Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us

Posts tagged as: nrx

Conflict

Nick Land yesterday said I was "conflicted".

I guess I am. Running into writer's block perhaps.

When you pursue a line of thought long enough you tend to lose track of where you're going, and end up reaching conclusions you won't necessarily agree with if you actually started thinking about it from scratch.

I do generally like to keep things simple, so let's reboot and try to start again.

Why are we reactionaries? Because modernity sucks. In what way? Well, let's count the ways:

1. Women are unpleasant, men are unmanly

2. Foreigners everywhere

3. Dysgenics

4. Corruption

5. Aesthetic taste has collapsed

Which can be summed up as a lack of asabiyyah in general. Reactionary thought is based in the idea that modernity is corrosive to asabiyyah  and thus will lead to societal collapse and general misery.

There are two lines of reactionary thought. One is the traditionalist branch, and the futurist branch.

Or perhaps there's three. There's the religious/traditionalist branch, the ethnic/nationalist branch, and the capitalist branch.

The religious want to go back to an idealized religious society, where a common faith provides asabiyyah . Go to the Orthosphere and take a look. I wouldn't say they have any real-world model to push for. But hey when you have faith you don't need empirical examples, do you?

The nationalist branch wants a mono-ethnic society, believing that a sense of kinship provi...

Optimizing for truth

So I wrote about different kinds of reactionaries. I'm quite happy it created a lot of buzz, got thousands of visits, and a lot of links from people I didn't know about. We all love to talk about ourselves.

Alas I'm not about to categorize our beliefs and let them be happily everafter. I want closure. I'm annoying like that.

So we all know what we hate. Liberalism. The equality cult. But what are we for?

Some people just want heavenly bliss:

If it means a choice between living in a traditional civilization geared toward the spiritual health of its citizens or living in a barbaric society geared toward the physical wellbeing of its inhabitants, I would choose the first, even sans penicillin. As has been said, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36)

Some care about their racial brethren:

Whites must return to quality learning, quality thinking, and quality behavior. This won’t guarantee prosperity- that is hard to come by these days for anybody- but it will provide dignity and self-respect, which a jet ski can’t.

And others want to Continue Reading →

Noli me tangere entryists

Peter Turchin recently published his research, which says that the trigger for civilization wasn't a certain geographical situation, or a critical mass of food or other resources. No. Spontaneous civilization didn't happen. War happened, masses of horse riding bandits happened, and settled farmers had to pull their shit together to confront them. Hence, civilization. It is through outsider attacks that people learn to coalesce and organize.

If you need more close evidence, look at the state of neoreaction these days. For some reason the mainstream internet media has noticed that there are evil reactionaries on the internet, and suddenly progressives over the internet are finding the need to proclaim their unconditional condemnation of Emmanuel Goldstein. Everybody was getting agitated, and just when the hate wave was subsiding, the follow-up came: entryism.

So the progs are out to infiltrate the Dark Enlightenment, to make Moldbug into an antiracist antisexist saint, whose points were all about improving governance in order to benefit women and minorities. Oh well, Moldbug was never very focused on HBD or  sex realism, although I do remember him linking to Roissy. And hey he's half-Jewish, so if Polansky can be forgiven for ass-raping a 13 year old, Moldbug can s...

Reaction and the Bullshit Industry

Now that Ross Douthat has run an article on neoreaction (no hyphen!) in the august New York Times, perhaps I should take back my previous statements about disassociating with neoreaction because they're a bunch of retards of late. Bad timing! Before Anissimov comes back from his night job at a San Francisco bath-house, I shall proclaim myself Leader of Neoreaction and as such will negotiate with Mr. Douthat for any lucrative deal as the new edgy domesticated right. I have Catholic family too so I'm eminently qualified to deal with Mr. Douthat. He'll need my friendship when God-Emperor Trump comes down to ask him to respond for his articles against the Trump candidacy.

Jokes aside, Ross Douthat is really missing the point. His article argues that neoreaction is racist and evil, but we are often right about many issues and so mainstream conservatism should listen to what we say in order to have something real to say once in a while. He brings up Nicolas Gomez Davila aphorisms as an example of non-evil reactionary wisdom.

But reactionary wisdom like that used to be quite common. Did mainstream conservatism listen to it back then? No. The insight of neoreaction isn't that modernity and leftism sucks. Plenty of people have noticed that since before modernism even got running. Neoreaction explains why modernism happ...

Names

This has been going around. Guess I should say something. I really don't know how to comment on that pile of nonsense. I might as well let the sages do it for me.

子路曰:「衛君待子而為政,子將奚先?」

子曰:「必也正名乎!」

子路曰:「有是哉,子之迂也!奚其正?」

子曰:「野哉,由也!君子於其所不知,蓋闕如也。名不正,則言不順;言不順,則事不成;事不成,則禮樂不興;禮樂不興,則刑罰不中;刑罰不中,則民無所錯手足。故君子名之必可言也,言之必可行也。

Confucius and his disciples were gathered at the master's house. One of his disciples, Zilu, asks the master.

Zilu: The Duke of Wei has asked for your opinion in how to rule his realm. He'll call you for an audience any time. What will be the first thing you tell him?

Confucius: Oh, that he must fix the names.

Zilu: What? That? Oh come on, master, what does that even mean. "Fix the names". I don't get it.

Confucius: Shut up, you stupid brat, and listen. It is like this. If the names aren't correct, what you speak becomes nonsense. If you speak nonsense, you can't get things done. If you don't get things done, you can't get the rituals to work. If the rituals don't work, the law isn't applied as it should. If the law isn't applied as it should, the people can't make a productive living. When a ruler names something, he must be able to make sense when talking about it. And when talking about it, he must be able to do what he means.

My translation. Philo...

Branding

So there's a stampede of people trying to disavow and disassociate from the alt-right because Richard Spencer has gone full-Nazi. The speech is out there. It's pretty lame. Not a fan myself. But hey, works for him. I'm sure he's having the time of his life. Getting laid like a champ, if he's into ladies. I'm happy he's having fun, instead of blue-haired fat Hillary supporters having fun.

Jim has done an eloquent argument for having no enemies to the right. I have little to add to it. What I will do is talk what I know about, language. See, the alt-right isn't a thing. "Alt-right" is a word. A word with no clear owners, no set definition. I actually recall it starting with Spencer himself; then it got a big bigger, then Hillary made it famous in her speech, with even Bannon putting it to good use. I myself too jumped into the bandwagon, if only to make a linguistic point.

But the thing with words is that you don't get to control what their usage. People are getting out because they're afraid that "alt-right" will be used as a buzzword for Sieg-Heil-ing Nazis, and they don't want to be associated with that. That's a reasonable point. Leftists in the USA call themselves "liberal", because the word "socialist" became associated with bad things. That never happened in Europe where there are proud Socialist Parties in almost every country. Perception matters, language usage is mostly a function of...

Find the Symmetry

The liberal media won't shut up about the Alt-Right. They're even talking about Neoreaction. Apparently Trump has read Moldbug. Or at least Bannon has. The counterrevolution is happening. Or so you'd think if you believed the liberal press.

Funny thing is, the dark side of the Internet is a small, tiny little thing. Really. Neoreaction is, what, 1,000 people? Spread around the whole world. 75% in the US, maybe. And the alt-right, which has inherited much of good ol' national-socialism, is what, 20,000 people? I love those guys, I really do. Frog Twitter is hilarious. /pol/ is very funny. But come on. Even Steve Sailer, who has been writing for decades, who is a middle-class, 50+ old, utterly middlebrow guy who writes in very accessible language, who writes about sports! Steve Sailer has 13,000 followers on Twitter. Ezra Klein has 1.6 million. Ezra Klein, that doofus-looking doofus. Even Matthew Yglesias, whose picture is in English phrasebooks to explain the phrase "his face looks like a joke", has 270k followers. The alt-right is beyond small. Trump didn't win because of the alt-right. He won because he got 60 million Fox News watchers to vote for him.

But, the liberal press won't shut up about the alt-right. Why? Why aren't they writing about the actual Trump voters? Because this is not about numbers. This is a war of ideas. And even if ideas can adapt to people, more often than not people adapt to ideas. Ideas are the stuff of humanity. The stuff of socia...

The Role of Government

So the Role of Government used to be to Establish Order. That's something the Romans and the Chinese could agree on.

The the English parliament stumbled itself into winning the English Civil War. So they decided the role of government was the Protection of Property. Not a bad idea, all things considered.

Now though we know a bit more about how society works. Let's say we become worthy and assume power. What's the role of government now?

Let me propose: to break malignant signaling spirals.

The Role of Government, 2

A few centuries ago people in Europe discovered free trade. The market. They got the state to say: go make money, free of any guilds or regulations.  I won't stop you. Go out there and make money. Compete freely. So people went to make money. Started businesses, factories, mines. In short order we got 2 industrial revolutions, the greatest technological advances in history, and vast, vast, amazing amounts of wealth. Pretty neat.

But. We also found the market isn't perfect. Yeah it produces wealth. A damn lot of it. But leaving people alone to make money also resulted in other outcomes which weren't so desirable. For some people, at least. You see, people compete to make money, and the competition can get ruthless, so people start doing bad stuff. These undesirable outcomes ended up being called "market failures". There's a whole literature about that. Externalities. Monopoly. Sweatshops. There's lots of stuff, it isn't quite clear what is and what isn't a market failure; but the consensus out there is that there are quite a lot. And that the government should use its power to regulate the market in order to prevent and/or fix market failures. Again, it's messy business, as tends to happen with government stuff, but that is how it works today. And it doesn't work that badly. We got clean air and stuff. Which is nice.

So let me do this analogy:

A few centuries ago people in Europe discovered civil rights. Democracy. They got the state to say: g...

Capitalists and ropes

https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/902498399634636800

How does this square with accelerationism? The forces of capitalism and the market feeding themselves into a self-catalytic process by which humans and their talents are consumed to form... Genderqueer Maoism?

A lot of people are completely focused in economics, like Marxists, libertarians or accelerationists. And yes, the economy is very important. Marx was an improvement over the religion-centered theories of history which preceded him. And the short-lived race-centered theories were worse. Yes, the economy is hugely important. It's one great pole of human society. How people organize to make stuff and exchange it can explain a great deal of what society is and does.

But there's another one pole. Violence. Or in other words, politics. How people organize to break stuff and kill people. That is also hugely important, and it explains a great deal of what society is and does. And it's always there. Violence is always there. You may not be interested in war, but Trotsky is, so you better be too.

Politics and the economy are obviously related. You need to make weapons before using them. And the other way around: what you are allowed to make and how to exchange it depends on those guys with guns. Yin-yang, folks.

Politics and Economics are bound together. They cannot live separately, as much as they'd like to. Politics can't do as it please, if people won't make stuff for it. The communis...

The reactionary tax code

What are we all doing here? By 'here', I mean the internet, by 'we', I mean the sort of person who very kindly reads this blog of mine regularly and/or writes similar stuff in blogs or Twitter or whatever.

My original goal was to understand what is leftism, why leftist people exist and why our societies are decaying by enabling leftism to dominate all the levers of power. After years of writing, years of reading, and years of talking with like-minded gentlemen over the internet, I think I've succeeded at that task. You can read some examples of it in the sidebar as "best posts".

I've also been meeting some readers in person over the last few years, and they all agree that the "analysis phase" of this little movement we've come to call neoreaction is done. Moldbug started the whole thing, asked the right questions, showed how everything we thought we knew was wrong, then he left to build interesting stuff. Nick Land asked another set of right questions, found out nobody dared answer them, and then he left to write horror fiction. I here have done my little part on finishing what I considered was most important: an analysis of the history and the psychology of leftism.

Well, that's done, we know leftists are sociopathic status maximizers who seek groups of people who, for contingent or increasingly genetic reasons, have low status, and thus a great incentive to disturb the political process and create ...

How far is far enough

A while ago I wrote a post on tax law, proposing some ideas that I thought could plausibly make for a better existence if implemented by a sane government.

Reactions to that were mixed. It was, admittedly, an uncharacteristic post. I am not a "policy wonk", I'm usually more interested in deeper questions of history and human psychology as it applies to our political environment. As such, some people said that that sort of piece, proposing some tweaks to tax policy or this or that law is not just beside the point, it's actively harmful. The problems of modern society are, they would have it, not something that can be fixed through the legal political process. And talking as if the state could just tweak this or that law to make our existence better is to be guilty of cuckservatism, if not something worse.

On the same topic, Chris Nahr posted a translation of an article by some right-wing Austrian writing about this problem. "Full Speed into the Void", it's titled. Reminds one of the "Flight 93 election" essay in 2016. Austria has, by modern White standards, a fairly large and successful far right political party, who has managed to get into the government now and then. That article says that vanity of vanities, all is vanity. Po...