War and Truth (scraps)

“War is computation with tanks. War is truth revealing. As war proceeds uncertainty collapses.”
— Konkvistador (on Twitter)

“You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
— Lenin

“War is deception.”
— Sunzi

Neoreactionaries are often talking about ‘oikos’ tacitly, even when they think they are concerned with something closer to the opposite. For there to be an ‘economy’ much has already to have been settled. (Unlike his liberarian precursors, Moldbug never assumes peace, but he betrays his inheritance by conceiving it as an original task — a foundation.) “Begin from the inside” — that’s the idea. The Outside is war.

War is the truth of lies, the rule of rulelessness, anarchy and chaos as they are in reality (which is nothing at all like a simple negation of order). It is the ultimate tribunal, beyond which any appeal is a senseless prayer to the void. A ‘realism’ that resists such conclusions makes a mockery of the name.

Peace is a certain way war can turn out, for a while, and nothing more.

As the social institution oriented to reality in the raw, the military has a latent authority that everyone recognizes (implicitly). Whenever military government does not rule, it is because of a provisional non-emergency (Schmitt). This is not seriously disputable.

An aristocracy is a social arrangement that was decided by war, and when the war is forgotten the institution has no sustainable meaning. There is only one thing that can ‘bring back’ a king, and that is the end of peace.

The East India companies (Dutch and English) ran armies, because war was internal to economics as they practiced it. That was ‘colonialism’ (in the James Donald sense). Once the separation between war and commerce has been hardened into standard business procedures (and the imperialism that screens them from the outside), capitalism has surrendered its always-inexplicit claim to sovereignty, and thus to the future. There is no way it can be re-animated except out of the raw. This, above all, is why libertarianism cannot be saved from its own non-seriousness.

The horror of war is that there are ‘no rules’. Anything is permitted, and the worst even becomes necessary. To think this is no lesser a challenge than the metaphysical engagement with the ‘thing-in-itself’ — and perhaps it is exactly the same thing. But then, it becomes important to ask: So how does it work? There are rules, but we misunderstood what rules really are (what ultimate rules are). In the end, it is the order of anarchy that rules. In order to comprehend any of this the peacetime soul must be reduced entirely to ashes, for something else to arise in its place. It is this task that Neoreaction is compelled to take up, and which it has — in several different ways — already taken up. Peace is the objective correlate of the deluded mind.

If war is the worst thing in the world, and the truth, then everything that isn’t horror is a lie.

January 19, 2014admin 39 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized


39 Responses to this entry

  • piwtd Says:

    Not to deny the logic of your argument, but it seems to me that the ultimate conclusion of that line of thinking is vicious circularity. I remember reading Hitler’s Table Talks where he talked about how it was necessary for the Reich to invade some region to secure some resource which has strategic importance for Germany and so on, and I was thinking “why invade them? why not just buy the resource? every country is glad to export its products, isn’t it? That’s right, they won’t sell you the resource because they know you’ll use it to built tanks to invade them, that’s why you need the resource in the first place.” There is a very unpleasant equilibrium, where powers war over resources they need not to get destroyed by other powers for no other reason than to eliminate a competition for those resources. Players being paranoid about each other’s paranoia for no other reason than that they know that others might attack them out of the fear of being attacked first for the very same reason. There has to be a stopping point to this logic where one says “why can’t we just all get along” otherwise one disintegrates into madness, black hole of negativity.


    admin Reply:

    Advocating war isn’t really the issue, surely?


    James A. Donald Reply:

    Peace is irrational, requires a leap of faith, requires trust. One ever popular method of generating trust is the toast.

    Alcohol being the most ancient and still the most effective truth serum, people who need to trust each other engage in social rituals where they have to knock back equal amounts of alcohol.

    Hard, however, to trust people different from oneself, who have been brought up on different stories. Harder still if they do not speak the same language.


    SGW Reply:

    This line of thinking doesn’t necessarily need to lead to war. Conflict is only really chosen over trade when one side is unable to provide a proper deterrent or when one side is mostly indifferent to the costs of conflict. This is why typically neither the army nor the average citizen or politician attempts to claim sovereignty. When corporations consider whether it is better to make a product or to buy it from someone else they frequently go for the latter, despite the uncertainty involved in being dependent on an external actor, when the price is reasonable and the (opportunity) cost of starting up their own production facilities are comparatively high.

    States tend to be quite capable of raising the cost of getting into the sovereignty business within their territory, so most states default to trade, and conflicts between states are primarily caused by (irrational) actors with a high level of indifference to the cost of conflict or are between healthy and failed/weak states. In the case of Nazi Germany it was their believe that the USSR would conquer them if they did nothing, and the possibility of a quick peace with the UK, that caused them to consider another world war as being an acceptable price to pay for it’s continued existence.


    James A. Donald Reply:

    Xenophon, a warrior, mercenary, bandit, general, and an economist, observed it was always cheaper to buy stuff than to kill for it, but sometimes, people just will not let you trade with them.

    World War II was in part caused by the irrational preference of the fascists for stealing stuff rather than buying it, in part caused by trade barriers and embargoes.


    Handle Reply:

    The Japanese were notable for their fanatical and irrational preferences for petroleum, rubber, hemp, and other commodities: things for which they had become increasingly desperate by late 1941.

    Of course, not as fanatical and irrational as their preference to maintain sovereignty over all their imperial possessions. That was the deal from the Allies since Mukden. “Get out and go back to your mainland islands, or be Starved of raw materials, or War.” They chose the last option.

    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 5:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Antisthenean Says:


    Embrace the black hole. The black hole is good.



    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 9:20 am Reply | Quote
  • Red Says:

    “The horror of war is that there are ‘no rules’. Anything is permitted, and the worst even becomes necessary.”

    On that you are quite wrong. Almost all wars are limited wars with certain rules that largely observed by both sides. The breakdown in limited war came as progressive clawed their way into power using total warfare to win.

    Human groups act like troops killer apes and it often takes quite terrifying displays of destruction to get some groups of monkeys to submit. Almost all atrocities are done on this basis.

    War is the primarily genetic shaping tool in human history. It’s driven our evolution since we became the apex predator to end all predators. Unless we’re ready to write our own DNA, war will always be a terrifying and necessary thing.


    nydwracu Reply:

    Is there a good history of war limitations anywhere? I suspect that would be informative — and, if disseminated widely enough, could make some things break in interesting ways…

    On that note, add Fate/Zero to the list of cryptofascist anime, if there is one, which I hope there isn’t.


    Handle Reply:

    There are plenty. Here’s a quick start, go to section VII – Origins of Jus in Bello.

    For the Union civil war version, look up the Lieber Code (named after a German philosopher), which heavily influenced the Hague Conventions half a century later. It is short and contains within it a good expression of the ideals of civilized warfare.

    Then again, it contains such gems as, “17. War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy.”

    Of course, the ‘arc of history’ becomes ever more restrictive. The LC was meant to restrict the tactics used before it’s enactment, but a lot of what was permitted under the LC is now clearly illegal. In WWII – the US can burn Dresden and Tokyo to the ground, vaporize Hiroshima, etc. and it’s not seen as legally doubtful.

    If you ever read “Rules for Radicals” (review coming … someday), Alinsky expresses the ultimate form of situational meta-ethics where morality is a kind of luxury. When the circumstances permit you various options that all lead to achievement of your objective, you should choose the more honorable path and avoid unnecessary cruelty and viciousness. But if they don’t, then feel free to do what you must.

    In this way, Jus in Bello has proceeded in the same way as Defendant’s Constitutional Rights of Criminal Procedure. As the capability of armies and police expand, the courts feel free to tighten the constraining-rules-leash somewhat, in the expectation that the enforcers will still be able to adjust to the new, more restrictive rules, yet still do their job.

    And that’s fine and good. Except, people tend to move from seeing new ‘honorable options’ as solutions to a moral calculus, and eventually come to view them as strict, dogmatic prohibitions that must never be violated even when the situation changes.

    Observe how the technological-jurisprudential feedback creates the illusion of moral progress that goes along with capability-progress under the principle. The parasite tick always grows fatter when the puppy grows and produces a dog-sized blood supply. The police get a more accurate technique (say, DNA-forensics), so the court deems exclusive reliance upon the previous inferior technique (say, witness testimony) as insufficient and thus, while once ubiquitous based on necessity, now unconstitutional.

    We can all feel morally superior to our ancestors for our extra care for the accused. But of course, they cared just as much, and if you dropped DNA-forensics on them, it’s not like they would have rejected it out of their moral backwardness and callousness. They would have started using it right away too.

    That’s definitely a ratchet, because new capabilities tend not to go away. And when you add up all the ratchets, it looks like we’re getting more enlightened all the time and superior to our predecessors. In actuality, our refined ethical practices are merely enabled and subsidized by progress in more concrete realms, things our forebears didn’t have the luxury of enjoying.


    piwtd Reply:

    There used to be a time when the legal system would torture people to get them to confess the crime that does not exist (witchcraft). In Athens a testimony of a slave was only admissible if he had been subjected to torture. This does not fall into “tough but in absence of DNA evidence necessary” category, it is pure barbarity that is actually counterproductive to establishing the truth, surly there has been some moral progress.

    Handle Reply:


    In your examples, it’s hard to distinguish between moral progress and rational-knowledge progress. When the legal system stops believing in witchcraft, that’s not a moral choice, it’s a metaphysical / empirical one.

    When the legal system stops countenancing torture because its evidentiary value is weak, that is also an empirical matter, not a moral one. That one ought to avoid unnecessary cruelty is a moral postulate. But whether it is in fact unnecessary is an empirical question. Accumulating more facts about necessity is knowledge-progress, not moral progress.

    The moral assertion and question is, ‘Torture is usually immoral, but ought we to torture anyone in any circumstance, even during exigent circumstances, and even when it is likely to be necessary to produce critical and accurate information? If so, under what conditions is it justified, and to what extent?” Judge Posner once said that, while we should make it illegal, he wouldn’t support the punishment of a Chicago cop that punched a kidnapper until the criminal revealed the location of a child left to die of exposure’.

    At any rate, I was taught that Greek βάσανος (‘a purity testing stone’ – ‘under fear of torment’) was a legal fiction equivalent to to the latin subpoena (‘under pain’ – similar to ‘penalty’, related to paenitere ‘to be sorry’, as in ‘penance’), which has carried forward to be the basis of compulsion of testimony and sentence for perjury (‘false oath’) in our common law today.

    That is, the Athenians weren’t actually barbaric, cruel, and irrational, and that people who thought they were, were probably making a mistake of interpretation of the ancient texts.

    Instead, their legal system threatened slaves with torture if they refused to testify, or if they were discovered to have lied and borne false witness, and the great orators observed this was highly effective. The Romans made the same threat, using the same phrase. And while our modern ‘pains’ are not corporal – mostly involving fines and incarceration for judicial contempt – they are sufficiently discouraging nonetheless. One the other hand, I’d probably prefer a caning to a year in jail, so it is bias to dogmatically declare the imposition of physical punishment to be a priori more ‘inhumane’.

    VXXC Reply:

    ” As the capability of armies and police expand, the courts feel free to tighten the constraining-rules-leash somewhat, in the expectation that the enforcers will still be able to adjust to the new, more restrictive rules, yet still do their job. ”

    Respectfully – You’re wrong. We didn’t do our job. To the extent it was done others did it.

    As to Jus in Bello that has nothing to do with the ROE, Lawyers approving airstrikes or more likely not, or any of the nonsense. It was all about power. The Lawyers were WHO, and the Warriors the WHOM.

    OTOH Do you want to cause massive damage of our stock do indulge ideology, leaving us weaker when the world that Owes us comes calling? Probably not. Even decimation is 4X the Civil War.

    If your guidelines are not grounded in practical considerations and reality, and subordinate to Victory without blinking may I suggest you leave them at home. If this troubles you, stay home.

    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 10:08 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Sensible and Practical Limitations on War.

    [I welcome this debate of course.]

    “Is there a good history of war limitations anywhere?”

    Yes, it’s called 18th Century Warfare. A best practice enforced by flogging by among others your very own Frederick the Great. 18th century warfare had a pragmatic evolved code to limit the damages of unlimited warfare. This happens in History after periods of horrific unlimited warfare, it’s a cycle. In the 18th century the horror they reacted to was the 30 Years War.

    We’ve just come from a century of unlimited warfare and two centuries of total war in the levee en masse [national conscription, peaking with the 20th century mobilization of entire nations in either war or production of it’s tools. The penultimate examples are the USA and USSR]. It would be consistent and in fact is already decades under way that there would be a reaction hint hint against Total War and Total Horror.

    AQIZ [Al Qaeda in Iraq] for instance practiced Total and Horrific moral war. This is because their senior operatives and worse ranks were staffed with pyschopaths [whose utility towards Victory is highly questionable. They’d rather be pyschopathic than win].

    May I suggest Reaction offer something better than Total War and Total Horror. Total War is a Demotist Horror. May I humbly suggest 21st century methods with 18th century mores.

    Please understand in leading men – they have their own agendas. They want things too. The men Reaction would be likely to attract aren’t the sort attracted by The Management of Savagery .

    Offer something better, we have plenty of Savagery already.


    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 12:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    In what sense is limited war a robust norm? (A genuine question.) When Clausewitz identified the inherent (cybernetic) characteristic of war as a tendency to the limit, he might have been mistaken, but he was not simply mistaken.

    From a horrorist perspective, of course, I’m also very intetested to hear what people make of the virtual proposal to ‘unleash Kurtz’. Perhaps that’s something civilized people should never entertain — but does that not then indicate a willingness to lose (or a tacit understanding that Kurtz’s ‘methods’ are in fact the way to win?


    Handle Reply:

    Optimize for ends and means equilibrium.

    Consider a recursive process:
    1. Pick some ambitious ends.
    2. Pick the most honorable means for achieve those ends.
    3. Evaluate those means.
    4. If unacceptable on their face, and/or not justified by the expected gain of the ends, then give up, adjust ends downward and GOTO 2.
    5. If acceptable / justified, then proceed and refine, investigating whether nearby and evolving means-ends solutions are even more optimal.


    Artemisia Reply:

    It seems like limited war is not that robust a norm…the latest war-limiting normative/legal mechanisms have been the Hague and Geneva conventions. The Hague conventions deal, to a large extent, with the “mechanics” of war – how to declare it, staying neutral, regulations on the novel capacities of naval warfare…and this was violated from WWI on. The Geneva conventions are international humanitarian law, and so deal with the wounded, POWs and civilians (also with biological/chemical weapon use). They have also been violated quite often. But that’s not the only problem: intially the regulations were to apply to international conflict only, and only later did the conventions begin to emphasize that non-international conflict should be also fought according to these laws. But this really not very well suited at all to things like guerilla or “terrorist” warfare. In order for norms to be enforced – whether by themselves or through an authority, there have to be subjects. There is often no subject behind guerrilla warfare to hold accountable, no “one” to adhere to norms – just splinters. I would extend the imagery and seriously doubt whether mercenary/terrorist/guerilla groups even have agency at the time of war (mostly as contrasted with traditional military decision-makers. For times when things get pushed to their limit and simply too much happens, it seems only some kind of hypertrophied agency can be meaningfully held accountable. There is simply not enough unity in at least one side of at least the majority of modern conflict for there to be subjects and normativity in there.

    Also, there are international law documents that prohibit, say “indiscriminate attacks on civilians” – but, well, “indscriminate” is a problem right there. In 1982, Israel entered Lebanon in response to the assassination of an Israeli-backed president, and they used the desire for revenge within the ranks of that president’s militia, channeling it into mass murder in two Palestinian camps. Now, the Israelis just watched and claimed they “didn’t know”. They also claimed the killings were “discriminate” because the population of the camps had some Palestinian fighters (most have left before). All to illustrate – international law can be avoided. When people are at war, they usually do things, and all justification, if done, is done retroactively. Granted, most parties at war would not want to pull off a neat little total genocide – but that’s mostly because a genocide usually does not turn out neat no matter what you do – and requires considerable resources.

    Anyway, I am not convinced war can be limited. It seems like it’s most limited by technological and intelligence limitations, not norms observed by “both parties”. At least, not anymore.

    Don’t know about unleashing Kurtz, but this is rather lovely horror: http://www.amalgamatedspooks.com/RL1.htm (at least it is in Russian).


    Artemisia Reply:

    As in, at least that horror is lovely in Russian. The “story” is in English, obviously.


    VXXC Reply:

    @Admin – limiting war to the warriors was a robust concept in Europe certainly.

    It’s not a concept of limiting weapons or tactics, but the targets.

    I am no fan of our recent dystropic efforts as you’ve seen. If they’re complicit they’re combatants. However I would look at the history of wars in the nations it’s being fought.
    History will not only rhyme but repeat [geography and peoples dictate]. One should look at the mores and customs of the place.

    More later…late now.


    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 3:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    War as the truth is a very Western idea. I think there’s two strands to it. On the one hand you have the tradition of judicial combat which later morphed into dueling, combined with the conception of the Lord God of Hosts as being the same person as the Judge of Ages. Battle therefore was seen as a submission of a cause to God’s arbitration. A lot of our language about war being the ultimate is actually legal/juridical language. So there’s a strand in western tradition which implicitly sees combat as the way you submit questions to God.
    On the other hand, the Western military tradition also lends itself to this conception. The decisive battle conception and the idea of total war where you summon up all your resources and throw them in mean that if you lose, you LOSE.

    Why did the Germans have to adopt the stab-in-the-back myth? Seen objectively, whether or not they had been actually defeated or not should make no difference to their actual objective situation and what objectively would need to be done to recuperate it. But the myth was incredibly important because it meant that their society and aims had not been weighed, measured, and found wanting by GNON.

    Guerrilla warfare is the denial that war is the truth and so its hard for western societies to handle. We come from a tradition where once I’ve established that I can crush you, you accept that reality without actually insisting that I crush you first. Just as we are conditioned to accept court rulings without forcing the court to actually send out the sheriff, throw us in jail, and auction off our property on the courthouse steps. But guerillas can only be suppressed by the actual crushing. Just as, unsurprisingly, immigrants from non-Western cultures often refuse to pay court judgments and have to be made to do so


    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 4:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    In the above comments there is a fatal mixing of Law and War.

    It comes to tears.

    More for me though.


    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 5:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    IIRC Neolithic chariot warfare was also very limited, ritualistic even, with people taken turns to shoot arrows from a distance with their chariots.

    And even the Papuans have very elaborated warfare rituals. They don’t just go rushing in and hack into the enemy. It’s quite comical how non vicious it is. Seems they save their bile towards the witches in the ingroup.


    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 8:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bill Says:

    War is truth doesn’t satisfy me. Especially because the NR has formed itself to be against politics and according to Clausowitz (sp?) war is politics by other means. So, in this sense there is an alignment with the left in the struggle for power, because the left makes claims regarding knowledge, but really practices identity power politics masquerading as knowledge, if we say that war is truth we have reached a similar equation. Because we are using the politic extreme, war, as a way to claim knowledge. That being said I liked fighting in Afghanistan and I like power, but I do not think it benefits us to conflate the will to power with truth.


    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 9:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    in competition between beings whos transcendent ideals are in accord, the line between winner and loser breaks down, the conclusion satisfies both in its own way. true defeat only comes by playing a different game than your counter-parts.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Much truth in that.


    Posted on January 19th, 2014 at 11:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Drfitforge Says:

    @SpandrellHaving grown up amongst the Papuans in the 80’s, their warfare is intensely limited. One of the characteristics was that there were very few ‘ruling tribes’ – that is, tribes did not set out to conquer and rule other tribes. Each tribe ruled its own valley, and there were often multiple tribes in a single larger valley that by and large got along. One of the few exceptions I know of was the Telefolip, near the border with Irian Jaya who ruled over about 5 tribes in their area. Still, very limited scope.

    The warfare itself was nearly always conducted with a specific intent, to redress a specific wrong. Once that intent had been satisfied, everybody went home. Those not involved in the direct issue, were ignored. We literally had local warriors wander through town with their bow and arrows to go and resolve some issue with the neighbouring tribe. You could hold a conversation with them as they wandered through. A while later, they would wander back, business concluded.

    So yes, very limited warfare.


    spandrell Reply:

    You grew up amongst the Papuans? How awesome is that. Pray tell more.


    Driftforge Reply:

    Yes, spent ten years there from the time I was 7. It isn’t (or at least wasn’t) as bad as is made out to be; in all that time I was only shot once. It was an incredible place to grow up, and I wouldn’t trade that experience for any other.

    Technically Papuans are the Highlanders there; the lowlanders are Melanesian. My time was mixed between the two regions. I lived in Madang, Telefomin, Wewak, Ukarumpa and Port Moresby – some with my parents, others to be at school.

    Such a different focus on life. Relationships are all important. Work is something that is necessary in order to eat but not overbearing; the country is productive and at least when I was there not overpopulated. A mix of hunting and crop farming (tribally), with all the modern opportunities mixing in. But poor relationships leads to serious consequences, so people came first.

    Not uncommon to see a bush hut with a tv and video player inside, genset out the back. Contrasting elements of stone age and modern age technology everywhere.

    I ramble; if there are specific questions, ask.


    spandrell Reply:

    I have tons of questions. But how did you end up there?

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 6:23 am Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    One thing that needs addressed is how progressivism works comparatively better in serious wartime than in peacetime, so progressives are always trying to gin up the equivalent of war, something massive and emergent that requires total social mobilization to solve it, such as global warming.

    In fact, an interest in limits and maximum extremes is part of the package that defines the West (i.e., it is probably essentially progressive). In contrast, antiquity was concerned with the core cases and the exemplars.

    In other words, this argument about war is an example of neo-reaction having progressive elements or at best being post-progressive. The argument may still be true, though.


    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 2:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    It’s probably just as true that war is truth-making.


    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 12:01 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @Lesser Bull,

    War shows you who’s who.

    War can take you from Whom to Who, if you have balls and live.

    War will show you who you are along with who is siding you.

    In this sense the last 12 years of Prog war were for the Progs and hack Pols a terrible mistake.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    2002? Yes. The 2002 election cycle is when I left the reservation. Whatever sense of unity existed after 9/11 was burned in that campaign. What triggered the witch hunt?


    Handle Reply:

    I agree. I think something definitely started about then, and there were four election-synched phases:

    1. 2002 – Post 9/11, Pro-Iraq-War build-up
    2. 2006 – Contra-Iraq-War ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’ era.
    3. 2007-8 – Obama Election (this is when most media outlets just dropped all pretense of balance and objectivity, and, in my judgment, a very disappointing sea-change at The Economist)
    4. 2012 – Obama Reelection. The Romney failure in the face of Obamacare and a lackluster economy threw much of the mainstream / establishment American right into a permanent funk from which they have not emerged, and perhaps never will.

    There seems to be some emotional function of hope and optimism vs expected momentum towards ‘the dream’. The dream once seemed possible, and now it seems to be progressively and irreversibly receding into the distance.

    There has been a lot of denial and willful blindness and magical thinking for a long time. And then finally there is the shock of realization and depressed resignation at the acceptance of the ugly truth of permanent decline.

    I think this is the frustrating emotional environment that is creating a lot of prereactionaries out there, looking for an escape, hungry for an alternative.


    VXXC Reply:


    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    Iraq was (or at least should have been) a wakeup call to rightists who felt that they could support the Republican party as the lesser of two evils.

    Not necessarily before it happened, it’s understandable to be fooled, but afterwards, seeing how it turned out and seeing the pre-war narrative collapse utterly and completely, with no hope that even paid shills could continue to maintain it.

    The ultracalvinists went waaaaay too far with that one.


    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 12:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Says:

    From the OP:

    – “War is computation with tanks. War is truth revealing. As war proceeds uncertainty collapses.”

    – “War is the truth of lies, the rule of rulelessness, anarchy and chaos as they are in reality (which is nothing at all like a simple negation of order). It is the ultimate tribunal, beyond which any appeal is a senseless prayer to the void. A ‘realism’ that resists such conclusions makes a mockery of the name.”

    – “An aristocracy is a social arrangement that was decided by war, and when the war is forgotten the institution has no sustainable meaning. There is only one thing that can ‘bring back’ a king, and that is the end of peace.”

    And this is why monarchy / aristocracy is not a serious political proposal, at least not the way Moldbug and Anissimov.

    Historically, monarchy / aristocracy = rule by warriors and their gradually degenerating descendants.

    Some people seem to think that you can replicate this by picking a rich merchant or even a blogger and declaring him king.

    Why is this a silly idea?

    It’s because “War is truth revealing” in a way that writing / politics (sophistry) or actual existing capitalism (ultra-crony-capitalism) are not.

    Making some billionaire King is not enough. “Samurai are the total opposite of a Merchant.”



    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 7:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    This is an interesting review http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/166256
    It claims that war happens when states misestimate their relative strengths, so they aren’t able to reach a compromise position. War leads to peace when it accurately establishes their relative strengths.


    Posted on January 24th, 2014 at 8:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    What is it about wanting to drink human blood anyway?

    All of my thinking keeps reaching the Dead End of “you need the military for that”.

    What if they all up and decided to “go freelance”? What would be stopping them?

    The answer is: nothing. Formalistically speaking, the military is the highest power in the world. They are deceived by their rulers to follow orders. A coup could be in their hands overnight if they wanted one. They don’t want one though, they’re obedient to their alleged higher-ups.

    What the armed forces are is a colossal death threat. We forget this. When you have that you have everything.


    Posted on August 7th, 2019 at 10:52 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment