goal, but that’s for stockholders to decide, isn’t it? It’s a straightforward corporate hiring decision. Why all the heated furor about it? Formalism is an explicit call to get the corporate organization right, not to start messing about with staffing decisions — which is exactly where democracy gets lost.

    Ahote Reply:

    Sure does seem so. I understand what he’s trying to say. I happen to disagree. You can’t dispel the law of supply and demand with heroic magick.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 10:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Neo Soliar Says:

    NRx is dead. No one should use the id any more. I have been disappointed by the decline in quality over the past few years. At this point the only difference between NRx , and the general alt right is the amount of time spent on da j00s. Modern NRx “old guards” seem to have read almost none of Moldbug’s writings save the basics, let alone understood any of it. Do you think Moldbug approves of things like Hestia? During my chats with him I would say that he certainly has no interest in anything of the sort. There was more to NRx than Moldbug, but NRx is not recognizable.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    If it’s dead now it was never alive, in fact it was never even born. One marginal weblogger (or three) does not a movement (or w/e that it purports to be) make. And contrary to your assertion, it seems that NRx is more clearly Moldbuggian now than it was in purported “good ‘ol days,” when the term was very fuzzy. Seems to me that one characteristic of supposedly One True NRx® people is being a massive whiner.

    [Reply]

    Neo Soliar Reply:

    This is the problem Nrx in the “good ‘ol days,” was never intended to be a movement. Yet that is what everyone makes of it.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That idiocy has mostly finished now (thanks in no small part to the rise of HRx and the Alt-Right).

    Ahote Reply:

    Then what’s the problem? If it was all about reading insightful writings, and only about reading insightful writings, anyone can still do that. Complete Moldbug, Foseti, and Handle, then go for The Old Books™. You’ll get to understand many things, and won’t change anything (but that’s not the point, right?).

    chris b Reply:

    @ahote like it is that simple. The problem you have is Moldbug has been systematcally misrepresented, even his early stuff has only very, very tentative connection with what Admin is pushing. By tentative, I mean you have to distort it and cut bits out to an obscene degree. If the aims is to have a bunch of anarchists jabbering about bitcoin constitutions and DAOs in a techno re-run of the reformation, then…yawn. Been there, done that and got the postcard with the interracial gay pozz chasers/ muslim gag rape orgy on it. This time it will be different because of AI/ automated republicanism etc….except sovereignty is conserved? Which is a direct refutation of this, is it not?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You edit out this (and this) material with a thoroughness that at least equals any excisions made from the other side.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    @Chris B
    I happen to agree with you à propos Admin. Problem is that Admin has far too much influence on NRx, which is, of course, a consequence of his fame (as the “most important British philosopher of the last twenty years”) and status (as the writer of “The Dark Enlightenment”). What’cha’ gonna do? As I see it, you would have to out-status him in order to be able to override his influence (which is probably impossible at this point).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’d recommend putting something on the table first, and ankle-biting second (if at all). It’s the positive statement that’s going to influence people, not the stubborn nagging at something you disagree with — however meritoriously.

    Ahote Reply:

    @admin
    I’m very lazy. So, long story short. Firstly, I think that you’re woefully misinformed. You’re blind to the fragility of our technology. I don’t blame you. You’re, after all, a philosopher, who possibly hangs out with programmers from time to time, but not electrical engineers, nor electronics engineers. To anyone who understands how electrical and electronic systems work, the entire concept of Blockchain Constitution seems laughable. Secondly, you are quite obviously opposed to social conservatism. Thirdly, you are opposed to thedism. Sure, you may think that caucasians and asians cooperate quite nicely. And, they do… until they don’t. Now, to be fair, I suppose that you think Patchwork solves the problems two and three (but, without two and three Neoreaction isn’t much more than AnCap+Memetics, then again that is exactly accusation leveled at you, is it not?). Not to mention that by denying that two and three are part of NRx, you are denying insights gained from HBD, evolutionary psychology, and research into various stats performed over the years by people in the ‘sphere.

    frank Reply:

    If influence over NRx was a function of fame and status as you suggest, why would we take part in a fringe heresy (primary property) of a fringe heresy (ancap) of a marginalized ideology? Wouldn’t we just read Steven Pinker or Noam Chomsky, and call it a day? I think admin’s influence is due to his hyper realist theology. Most of us in the NRx are priests after all–not warriors. AFAIK there’s no competitor product for what he’s selling.

    Ahote Reply:

    @frank
    Why were some (like admin), loosing their head over crumbs of attention given to them by Scott Alexander? And there you have it. After all, humans, neoreactionary or not, are just apes. Apes gonna ape. Simple as that.

    admin Reply:

    “… loosing [sic] their head over crumbs of attention given to them by Scott Alexander” — You have a cite for that? Because I’m quite sure [in my case] it didn’t happen.

    frank Reply:

    Sure, ape MO is prestige hierarchy. But the nature of the prestige that governs the ordering is key. Prestige in NRx community is by and large gained by providing insight about subjects that appeal to people that find Dark Enlightenment appealing. Fame is a post hoc explanation for high status in NRx. If Richard Dawkins started quoting Moldbug, we would be very amused. However, if he couldn’t add anything new or insightful to the conversation, we’d get bored rather quickly. It’s like reading mainstream media. First you follow it because of the network effect. Then you see it’s mostly empty. Then you start reading only headlines and infer the content. Then you stop reading altogether.

    Chris B Reply:

    @admin actually, Moldbug edits out most of it himself. His early stuff is inconsistent with such things as “sovereignty is conserved” and “formalism” (which is formalisng the sovereign) as is the influence from Hobbes. Or rather, it is skin shedding stage before reaction. Reading about Italian fascist intellectuals, and the same development seems visible with them, only less extreme (reject Positivism for Actual Idealism -> conclude a state is needed as class organisation is bunk-> propose Hyper Hobbes -> hey presto fascism.) So, what you are trying to do by halting it at hyper hobbes is to follow the same direction as syndiclists and nationalists such as Sergio Panunzio with their move into corporatism (except you are millitantly holding onto the hyper-individual and not concetrating on the production aspect of economics, which is a reflection of different priorities, I guess?)

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 11:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Hostem Populi Says:

    Neoreaction is the inverse of a cat, having nine deaths instead of lives.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    damn, that’s good.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 12:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Froude Society Says:

    HRx will bury you liberal quislings! Whiggery must be destroyed in all its manifestations, it is only we who are ideologically pure Reactionaries. NRx cannot recruit alliances with the rest of the far-Right like we can, neither does it provide the aesthetic and moral backbone for a new Brahminate.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’ve always been highly supportive of HRx, and see no reason to cease being so. It keeps NRx small, which is a great service, and highly appreciated. (First use of #HRx hash-tag, encouraging mass conversion to the cause, was on the Outsideness twitter account, you’ll find.)

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Yeah, I would prefer not to be considered under the NRx/HRx/ trike umbrella at all. I don’t see how my line of investigation and theory has anything to do with any of it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 1:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • wenshuang Says:

    @admin re HRx, I get the utility, your ability to suppress disgust is second only to spider girl

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s not possible to meaningfully say “Hey, why don’t you go over there?” unless there’s an over there.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 1:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Twitter cuts (#47) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 2:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • wenshuang Says:

    Any chance we can weaponize metaJudaism to fortify that distinction? I think Bryce made a descriptive graphic about this. If that doesn’t work, can we lay the sperg on thicker?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 3:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    >Neoreaction is too much of a muddled label nowadays.

    I still haven’t figured out who uses the Neoreaction label and who uses the Dark Enlightenment label, how much they overlap or whatever, but while it is obviously comfortable to just type NRx, three characters, beyond this laziness, I like the Dark Enlightenment label more.

    You see, Neoreaction as a label may sound like yet another political ideology or movement, a bunch of people wanting something or hating or liking someone (it isn’t, but may sound like), while the Dark Enlightenment suggests scholarship, more interest in figuring stuff out than playing politics, it suggests distance and a neutral, disinterested pursuit of difficult truths. Dark Enlightenment is not a party, Neoreaction shouldn’t be but may be misunderstood so. It is safer to use DE because saying something like “all Dark Enlightenmenters should campaign for Trump!” at least sounds obviously moronic, while “support the Neoreactionary candidate!” doesn’t sound as moronic as it should.

    Sure, being a reactionary sounds like someone impressive, like a von Metternich, aw yiss, while Dark Enlightenment scholarship sounds more geeky and neutered. I don’t really like that, but I think politics needs more geeky scholarship and less, well, politics.

    Besides I was criticizing Enlightenment Values for about 10 years now under various accounts. Love to have found a label that sounds 100% about that.

    My only gripe: what the fuck is a dark light? Doesn’t that sound borderline retarded?

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    >My only gripe: what the fuck is a dark light? Doesn’t that sound borderline retarded?

    Invisible radiation?

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    A symbol immediately suggests itself: the unlit candle.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 4:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    NRX improves democracy by adding skin in the game and removing the pretense of anything but a property-based order. However, the democracy of stockholders will still have the problems of regular democracy.

    AltRight looks for a restoration of royalism when it is honest, but without a strong free market, that will become another dependency state.

    Devil’s in the details as usual.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    Exit solves the problem of bad governance, whether it’s the bad governance of the many or of the few

    [Reply]

    grey enlightenment Reply:

    Moldbug has mentioned several times about the US govt. or ‘state’ being analogous to a giant corporation. The next step is to ‘formalize’ it, almost contractually , especially regarding to property rights and rule of law. .Seems similar to Rothbar or Hans-Hermann Hoppe


    In Democracy Hoppe describes a fully libertarian society of “covenant communities” made up of residents who have signed an agreement defining the nature of that community. Hoppe writes “There would be little or no ‘tolerance’ and ‘openmindedness’ so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property”. Hoppe writes that towns and villages could have warning signs saying “no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus”.[23][24]

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 6:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mariani Says:

    I’ve joked before about the “second coming of Moldbug,” but it’s seeming more and more like something to actually keep my fingers crossed about

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You think he would (or does) have authoritative status in regards to the interpretation of his work? I’m not at all sure whether there are any solid philosophical foundations for such an assertion. ‘Formalism’ seems, in any case, to explicitly prevent any such thing. No one should care what Gödel thought about the meaning of the incompleteness theorem on his death bed. It’s a formal system, and is what it is. Neocameral political philosophy is no different. My sense is that Yarvin fully understands that.

    This isn’t, of course, to suggest that his current thinking wouldn’t be interesting or (potentially) important in its own right. Well-constructed theoretical edifices, however, are immune to belated “what I really meant was …” amendments.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    I’m not talking about him setting the record straight on what he said. I am talking about him returning to inject a well-constructed, thoughtful philosophical core into a system of ideas that seems like its sizzle-to-steak ratio is getting higher and higher.

    Moldbug’s ideas make sense a priori. That’s why we need more of them.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 6:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_neo-reactio.html

    In 2010, Arnold Kling described ‘neo-reaction’ as having elements of neoconservatism, and while ‘neoconservatism’ has become almost a recent years, to some degree seems accurate. For the techno-commercialism faction, NRx could be viewed as neoconservatism meets HBD. Or, for the traditionalists and nationalists, as paloeoconservatism, but with more HBD and a possible monarchy. Although I think the monarchy concept has been discarded; few seem to discuss it anymore. It will be interesting to see what happens

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Neoconservatism”? — really? AnCap + HBD seems far more plausible.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Regarding monarchy, or any specific form of state, it really depends on the situation involved. I see no reason for post-state panarchy to be uniform in size, shape or composition; their ordering would be as different as the people who made them up and their goals. Personally, I’m not inclined to any society without a warrior aristocracy, as I think Aryans do it best and blondes have more fun, but it seems like the Chinesians do fine with their semi-corporate autocracies and such. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, or flay a liberal.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 6:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Politics is Power.

    That’s all.

    To view Politics through any other lens but Power distorts and deceives.

    Even money. Money is just the price of the venal that Power pays. That we have so much venality is simply and sadly due to “Intellectuals being Humanity’s eternal race of whores” as Moldbug said.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2016 at 12:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Although I don’t care for him Scott Adams you know has a great Master Persuader series going.

    Look at his persuasion stack. Notice Reason is useless. Identity Trumps it, at present literally.
    ===========================

    Persuasion Stack

    Identity (best)

    Analogy (okay, not great)

    Reason (useless)

    Definition (capitulation)

    You’ll see a lot of debate on whether Trump is a true conservative or not. That is argument by definition. It is the linguistic equivalent of throwing your gun at a monster because the magazine* is empty.

    National Review’s cover story, in which the big question comes down to whether Trump is a true conservative or not, is your tell for capitulation on the right.

    The left is still in the fight, but the right just capitulated to Trump.

    In the 2D world, it might seem that National Review’s organized resistance of “thought leaders” opposed to Trump is a big deal. But that incorrectly assumes “thought” was ever important. In the 3D world of persuasion, National Review’s move is nothing but throwing the gun at the monster.

    On some level, people can feel that.

    Update: Some of you asked why “conservative” is not a valid identity play. It is an identify of sorts, but one that is cobbled together from ideas. It is not the same level as gender, race, or nation. People can stop being conservative in ten minutes, if they choose.

    The persuasion stack is an approximation. Assume there is always some reason and some identity in all the levels.

    *Edited from “clip” to “magazine” by popular demand.{== means 2d amendment types are commenting.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2016 at 12:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • snorlax Says:

    Moldbug started out as a neocon, and indeed it makes the most sense to read UR as a disillusioned ex-neocon’s explanation for why neocons have always failed at their stated goals.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 29th, 2016 at 9:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dick Wagner Says:

    How open is this case?

    http://www.xenosystems.net/open-secret/

    [Reply]

    et.cetera Reply:

    Thank you for linking that, it cleared up a lot of things.
    A case of Émile Lacan it is.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    To be continued … (definitely)

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2016 at 3:34 am Reply | Quote
  • Dick Wagner Says:

    I hope when your complot has been fulfilled here you write a Strauss book on par with your Bataille book.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2016 at 11:00 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment