Randoms

Nick Land:

Could it imaginably be said more clearly? Liberty is legitimate if, and only if, it serves to promote the consolidation of the Cathedral (through chaotic multicultural criminality), which is then retrospectively interpreted as the intrinsic telos of freedom. Whatever does not subordinate itself to this agenda is to have its brains eaten, and be systematically recycled into progressive zombie flesh. This is a project for libertarian hipsters and Leviathan apparatchiks to undertake hand-in-hand — fusionally. The new age of the cannibal is come.

Neoreactionaries are libertarians mugged by reality (to adapt a pre-coined phrase). . . .

If it wasn’t for Hoppe, it would perhaps be understandable if the shuddering neoreactionary (N) were to suspect that libertarian thought (L0) tends — slowly but inevitably — to compost down towards this liberaltarian (L1) ‘walker’, in which all the degenerative forces of conformism and revolt have been compacted, as if by some ideological parody of providence. Is not our liberaltarian zombie the still-recognizable avatar of the old liberalism, resurrected hideously as the animated putrescence of the new?

My favorite question to ask fellow reactionaries is how they got to neoreaction. What steps did they take in their ideological journey? My last stop was on the Old Right, but I got there from libertarianism.

Forney reviews Burnham.

Life in a communist country. Or here.

Anarcho-papist: “I think pseudonymity comes at the expense of credibility.” (I guess this could be filed under life in a communist country too.)

That’s interesting, because I automatically don’t trust anyone writing under their real name. With few exceptions, they have to lie.

– Business Insider tries to explain the Red Pill. Hilarity ensues.

– Loper OS on the spying “scandals”.

Yeah, but Russia.

– I’m choking on how gay this post is, but it’s worth a read, since he’s essentially complaining about how modern propaganda isn’t propaganda-y enough on all relevant dimensions.

– Speaking of propaganda, it appears Russia is getting ready to ban all movies made in Hollywood.

Advertisements

75 Responses to Randoms

  1. SOBL1 says:

    With how many gay, or gay but he couldn’t openly say it, murderers he used in films, Hitchcock must be loved in Russia. “Rope” even has one of the femme boys taunting the other with lines about choking chickens. Psychotic, effeminate killers, hot blondes with tall brunette men and bumbling cops were three go to bits for Hitchcock.

  2. Yggie writes like he’s too cool to care but I’m willing to bet he was jumping up and down when he opened the mail and found a free New Girl tote bag.

  3. Josh says:

    Is trying to impose homosexual liberation in *Africa* a covert genocidal plot?

  4. Steve says:

    Sorry professor, but not the case that ALL reactionaries (neo-reactionaries if that makes you happy) are former libertarians. Just a plain old paleo writing this comment,

    • Foseti says:

      How’d you get to paleo? I got there through libertarians (Rothbard to Nock)

      • Mark says:

        I became paleo going through Rothbard and Nock too. I started with Rand (like most libertarians), went through a mainstream libertarian period of reading Reason magazine and belonging to the Libertarian party, then followed Rothbard as he became a fellow traveler to the Chronicles magazine and Buchanan crowd. I think a libertarian society would be socially conservative like early 20th century America and Victorian Britain were. It’s the welfare state that leads to libertine behavior. Paleos are also more likely to accept that there may be innate racial and sexual differences in people and a lifetime of observations have reluctantly led me to believe that too.

    • Samson J. says:

      not the case that ALL reactionaries… are former libertarians

      I didn’t read him as saying this in a really absolutist sense, I guess because it would be a silly thing to say.

      Like a lot of other people, I got to reaction from being a generalized mainstream conservative Christian who read the arguments and said, “Hey, yeah, this reaction stuff does comport better with the historic Christian faith.”

    • Thanatos says:

      For myself, casual Kool-Aid sipper (not drinker,I never drank deeply of the infernal draught,I just had no concept of other forms of politics)–>Left-Anarchist—>Economic conservative,social liberal libertarian—> Mainstream conservative/neo-con—–>brief flirtation with fascism/admiration,but not emulation, of German national socialism—–>Reaction.

  5. ChevalierdeJohnstone says:

    I went from uber-liberal to libertarian to reactionary – never “neo” – to Christian. I was introduced to Auster via Moldbug and decided Auster is right and Moldbug is wrong.

    • Foseti says:

      That’s interesting.

      As far as I can tell, their main disagreement was on the nature of the US. Auster (initially) believed in the (very) mainstream conservative version of US history and origination, whereas Moldbug believed the US was fundamentally progressive from the beginning. In the end, Auster seemed to be slowly coming around to the view that Moldbug was correct.

      So, what was Auster correct about? To me he seemed to be getting more Molduggian as time went on.

  6. ChevalierdeJohnstone says:

    Anarcho-papist is still in university. Let anarcho-papist write under his real name after getting a salaried job in the real world, or running a business with the need to keep customers and investors and lenders. He will either change his tune about the benefits of anonymity or join the Church in a non-lay capacity, perhaps a diaconate.

    Wisdom does not discriminate by age. But it is difficult to be old and remain ignorant – thus we ought to revile the many ignorant and elderly, as they have reached that state by repeated and deliberate choice. The young, however wise, are almost always ignorant. The wise ones grow up. Anarcho-papist seems wise – and young.

    • Samson J. says:

      or running a business with the need to keep customers and investors and lenders.

      What does he say that will turn away customers and lenders?

      • Handle says:

        Um, the current ‘naming and shaming’ coerced boycott mafia?

      • Samson J. says:

        I don’t know what you mean. Anyway, I wasn’t being facetious with my question.

      • he says non-progressive stuff. it’ll get cut up into sound bites and he’ll be hunted as a witch.

        because power means the power to hurt people. that’s what witch hunters get out of it.

        a member of a protected class will be disciplined at his workplace, and threaten HR on the ‘hostile environment’ law by which it is illegal to knowingly employ someone who has a bad attitude. he’ll have to be fired.

    • spandrell says:

      Pretty much. What he’s doing is plain old holier-than-thou status whoring. It’s sad, but that’s what young whites do, no matter how reactionary.

      • Samson J. says:

        What he’s doing is plain old holier-than-thou status whoring.

        Who is, anarcho-papist? Maybe.

        Look, I’m interested in exploring this issue because I think it’s important. I write under a pseudonym too, for the same reasons as anyone, and I’d like Bryce to be careful – in fact I’d say with 100% conviction that anyone still in college should be writing about politically sensitive topics under a pseudonym.

        But there are questions I haven’t seen a satisfactory answer to:

        -is there an argument to be made that using one’s real name Advances the Cause through enhanced credibility?
        -is writing under one’s real name the morally responsible thing to do for people who are in a position to do it “safely”?
        -can we gain any traction if everyone is in camouflage?
        -is it really true that being politically incorrect online is a blacklist for life?

        Sometimes it seems to me that a lot of people in this corner of the internet don’t realize that not everyone wants to live in a big techno-city and work for a megacorp. We don’t *care* if we’re blacklisted from Silicon Valley or wherever.

        So I don’t know, it just seems like some of these statements that I see come fairly close to saying that Christians and other thought criminals are basically unemployable. I don’t know about that. Bruce Charlton? Dennis Mangan? Lawrence Auster (I still don’t know how he made his livelihood)? Laura Wood? Aaron Clarey (Captain Capitalism)? Probably others…?

      • spandrell says:

        Yes these are interesting questions.

        Let´s not forget that racist or sexist speech in the other side of the Atlantic is liable for criminal prosecution. And it has happened.
        On America you lose your job. It doesn´t have to be Silicon Valley or NYC. Of course your personal situation might be more advantageous, if so, good for you. Perhaps you should use your real name, but also think that friends and family might be persecuted for guilt by association.

        If you have a very tight community who respects your views, you might pull it off. I still think it’s more prudent to not go public, and don’t really see the upsides of doing so. More credibility? Why exactly? We are talking easily provable facts here, it’s not a charisma contest.

      • KK says:

        “We are talking easily provable facts here, it’s not a charisma contest.”
        C’mon now, man. You know better than that. All public activity is a charisma contest at some level.

        Although in this case I’m not sure that having your real identity out there actually gives any advantage in that area.

      • Samson J. says:

        don’t really see the upsides of doing so. More credibility? Why exactly?

        I’ve been thinking about it. Besides what KK said, I guess the only real advantage I can come up with is that blogging openly allows you to more easily disseminate your message. For example, I don’t have Facebook, but if you do, it seems like it would be a lot easier to link directly to your reactionary blog from your Facebook page than to have to wait for people to somehow find it via random Googling.

        The more I think about it, the smaller this “advantage” really seems to be.

  7. jack crassus says:

    What’s up with the big swath of gray area with no data through the middle of Africa on the gay laws map? The heart of darkness?

  8. William Tell says:

    Long time lurker, first time poster. I got introduced to neo reaction in two ways. First, 9/11 was an inside job material and Bill Still’s Money Master documentary. The second way was women and minorities. I grew up in a black neighborhood, I’m white, and went to a 99%+ black school district. The racial differences were as clear and obvious to me as the air I breathed. I never thought that blogging about it could be considered revolutionary. Girls, I’ve never had much practice “gaming” since I have to work a lot and go to school. But I’ve been at the short end of the stick with just about every American girl I have had the displeasure of talking to. European and Asian girls will give me the time of day. Hahaha. What is the point of gaming girls when within two microseconds of meeting a girl you can tell they’ve written you off? Eh. Blogwise it started in January 2009 and went like this. Zerohedge, karl denninger, stuffblackpeopledontlike, Mangans, moldbug, Warren Pollock, heartiste, max keiser, charlie mcgrath, bruce charlton, and blog links. Links to other blogs in the neo reaction sphere is crucial. I’ve discovered many of the people above through links to their websites or blogs. Just my 2¢.

    • Foseti says:

      I grew up in an areas that was basically all white. I think moving to DC was a significant contributor to my shift away from libertarianism to neoreaction.

      • William Tell says:

        That is a story I’ve seen too many times play out. Some person calls me racist or crazy, moves to area that isn’t 95%+ white, and learns to say “spic” or “nigger” like they have been saying it their entire life. Libertarianism is for clueless people. People that still want to believe in the system.

      • asdf says:

        The easiest way to become a racist is to actually interact with other races. Propaganda would tell you the opposite.

        I think a lot of people are libertarians until they get their first real job and move to the big city where they interact with a wider slice of humanity.

  9. Tarl says:

    The day Nigerians get angry over anti-gay bills like they have with child marriage legislation is when I’ll permanently move to Nigeria.

    Can’t help but think of this…

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/nigeria-may-be-a-developing-nation-but-it-is-rich,11539/

  10. Steve says:

    Libertarianism is just foolishness for academics and kids. Reaction is the way to go.

    • chucho says:

      It’s an essential bridge for doubting progressives, though. NYT/NPR/Daily Show types that are seeing errors in the narrative aren’t going to immediately jump ship to Moldbug or VFR. Those sites read like Stormfront to them. Reason, Ron Paul, Rockwell, etc are good first steps. People who are generally in flux are unlikely to stay there for long, especially when the other sites are a click away. I imagine this type of metamorphosis typically played out over years before the Internet, but now it can happen in a matter of months.

      • asdf says:

        There are huge differences between reaction and libertarianism. I think it would be easier to convert a normal person then a libertarian ideologue.

      • Samson J. says:

        There are huge differences between reaction and libertarianism. I think it would be easier to convert a normal person then a libertarian ideologue.

        Yeah, my thought too. I don’t even see where this metamorphosis from libertarianism to reaction is supposed to occur. Most libertarians are inspired by some variation of the “people should be allowed to do whatever they want” principle, which is a Leftist/liberal idea incompatible with reaction.

        Maybe what’s going on is that committed libertarians, being a minority, are generally thinkers, and being a thinker *is* a pathway to reaction.

      • asdf says:

        Your last paragraph.

        A lot of people become libertarians not so much because of some overwhelming ideological commitment, but because they see government in general as psychopathic and a threat to them. Thus a platform that tries to limit the damage government can do to them is appealing.

      • Josh says:

        “Neo-Reaction”is kind of for “aspies” as is libertarianism. It seems to be a good fit for people who simplify and systemize everything.

      • DrBill says:

        Samson J said . . .
        Yeah, my thought too. I don’t even see where this metamorphosis from libertarianism to reaction is supposed to occur. Most libertarians are inspired by some variation of the “people should be allowed to do whatever they want” principle, which is a Leftist/liberal idea incompatible with reaction.

        When a lefty sees his ideology not working out in reality, he says “Must. Do. Harder.” Liberalism done harder is libertarianism. It’s not that libertarianism somehow causes movement to the right, it’s that libertarianism shows that the holder understands that there is something seriously wrong with regular liberalism. It would not surprise me to find out, for example, that converts to Nation-reading communism are disproportionately libertarian.

  11. Joe says:

    Once a thinking conservative with a love of the West’s traditions and accomplishments absorbs the unpleasant truths of HBD, he will naturally become a neo-reactionary. That’s my story, at any rate.

  12. SMERSH says:

    Neurotypical w/ some borderline aspie traits –> Libertarian as a naive youth –> Real world experience w/ other races and the corporate world –> Conservative –> Iraq war + some free time to consider just how stupid / hijacked the American conservative movement is –> reaction (non-neo)

    • asdf says:

      What is the difference between reaction and neo-reaction?

      • Morphologically, essentially none. The difference is cladistic.

      • SMERSH says:

        I don’t claim to have an authoritative definition but I have noticed more and more people drawing a distinction between the two terms.

        It seems as though “neo-reactionary” is gradually becoming synonymous with the heavily Moldbug inspired “techno-commercialists”, leaving everyone else as plain old reactionaries.

        See this diagram: http://www.xenosystems.net/visual-trichotomy/

        While the techno-commercialists are excellent writers and social critics, their prescriptions for society aren’t always as.. uh… reactionary as I might like.

      • Foseti says:

        I don’t think it’s possible to be a reactionary in these times. I don’t see it as drawing any meaningful distinction. However, I tend to assume that reactionaries (absent the neo) are religiously inspired.

      • spandrell says:

        Charles Maurras was a reactionary. I don’t think anyone here agrees with him.

  13. Doug says:

    “My favorite question to ask fellow reactionaries is how they got to neoreaction. What steps did they take in their ideological journey? My last stop was on the Old Right, but I got there from libertarianism.”

    I don’t see why libertarianism and neoreaction are mutually exclusive. Moldbug’s Neocameralist Patchwork is at most only a few degrees removed from David Friedman’s anarcho-capitalism. (Rothbard’s version of ancap deviates to a greater degree because of the use of natural law). Let profit driven legal and political frameworks compete. If territorial exclusion of government works best we’ll end up with patchwork, if it doesn’t we’ll end up with overlapping protection agencies.

    In addition both AnCaps and Neocameralists tend to place a lot of faith in the ability of cryptography to fundamentally change the nature of government. Crypto-governance is a genuine chance to create something better, because it actually utilizes new technology, instead of just recycling past political systems.

    • asdf says:

      What the hell is crypto governance?

      • Doug says:

        “Secure neocameralism depends on a cryptographic decision and command chain (CDCC). Once the world has cryptographically secure government, it will wonder how it ever lived without it… In a full CDCC government, the sovereign decision and command chain is secured from end to end by military-grade cryptography. All government weapons – not just nukes, but everything right down to small arms – are inoperable without code authorization. In any civil conflict, loyal units will find that their weapons work. Disloyal units will have to improvise. The result is predictable, as results should be.”

        http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/05/ol6-lost-theory-of-government.html

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism

        https://www.mtgox.com

      • asdf says:

        Sounds like a lot of mental masturbation to a technological solution to human nature that is impossible/improbable and probably wouldn’t have the effects you think it would have (like every other technological God substitute).

      • Doug says:

        Right… Because technology has absolutely zero track record of solving problems that face human civilization. If there’s one constant you can always count on throughout history, it’s never count on technology to change anything ever.

        But by all means, let’s keep rehashing the same set of political systems that we’ve been using since the birth of Christ. All of which have proved to have fundamental flaws. Maybe if we get the parameters just exactly right this time things will be different. But to me trying the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity.

      • asdf says:

        “Because technology has absolutely zero track record of solving problems that face human civilization.”

        It has zero track record of solving moral problems. It’s great for solving physical problems, but then humans invent new social problems. Every generation you get someone saying that technology XYZ will solve our problems and every generation its the same shit over and over. Often it even allows further social degradation, unless you think electronic doodads are a good tradeoff for stable families, healthy culture, and rising real wages.

        “enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men”

        That’s your original crypto-lock. Didn’t seem to lead to the good governance you’d like to think it would.

        “All of which have proved to have fundamental flaws.”

        Man has fundamental flaws, and utopia will never come to earth.

      • Doug says:

        “It has zero track record of solving moral problems. It’s great for solving physical problems,”

        What’s the difference between a “moral problem” and a “physical problem”, a problem’s a problem. And for every problem there’s a technological solution. Here’s an example of a moral problem that technology kicked in the ass: humans want to fuck a wide variety of other humans. Prior to the 20th century this immoral promiscuity presented extreme problems like pregnancy and syphilis. Technological solution: birth control and antibiotics. Now the average person gets to enjoy more sexual variety with greatly reduced consequences.

        I can think of tons of “moral problems” that have highly effective technological solutions. People are slothful and don’t like to clean: labor saving household appliances. People are wrathful and big strong people will attack small weak people: ballistic firearms for self-defense. People are gluttonous and like to eat unhealthy amounts of sugar: artificial sweetener. People are spendthrifts and don’t put aside enough money for an emergency: insurance risk-pooling. People don’t plan on starting a family and try to have kids too late in life: artificial insemination, egg freezing and surrogacy. People are lazy and don’t do all the safety checks every time they drive their vehicles: electronic monitors that notify the operator.

        You’ll probably come up with some circuitous justification for why each one doesn’t actually represent a “moral problem”. But at the end you’d just be begging the question. I’m almost certain that any meaningful distinction you draw would essentially come down to “moral problems are those that technology hasn’t made progress on.”

        “Man has fundamental flaws, and utopia will never come to earth.”

        You’re attacking a claim that I didn’t make. I never said anything about utopia. You’re making it all or nothing, either the technology has to eliminate all problems or its completely worthless. Crypto-tech adopted in governance and economics has the potential to drastically increase the quality of social institutions beyond anything previously seen. Does that mean no one will ever lose their job, lovers won’t get their heart broken, or beloved dogs will never get run over? Of course not, utopia never promised. Vastly improved user experience promised, and definitely deliverable.

        It’d be like if you were running a heavily used web server with Windows Vista. Then I go to you and say, hey you know Windows Vista kind of sucks. Especially for what you’re trying to do. Try giving Linux a try, it really works a lot better. Then you pretend like I promised you a Star Trek like computer that talks to you and never has to be patched or rebooted. Get out of here we all know computing utopia is impossible, so I’ll just stick with the crappy system I already have.

        This isn’t even without historical antecedents. There are plenty examples of governance vastly improving in a short frame of time. The governance of China vastly improved from 1975 to 2000. And with little external factors, mostly just self-directed internal restructuring. I promise nothing more than similar quality improvements as the Chinese experienced going from Maoism to post-communism.

      • asdf says:

        Technological solution:

        promiscuity + birth control -> breakdown in the nuclear family and sexual dysfunction

        modern weaponry -> modern warfare

        modern food additives -> obesity rate and diabetes skyrocket

        artificial insemination, egg freezing and surrogacy -> have you ever actually looked up the statistics on how many births result from these things? it’s less then a rounding error. more people miss out on birth thinking these are options then actually end up using them to make a child. TFR is collapsing, and its collapsing in a dysgenic way

        “I promise nothing more than similar quality improvements as the Chinese experienced going from Maoism to post-communism.”

        So you believe that if one person had absolute indisputable power (via crypto locks or whatever other magic method) this would prevent something like what happened with Mao (you know, a guy have indisputable absolute power).

      • Josh says:

        Doug,
        15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

  14. Red says:

    I grew up a conservative christian and saw how dysfunction and useless the christian community was. I then embraced social liberalism and conservative economics with a large helping of american nationalism. I grew deeply disillusioned with politics as I spent an extended time around and learning about the under class from their own lips and actions. The conservative culture argument and the liberal they more hands out arguments died upon my realization that the under class can’t really be called human the same way my friends where human. They acted more like animals without masters and I began to wonder if all men were created equal.

    I’ve always been a student of history and the thing that roped me in was all the historical facts that MM kept talking about that were so different from from everything I knew to be true, good, and holy(What do you mean WW2 wasn’t the good war? Blasphemy!). I discovered that most of my historical learning was little more than warmed over progressive propaganda and that I really knew almost nothing. I really started to learn for the first time without crime stop and crime think getting in the way. It was an amazing thing to see the world without blinkers for the first time.

    As I understand it neo-reaction isn’t a political movement as much as it’s an engine built by a group of neo-wise men seeking to learn the truth about the world. I wouldn’t call myself a reactionary because I view it as more of a philosophical movement. Politically I’ll support any political system that works better than this current mess of a system.

  15. asdf says:

    “neo-wise”

    Are we just slamming neo on the end of things to sound cool now?

  16. Scharlach says:

    I grew up in the L.A. suburbs, so I grew up surrounded by de facto leftism. Insofar as I thought consciously about politics (not very), I considered myself a progressive in college because, hey, who isn’t?!

    Turning point wasn’t until I decided to go to graduate school six years ago. Being surrounded by real and committed leftists made me realize, “Huh. I’m nodding, but the more I think about it . . . these people are fucking annoying and don’t make any sense.”

    I remember it vividly: somehow a class that had nothing to do with colonialism had once again become a class on colonialism. I was historically literate, so I piped up and said, “You know, we’re talking as though war over resources never occurred before 1492. If we want to understand how power works, shouldn’t we look at how colonization, oppression, and population movement has happened throughout history, not just during a small sliver of it?” I think I used the Crow-Creek massacre as a simple example.

    It was like I had stood up in church, renounced Christ, ripped open my shirt, carved a pentagram into my chest, and started fellating a crucifix.

    That was the beginning. “What the hell?” I thought later that night. “I was trying to expand the discussion. Why the hostile reaction?”

    To the library and to the Wikipedia I went. I found Rothbard first. Anarcho-libertarianism is ‘liberal’ enough that it didn’t immediately grate against what I still felt was my inner progressive. Then I found Pinker, whose ‘soft HBD’ opened a citation trail that led very quickly to the likes of Changon, Jensen, and eventually . . . Sailer.

    So ultimately, I think my experience was similar to Greg Gutfeld’s: the incessant, unthinking moralizing of the Left eventually got on my nerves. Unlike Gutfeld, however, I discovered HBD along with libertarianism, so it wasn’t long before I gave up on the latter.

    (Lately, Nick B. Steves has got me flirting with Christianity again, which I flirted with in youth, being the son of a devout Spanish Catholic.)

    • Thanatos says:

      “It was like I had stood up in church, renounced Christ, ripped open my shirt, carved a pentagram into my chest, and started fellating a crucifix.”

      Heh. I’ve done that. Except for the fellating a crucifix part, not my style.

  17. spandrell says:

    I’m not American, but so you understand it:
    Run-of-the-mill Limbaugh conservative family -> Grow up become a Libertarian -> Move to Asia, notice HBD -> Find Sailer and Moldbug on the internet -> Neoreaction

  18. jack.crassus says:

    CNN money blog attempts to bully former employers who have endorsed Pax on linkedin

  19. dearieme says:

    “I automatically don’t trust anyone writing under their real name. With few exceptions, they have to lie.” That’s rather wise.

  20. MPC says:

    My religious background is Mormon. I was mainsteam conservative in my youth, then libertarian, then somehow got to Machiavelli and what was his dark and oddly (at the time) satisfying view of human nature, cyclical concept of history, and consequentialist morality. Machiavelli was the doorway to reaction for me.

    The moment I realized America and the western world at large was reaping the evil that it had sown was for me the moment I stepped in. After that the leftist false gods were exposed for what they really were for me, and the dominant political and social ideas of America became frauds.

    Critiques of democracy led to critiques of liberalism and the enlightenment, acceptance of karma, a true respect for and acceptance of the power of nature and nature’s God, and consideration of alternative concepts of political organization and history.

  21. nydwracu says:

    I’ve gone through this before, but it’s worth repeating…

    I grew up in a progressive family. My father doesn’t talk about politics, votes Democrat, speaks and acts Confucian and may have even read the Analects, and gave me some of his Robert Anton Wilson books when I was in high school. My mother has the sort of politics one would expect from a college student who watches the Daily Show religiously, but the Scots make the Jews look Italian so naturally she doesn’t have cable. (She identifies exclusively with the Scottish side of the family, but it’s understandable: her mother was in the Bund and half her cousins back in the Rhineland died in the war.)

    Between that and going to school in inner-city Baltimore, my politics growing up were of the fuck-whitey variety. Then I went to public high school in PG County and realized almost immediately that my teachers in Baltimore were hopelessly out of touch with a reality where black kids whose parents may very well make six figures skip class to dance to Soulja Boy in the hallways.

    I wanted to be a programmer back then, so of course I fell in with the libertarians. I spent four years trying to be one and couldn’t manage it in the slightest; the Confederate sympathies I could pick up easily, especially given that Robert Anton Wilson was the greatest defender of the Anglo tradition of territorial schism in the entire 20th century, but information asymmetry is an obvious fact of life and even when information is out there, gathering it takes effort that most people aren’t willing to expend, so the odds of me being at all inclined to oppose the FDA and so on were pretty much zero.

    As for the individualism inherent in both libertarianism and the “our ancestors were all idiots” progressivism that I couldn’t help but observe by osmosis… well, I spent a lot of time on Newgrounds back then so it was inevitable that I’d hear of Jeff Weise eventually, and that went out the window too.

    Then I dropped out of high school, went to college in Massachusetts, and got kicked out after a semester for, essentially, reading the National Review and having the wrong sort of accent. By a sequence of random internet events, I discovered first Front Porch Republic (at which point I embraced a particularly paranoid version of distributism which I had already been stumbling toward in rejecting the economic aspects of libertarianism, and then spent several years trying to convince myself to convert to Catholicism) and then Mencius Moldbug, whose caste system explained what I’d done wrong in Massachusetts. That’s about when people started reading my blog, so everything past there is chronicled.

    I think my politics have changed since then, but I’m not sure how, other than the obvious increased emphasis on technology and its possible applications, and the Legalist obsession with institutional design and incentive structures, which obviously wasn’t there when I was a distributist since localism just doesn’t work from an institutional design perspective.

    • nydwracu says:

      (tl;dr: whigprot -> neo-confederate -> pseudo-Catholic localist -> neocameralist -> “Han Feizi is important but so is Carlyle, the USSR was eaten from within and has a worse reputation than it deserves but so do most Axis countries, Voltairine de Cleyre makes Ayn Rand look sane, and Hegel sucks”)

    • Very interesting. However, it’s disappointing to hear about your inclinations towards the FDA. It’s one of the easiest things to debunk the FDA effectiveness for libertarians. All kinds of things were completely legal and unrestricted and almost no one was dying on the streets. Anyway, don’t really care to debate things which we have no effect over.

  22. My path:

    I started with green anarchism (explicitly anti civilization) because I thought civilization was the root of the problems we have today and in the future.

    Then decided that technology, medicine, and the internet were pretty cool and it would be nice if we could keep those. I was searching for a better plan of action than the hopeless ecoterrorism program. At this point would have distanced myself from political labels because of idiots, though I was still largely progressive/anarchist/libertarian/feminist.

    4chan normalized racism and sexual deviancy for me, both of which i think are important things to be comfortable with.

    Then I found rationality and Eliezer Yudkowsky, which convinced me that politics was for barbarians, and a Friendly Singleton was the only acceptable future. I ignored politics for a while.

    Then I found moldbug, who convinced me that I was highly political and religious (progressivism), which caused a big purge, after which I found myself with largely neoreactionary/civilizationist views.

    Currently, I’m sympathetic to neoreaction, but find certain parts of it grating (racist and antisexual hate (as opposed to cynical realism on those subjects, which I endorse)) and I think it sorely lacks SL4-style ambition. In other words, i would be a reactionary if FAI wasn’t more important.

  23. anon666 says:

    I read reactionary blogs because reactionaries are the only ones who are explicitly antiegalitarian while having a realist conception of human motivation. They are the only ones who acknowledge the desire for relative status as being a primary human motivation, and they are the only ones who call the progressives out for desiring relative status in perceived moral virtue rather than being the altruists they claim. Because I agree with reactionaries’ cynical understanding of human behavior, I appreciate their analysis of events. That said, I can’t say I agree with any of their proposed quasi-utopian schemes. In structure, our political system is already oligarchical, hierarchical and Machiavellian. Moldbug advocates what already exists. We already do have a patchwork of corporations, large and small, public and private, profit and non-profit, governmental and non-governmental, sovereign and non-sovereign. Yes, the de facto ideology of progressivism supports equality and democracy, but we don’t and won’t ever have either of those things. Democracy is largely ceremonial, and positions within the bureaucracy and priesthood are semi-permanent. The main consequence of progressivism that neither I nor self-described reactionaries enjoy is the fact that we are forced to interact with and support barbarians. Thus, we are required to come up with sophisticated and expensive methods of avoiding them. Absent progressivism, we’d have a greater chance of restoring freedom of association, but I doubt our political or economic system would be much different. Corporatist mixed economies combined with bureaucratic states with limited democratic recall processes appear to be the mode of governance adapted to current technology. If that weren’t the case, we’d see more alternate models popping up.

  24. Matt says:

    I was basically a standard conservative, once I paid any attention to politics. My introduction to political thought was, believe it or not, Rush Limbaugh. Conservatism always seemed right though, both because of the culture war and because property is a natural thing and liberals seemed to have little respect for it.

    I went on in this vein until college, when I found libertarianism. This seemed even righter, cause of the property thing. I also discovered paleo around this time, but it didn’t make much sense as something distinct from conservatism.

    It wasn’t until probably 2009 that I read something, don’t even remember what, that gave me the racial awakening. It’s funny to think, because it is not really hidden, but yet I never noticed. People have children, want to aid their children, and when this happens on a wide scale it inevitably forms peoples, and the filial concern transfers. Or in other words, concentric loyalties.

    Since this desire is perfectly natural, it can’t be wrong, so I went from mildly unrespectable to totally unrespectable. Despite that, I’m still not really a reactionary. I never cared about Moldbug, for one. And while leftists are wrong about 99% of the time on the solutions, the current climate puts most of the intellectual heavyweights in the leftist camp, meaning they tend to be pretty insightful about the problems. For that matter, reaction itself is a thin gruel. You have to have some idea of what you are after, and it can’t be completely foreign to most people.

  25. zc says:

    I don’t post often, but for what its worth, I actually came from a somewhat leftist position of authoritarian technocracy, almost a bit communist, which is position I held casually in my late teens.

    Came here because Monarchistic order and Legalism seem far more conducive to that end then Multicult and Populism. Can’t say I’ve changed all that much in my views.

    To be honest I’ve never been that convinced about the notion of equality amongst men at all. Maybe its because I wasn’t born in the states. Regardless of that though, I still adhered to leftist ideals of equality for a long time simply because the alternative was just such an ugly social premise.

  26. Vanderbilt says:

    I’m a Stirnerite pessimist with market anarchist leanings. I think reactionaries are kind of stupid and herdish, to be honest; of course, I think the same thing of basically anyone who believes in morality. Toolbags, there ain’t no life but yours to live.

  27. I’m a smaller-is-beautiful Green Anarchist myself — sympathetic to people like Edward Abbey, Colin Ward and Bill Kauffman — but I find the neo-reactionary neighborhood of the internet a very lively one, full of smart people making all kinds of good points. I was never entirely sure why, but a lot of reactionaries, trads, Catholics and such found my old blog (2Blowhards.com) appealing — maybe it was because I’m open-minded and I found *them* interesting. In any case, I wound up running interviews with people like Jim Kalb, I linked a lot to Sailer and Derbyshire (and later Roissy/Heartiste), and I got Moldbug to write his first-ever blogpost as a Guest Posting at 2Blowhards. (He’d been an active commenter and, while I’ve never been able to make total sense of what he says, he was clearly a fascinating creature.) Running across these guys, giving their arguments a serious wrestle and playing a role in promoting awareness of them turned out to be a big part of that phase of blogging for me. Plus: the existence of the Dark Enlightenment world is sociologically interesting in its own right.

    I love writing under pseudonyms.

  28. Should have mentioned that I’ve always enjoyed steering a few people to Dennis Mangan’s blog too. And that I picked up on the Paleo eating-and-fitness movement early on.

  29. Scott Locklin says:

    I don’t know about “neoreactionary.” The whole nerdy in-group terminology thing does nothing to light my jets.
    I attribute my opinions to being equipped with fully functioning glands, both in the bow and amidship. Most people in the world have a better understanding of human nature and history than the ridiculous eloi which pollute our upper classes. Nobody is born that stupid; I attribute it to glandular disorders.

  30. ヴィトン バッグ コピー ロレックス デイデイト 価格 http://www.oi35.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: