Don’t conflate Neoreation and Moldbug.

Over in Neoreaction land, hyper selective quoting of Moldbug leads Land to declare on the back of Moldbug’s article on folk activism:

“Of course, very few are capable of doing anything positively valuable, such as inventing a new crypto-currency, or advancing some other practical Exit technology, so the temptation is to do something retarded instead. “Something needs to be done, and this is something.” Also, they’re increasingly desperate, poor creatures.”

Does this not sum neoreaction up nicely? Moving to the Moldbug post in question, we can start with the culled quote from Land:

A restoration of traditional, pre-liberal or even pre-Christian Norway is a herculean task of social and political engineering. It cannot possibly be carried on without absolute sovereignty. Indeed, the task of eradicating liberal institutions and liberal culture in Norway, though tremendous (and itself requiring absolute sovereignty), pales before the much more difficult task of recreating a genuine Norwegian society that isn’t a ridiculous theme-park joke. […] The idea that any incremental political change, achieved by any sort of “activism” (from mass whining to mass murder), can advance this project in any way at all, is inherently retarded.”

Why did Moldbug write this? Is he saying violence is inherently wrong in any and every situation? And therefore the only option is peaceful exit? Please. I really cannot understand why he does not take issue with Land’s jujitsu. It’s a joke.

To understand the Moldbug post, it really requires the reader to understand that Moldbug is writing from a De Jouvenelian framework. In this framework, the high in society (the left wing) benefit from any shitty behaviour by the low in society- be it blacks rioting, Muslims shooting the place up, or general criminality. This low actors in the drama of civilisation have a ready patron in the left, who ride to their rescue and denounce the evil Amerikanas that make up the middle as racist, sexist and whateverist.

The left, are not in slightest averse to encouraging these shitty lows in society from behaving badly. In fact they often bankroll and organise it through non-official channels. With Muslims this is not really needed, but the Muslims are on the same page regardless, and are aware of what actions are needed to accord with the left/highs game of Jeff and Mutley.

So is violence to achieve political goal inherently bad and wrong? No. no, no, no ,no. In fact, it is the only way to achieve the particular goal of sovereignty. Moldbug incidentally provided a pretty exhaustive critique of this crap with the response to his removal from the seasteading institutes talk. What is wrong is someone with goals which are explicitly anti-left wing committing violence without any explicit, or crypto-patron to benefit.

Hitler and the Freikorps had patrons in the German power structure, and Hitler himself only put up with the Freikorps until he got control. They did not ride into power by themselves. This holds true everywhere.

So Alt-right, forget Land, he is not channelling Moldbug, don’t conflate them at all, and instead answer this–

Who is your patron in the power structure? 

If the answer comes back negative. Don’t commit political violence.

Advertisements