Twitter cuts (#79)

Embedded citation: “I don’t have any interest in turning back the clock because I don’t believe it can be done. You can only observe and describe.” — Houellebecq

Anything not dealing with ratchets is wishing modernity away, rather than engaging it.

August 21, 2016admin 31 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Practicalities


31 Responses to this entry

  • pyrrhus Says:

    The Amish seem to be doing pretty well without a lot of modernity….


    Ahote Reply:

    The Amish are parasitic, they don’t have their own state, they are protected by the USA, the most modernist country in the world. At that, they exist only at whim and tolerance of the powers that be… the consequence of residual Classical Liberalism in the USA.


    Posted on August 21st, 2016 at 5:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    This is such a big topic. How does one explain Gandhi or Mandela in this context? Or Betty Friedan, for that matter. I’m sure plenty of people told them, “Oh, make the best of it, don’t complain” etc etc. And now retrospectively, because they won, they are viewed as heroes of social change.

    Gandhi is the most bizarre of them really, because somehow he is both a hero of Hindu placidity AND a social change agent. So depending on the issue the left will say “be mellow like the Buddhists … accept your fate” or “Act for change like Gandhi.”

    Well, my new trolling response is, “TRUMP IS THE WHITE GANDHI.”

    Pinochet was the Latino Gandhi.


    michael Reply:

    I like to point out Gandhi was the Indian Thoreau


    michael Reply:

    this guy might be for real


    SVErshov Reply:

    he even looks like Lee Kuan Yew

    Anonymous Reply:

    As a chilean, Pinochet was trash. Yes, Allende was a socialist and that’s bad, and a decent dictatorship could’ve been great, but that’s not what happened. The military government was incompetent and aligned with foreign globalist interests, made us a USGOV satellite state.

    Perhaps more importantly, the excess cruelty left a traumatized society and created a generational divide that sucks for a lot of reasons, not to mention the overcompensation going on these days (Like Germany).

    Now the Cathedral is deeply entrenched, benefiting greatly from that legacy. I suspect that was the “plan” all along.

    Tangentially related:

    Maybe it was for the best, who knows… In any case, aspirant dictators need to have some modicum of class and nobility if they actually want to help their societies. This is why dictatorship by pseudo altruistic autist nerd, Klansman, soldier boy, etc. is doomed to be sinfully lame, or worse, crypto-Cathedralistic.

    They should be truly brutal-darwinian, if they are going that way. I wouldn’t celebrate them (probably) but at least they would produce something of value in the end.


    Ahote Reply:

    >made us a USGOV satellite state

    It was a US-backed coup, what else could be expected. It beats being USSR satellite state.

    >Perhaps more importantly, the excess cruelty left a traumatized society

    Sure, it could’ve been done more competently, but “the excess cruelty” wouldn’t register as cruelty at all had the FULL Communism arrived. Seen VS unseen.

    >Now the Cathedral is deeply entrenched, benefiting greatly from that legacy. I suspect that was the “plan” all along.

    Probably. Still, would it be any better to be worse economic basket-case than Ecuador?


    michael Reply:

    that sort of depends if youre of the vote hillary nrx team

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >This is why dictatorship by pseudo-altruistic autist nerd, Klansman, soldier boy, etc. is doomed to be sinfully lame, or worse

    Yeah. The reality tunnel of, admittedly, lot of NRx is rather fuckin’ small. Moldbug´s was quite big. Or rather it´s the sub-NRx’: say, the Rx’ and the Fascists’, that is small.

    Optimally conceived Neon-Rx is both too neophile & archeo-vore to sustain a small tunnel. It is thus meta-conservative.

    I´d say it is optimal for intelligent men, when they meet an argumentation on the road, or an argument, to state a concise summary of what is wrong with it — this is another way for me to say: question the half-baked, the nostalgic, the “fuck de System” — do it directly, to the point, and anywhere and everywhere, private and public. Put them to the test. Is their´s half-conceived half-baked “you don´t know how many hours I put into this [screed]!”

    Incidentally, idiot has somewhat the same meaning as autist and solipsist.

    These are retards who haven´t fully formed a character, and cannot answer simple questions about their rhetoric. They rely on peers to maintain the subcultural illusion.

    They fuel themselves on worse cases than themselves: the most ridiculous ‘Liberals’ & Leftists. (Oh and bad news of afflicted Africans, et al. “Society should recognize these people are lower [than even] me. At least [Mussolini] did.”)


    michael Reply:

    culture of critique?

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Separation and Its Discontents

    pyrrhus Reply:

    Excellent trope!


    Posted on August 21st, 2016 at 7:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The Traditionalist perspective: there are certain methods of civilization that work, and anything else is a deviation into failure, specifically becoming more like the Third World.

    It is not past versus present, but right i.e. correct i.e. realistic/functional versus dysfunction, which is the default state of humanity.


    Posted on August 21st, 2016 at 7:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    The black pill is what makes Hbecq NRx rather than Rx.


    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Kaliyuga anti-author


    Posted on August 21st, 2016 at 7:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • wu-wei Says:

    One central thesis in Moldbug’s writing which is somehow often overlooked, even though it is made explicitly clear, is a sort of: “Even if we turn the clock back, what prevents us from degenerating right back to where we are now?”

    Preventing the ratcheting of the political structure is fundamentally an engineering problem, even if in some sense ultimately reducible to judgment and personal authority. Then again, nothing lasts forever…


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    The progressive ratchet is political entropy.


    Posted on August 21st, 2016 at 8:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Have we decided what causes the left ratchet?
    I said its the only direction to go once a civilization is optimized and you want to distinguish yourself, its begins as further improvement by the Enumerate or profligate, once it begins its hard to stop until collapse, at which point the only direction to go is right. technical analysis of markets has something to say crowd psychology of this. A collapse in not necessarily total.


    TheDividualist Reply:

    My take: only external pressure – such as serious wars – can keep any group (civ) cohesive. Lacking that, when people feel too safe, destructive internal competition is unavoidable.

    This is the ultimate reason for why the Cathedral is US-UK centric. It all boils down to having about zero historic experience of a conquering enemy raping their way through the country.

    An excellent counter-example is Russia and not even Dugin, just the average guys. Their whole consciousness is based on the Great Patriotic War. It is all “us” as a country vs. an invading enemy. They find Western leftism-liberalism baffling, looking at how liberals generally find the enemy – the oppressor – WITHIN their own country. Basically they all look like traitors to them.

    The point is, ANY winner in history would fall apart into infighting groups, just like the Anglosphere.


    John Hannon Reply:

    Yes, like what would the world be like now if Hitler had won? Something Axel McKibbin posted here a few days ago about how liberals take the credit for “progress” when “technology was the puppet master all along,” got me thinking about the extent to which LSD was such a powerful social catalyst (I got a first hand insight into this through my personal friendship with the late and much missed Brian Barritt).
    Just imagine – nazis on acid.


    SVErshov Reply:

    ideas distilled from history often have heroic scent. add to it intellectual asceticism in form of renunciation of human security system and here it is – heroic positivism or death wish.


    michael Reply:

    yes too much peace and prosperity breed faggotry


    michael Reply:

    which is why pioneer worked struggle and hardship of a different sort also breed cooperation ingenuity etc
    and probably why the cathedral is always in some sort of actually or memetic war

    Brett Stevens Reply:


    Once civilization creates safety, its leaders are unwilling to exercise the strong power they need to, which is exiling not just the outright defectives but the milquetoast idiots and other saps who eventually become leftist.

    Societies are always intolerant, but never in the right way: intolerant of nonsense, and willing to exile (or behead: who cares) fools, charlatans and imbeciles who while law-abiding are parasites or incompetents.


    Posted on August 21st, 2016 at 9:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    @Brett Stevens Just so! But Professor Greg Clark is pretty persuasive in arguing that it took more than a millennium of ruthless Malthusian winnowing, in a highly structured environment that discouraged tribalism, to create 18th century Britain and the technological modern world. Those conditions will not be easy to replicate….


    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    That´s a horrific determination. I´ve seen it made before.

    Britain isn´t in South Europe, but the Greeks trace their people and manners to the North. The ancient world did have some mechanical devices, all it needed was fire and water to make steam.

    That would make an industrial revolution something which could come forth under the right conditions. Could have been the Chinese, could have been one of dozens of advanced civilizations, but they didn´t have the belief in progress like Victorian Britain. And succumbed to diseases, natural disasters, chemical poisoning (the Romans e.g. did from some metal they used to make cups/bowls).

    Are you reporting the argumentation that it were even *harsher* conditions that brought forth steam in Britain?

    I would think it would need the add of Christianity for the idea of linear historical progress (reportedly Romans were not interested in technological development, but I find that hard to believe. How otherwise would they be as technologically advanced as they were, with running water into homes and steaming bath, and somewhat unsurpassed architecture. This seems like a “traditionalist” argument, and “traditionalism” shuns technology, which is strange since it shuns not techne, not ascetic & philosophy skill anyway — altho by 1961 Evola had drawn up all sorts of asceticism, such as the asceticism of sport, and the asceticism of capital and technology. He never did call himself a ‘traditionalist’ though, and argued against many of them. He was already more modern in 1927 than most people are even today). Indeed, as someone said on Twitter today, Britain, or Victorian Britain had a special puritanical relationship with sexual attitudes & mores; which brings me to say that many have linked such with technological progress. — the repression of sexuality would seem to create a lot of extra time for other pursuits. For contrast see ‘our’ sex-obsessed gynaecocratic culture of today. Bonobo culture, someone said.

    It took the weird idea of progress by work, or heavenly reward for work, to bring forth a society with the idea of a singularity/heaven in the background.

    We see here how technological progress can be traced to Christian-provided or Christian-exasperated norms, as well as social pseudoprogress and some actual social progress (capitalism > slavery. And improved working conditions leading to more consumers, thus more demand for various products, such as the aristocrats shunned. Indeed more free workers correlates with more capitalism. Cf. Smith, Hayek).


    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    It seems clear that our problem is Communism lite.

    False progress. False dawn.


    michael Reply:

    the romans had steam engines, and water powered factories they were within a few generations of iphones before they let niggers overun them.


    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yes, only dirt-shoveling hardship will get us forward.

    Build cabins in the harshest conditions. Malthusian pressure will beget…

    “The Roman Empire was one of the most technologically advanced civilizations of antiquity, with some of the more advanced concepts and inventions forgotten during the turbulent eras of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Gradually, some of the technological feats of the Romans were rediscovered and/or improved upon, while others went ahead of what the Romans had done during the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Modern Era. Several Roman technological feats in different areas like civil engineering, construction materials, transport technology, and some inventions such as the mechanical reaper, were surprising achievements until the 19th century.”
    This is encyclopedia tier stuff, but often forgotten by even the brightest minds.


    ▬ „Prior to 1790, Clark asserts, man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations.

    In Britain, however, as disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy. In that way, according to Clark, less violent, more literate and more hard-working behaviour — middle-class values — were spread culturally and biologically throughout the population. This process of “downward social mobility” eventually enabled Britain to attain a rate of productivity that allowed it to break out of the Malthusian trap. Clark sees this process, continuing today, as the major factor why some countries are poor and others are rich.”

    Proletarii: those who only contribute to society through reproduction (as opposed to innovation, genius).

    It would seem according to this theorem that a proletarian die-off is optimal.

    Seems like a very anti-Socialist affair, if not a anti-Nationalist one.

    ▬ „Matt Ridley has argued in the context of race and intelligence, that the hypothesis that, for example, Ashkenazi Jews experienced genetic selection effects for higher numeracy and literacy abilities is no more implausible than the hypothesis that Inuit experienced genetic selection for tolerance to a cold climate, and argued that selection can operate faster than people previously thought possible.”

    It would see like police killing off the subintellectual is genetic cleansing.

    However { disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy. In that way, according to Clark, less violent, more literate and more hard-working behaviour — middle-class values }
    — did this not happen everywhere, before Socialism? Before what he calls ‘alms’?

    Then what is the special British mix of ingredients? It wouldn´t seem like this one.

    It does seem that these things come in universal trends, and somebody has to be the first to hit the providential jackpot (a plateau passing converge). See for instance, how after one agricultural giant-monument building civilization enters the human fray, that after some time there are dozens.

    With the industrial trend it were especially the British, replaced or continued by the American, and then the Chinese. And after a proletarian die-off, a dozen of these will occupy the planet, after harsh chemical alterations (unlivable conditions) & unsentimental technological ‘warfare’.*

    * New market “hi-I.Q.-requiring” hypercompetition.

    As they say, disruptions, die-off, domestication. Homo Economicus.

    “Collin studied the sequence of European civilizations, finding a pattern which would follow a planetary scale where the times are 10 times longer than in the case of human life. His sequence starts following Toynbee’s but soon he changes some aspects, trying to follow his said pattern. Thus, his list begins with the Greeks (with roots on the Egyptian, which he considers the last one in the previous sequence), then the Romans, the Primitive Christians, the Monastic Christians, the Medieval Christians, the Renaissance and the Synthetic”.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Speaking of the synthetic, here´s a remix “I” did of different theorems:

    “An inexorable trend occurred throughout the human history: political units strove to grow larger in size and fewer in number. The trend actually represents a process of the ongoing political unification of the world. Leafing through pages of historical atlases, this trend strikes the observer. With mathematical regularity appeared record-breaking empires in terms of both territory and population — new impressions of, and to, the Universal from Heaven.

    The Peace of Westphalia (1648) is taken conventionally as marking the end of medieval universalism and the origin of the modern state system. The medieval to modern transition entailed the territorialization of politics, the replacement of overlapping, vertical hierarchies by horizontal, geographically defined sovereign states (Anderson 1996; Jarvis and Paloni 1995). “[T]he spatial scope of political organization has not been set for all time in a particular mode. The territorial state is not a unit beyond historical time.” (Agnew 1994:65)

    The Jews were, in effect, among the world’s first free agents. they traditionally belonged to a social and anthropological category known as service nomads, (alongside other groups such as the Armenians, overseas Chinese, Gypsies) as a Mercurian people specializing exclusively in providing services to the surrounding food-producing majorities, characterized as Apollonians. this division is recurring in pre-20th century societies. with the exception of the Gypsies, these Mercurian peoples have all enjoyed great socioeconomic success relative to the average among their hosts, and have all, without exception, attracted hostility and resentment. a recurring pattern of the relationship between Apollonians and Mercurian people is that the social representation of each group by the other is symmetrical. for instance Mercurians see Apollonians as somewhat “brutish” while Apollonians see Mercurians as quite “effeminate”. Mercurians develop a culture of national myths to cultivate their separation from the Apollonians, which allows them to provide international services (intermediaries, diplomacy) or services that are taboo for the local Apollonian culture (linked to death, magic, sexuality or banking). since the dawning of the Modern age, Mercurians have taken center stage. Slezkine develops this thesis by arguing that the Jews, the most successful of these Mercurian peoples, have increasingly influenced the course and nature of Western societies, particularly during the early and middle periods of Soviet Communism, and that modernity can be seen as a transformation of Apollonians into Mercurians. Slezkine argues, modernity is all about Apollonians becoming Mercurians—urban, mobile, literate, articulate, intellectually intricate, physically fastidious, and occupationally flexible. since no group has been more adept at Mercurianism than the Jews, these exemplary ancients are now model moderns.

    Territorial sovereignty is not historically privileged. There have been other bases for the organization of political and economic authority in the past. This is already the case, and more so in the future.
    It may be more reasonable to look at modern forms of international political and economic organization as a detour (Evola’s interregnum) rather than an evolutionary step. The modern era may be a window which is about to slam shut. Guehenno (1995:4), for example, argues that the nation state is an ephemeral political form, “a European exception, a precarious transition between the age of kings and the ‘neo-imperial’ age.”

    Max Ostrovsky saw the world entering a Planetary Phase of Civilization (2006) with civilization representing a global and post-tribal war, thus ‘finalized’ system. Having compared four civilizations—Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and the Mediterranean—he finds that in world history there were two synchronous processes—external expansion and internal unification. Expansion could outpace unification but the gap between the two process was doomed to close due to the fact that the space of the earth is definite. The space ended circa 1900 and civilization became global and closed—condition which will remain to the end of history. Within less than a century, the global civilization overcame the centuries-old balance of power and reached its unipolarity. The thesis finds the paradigm of inevitable fall of civilizations and empires to be Western and Eurocentric. Geopolitically closed civilizations—ancient Egypt and China—neither fell nor lost their unity for long during two-and-a-half millennia of their circumscribed existence, until they were engulfed by larger civilizations—Egypt by the Indo-Mediterranean and China by the global. Since our civilization, being global, can neither expand nor be engulfed by a larger civilization, its future pattern is likely to be modeled on these two civilizations—millennia-long political unity interrupted by evanescent intermediate periods.

    In an attempt to better understand what a Planetary Phase of Civilization might look like in the current context of declining natural resources and increasing consumption, the Global scenario group used scenario analysis to arrive at three archetypal futures: Barbarization, in which increasing conflicts result in either a fortress world or complete societal breakdown; Conventional Worlds, in which market forces or Policy reform slowly precipitate more sustainable practices; and a Great Transition, in which either the sum of fragmented Eco-Communalism movements add up to a sustainable world or globally coordinated efforts and initiatives result in a new sustainability paradigm. “

    Posted on August 22nd, 2016 at 5:53 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment