Massive Tents

In the latest This Week in Reaction Nick B Steves has made the following claim:

“Generative Anthropology Blog (GABlog) deserves to be read a lot more. He’s tied for first in doing the best NRx theory right now, and he’s not even (officially) NRx. This week he discusses Principles: Imagining Sovereignty, Fantasizing Anarchy.”

with the following quote:

“To believe in a principle—say, “free speech”—is to imagine a mode of sovereignty. The government that grants free speech does so because it assumes that in the unrestrained discourse in which all citizens participate without coercion or intimidation the truth emerges along with a rational consensus for the government to act upon. Along with the imagined sovereignty, then, comes an anarchist fantasy—in this case, of free, rational individuals acting outside of government who choose, collaboratively, to act upon and, indeed, constitute the government.”

Yet earlier in the post he lists posts from Nick Land, Michael Rothblatt, Jim and a number of others who are neoreactionary who would disagree with the quote from Adam quite aggressively. In fact, they hold the exact opposite. They believe that society can and is formed in this peer to peer/ spontaneous order sense as per Hobbes et al. A straw poll of all the authors listed as neoreactionary would likely find that almost 100% agree with the anarchist interpretation.

So we have an odd situation. Adam is apparently creating neoreactionary theory which refutes the very anthropology all other neoreactionaries propose! Now, there are big tents, and then there are tents which seem to cover positions that are utterly opposed. You can therefore be a neoreactionary if you hold people can form governance peer to peer AND if you hold this peer to peer concept to be fantasy.

This would seem to point irrefutably to there being no central doctrine coming from Hestia, with existence in neoreaction then being premised on something else, such as in taking a negative position to various points of leftism maybe, like conservatism or the right wing. So Neoreaction is a boutique varient of the Alt-Right, no?

Discourse and the need to establish priors

To debate with someone who does not recognise that they possess underlying priors of set A, but instead continue making assumptions and arguments based on these priors as if they were just simply reality is to not really have a debate. Unless both parties can come to agreement as to the priors they bring to the debate, and what these entail for the words and concepts they employ, no civilized discourse can occur.

This brings us to neoreaction and zeroethsposition’s article again. Zerothposition can clearly be seen through his blog to be utterly clear about his priors. They are clearly libertarian. He seems to be influence by Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe among others, and this is all basically within the Lockean sphere. A discussion with such a thinker is possible, even if it is in disagreement. It can simply be pointed out that these priors are deemed false from position X, rendering further discussion civilised as long as both parties are aware of these differing stances. For example, I rejected Lockean anthropology for being a rhetorical device based on no observable reality which he (Locke) never tried to support by example. I hold it is quite absurd, and I consider all further attempts to provide arguments to support the concept of a pre-societal man of the state of nature variety to be failed in every possible. It would be interesting to conduct an investigation of previous occasions in which such an anarchistic interpretation occurred, and the status and position of those who brought it forward, as Filmer provides some examples from antiquity of this bizarre contraption.

As for neoreaction, there is no possibility to hold any kind of civilised debate, anymore than there is to hold such a debate with a representative of the Alt-Right until they A) acknowledge that their priors are derived from Locke ultimately, rendering them part of the liberal superstructure (something McIntyre calls  Modern Liberal Individualism) B) examine the logicality and robustness of their assertions.

For example, we can take a number of neoreactionary thinkers and look at A and B briefly. We can begin with Jim as a good starting point. Jim would likely possibly admit his Lockean basis, but this isn’t at all clear. He may even look at examining the logicality of his assertions with regard to this, but so far has not. There are a number of occasions when he has made it clear he considers governance optional, which is precisely Locke’s position based on the state of nature. He has then advocated patriarchy quite in contradiction to this. If governance is not necessary, and people are therefore capable of living in anarchistic conditions, then at what point do women and children become in need of being put under patriarchcal stewardship? Is this to be a male only anarchy? At what point does the man become capable of anarchy? You cannot extricate the state of nature rhetorical device and anarchism from the rejection of governance. The only way to “achieve” this in any sense is to simply apply unprincipled exceptions to anarchism, which is precisely what he is doing. Men are exempt from state of nature because X, so are group Y and Group Z etc.

We also have Ryan Landry. He often writes for Social Matter, and it is exceptionally clear he has this same collection of priors. It is littered all over his writing. For example, in his article Amerikansky Zones we have the following:

“The Amerikanskiy Zone will enjoy the protection of Russian state forces and protective nuclear umbrella and comply with Russian federal taxation, but all internal policies will be determined by the political asylum seekers–with transitional guidance from Kremlin representatives”

What is assumed under this? Frankly democracy and libertarianism, and Lockean anarchistic anthropology. This in effect is a variant of multi-culturalism with evident self-determination of peoples as per Wilsonianism, which again is just Lockean anarchism.

From another article Unrestricted Warfare, If You Can Fund It we again see this evident anthropology with discussion of weaponised individuals. The figure of Land also makes an appearance with the reference to X-Risk Democratization. This entire article rests on an anthropology which is directly linked to the very same anthropology which zerothposition explicitly acknowledges: the sovereign individuals capable of acting independently and without support of power already in place. Land is quite clear on his position; others refuse to acknowledge that they hold the same position on this.

Next up we have Thomas Barghest who in his article Techno-Commercialism and Markets in Morality lays out a rabid liberal conception of markets in everything with morality and ethics reduced to markets. If I have to outline how this is liberal from the top to the bottom, then maybe we have a serious problem.

Another author pushing this same anthropology and sea of liberal assumptions is Mark Citadel, whom I have previously covered. In his post Individualism? Collectivism? Soboernost! We see blatent Hobbesian/ Lockean theory dressed up in Russian garb.

Now these particular writers are not being picked on specifically, I think pretty much most neoreactionaries fall under the same umbrella, it’s just that most stick largely to negative criticisms of current society, and thus haven’t exposed their underlying priors, but they can probably be located with more review of their writing. But on a more general level, one only has to look at the maintenance of concepts such as exit (a weaponised right secured by the individual,) the trike (a assertion of the lack of doctrine and the acceptance of mainstream anthropology under all three prongs,) nationalism (locke pure and simple,) the weaponisable sovereign individual, democracy, or any other number of incoherent concepts. Try reading the week in reaction and making sense of neoreation.

It is in effect a sub set of the Alt-Right, which like with the example of Vox Day, Spencer et al contains no one with the intention to examine the underlying principles which are just reality obviously. I mean, tell me Spencer and Vox day and the rest aren’t just crappy Locke and liberalism at 3rd hand.

Zerothposition’s critique of Social Matter

Zerothposition’s criticisms of SocialMatter’s article is worth reading, and for what it is, it is coherent. Zeroth’s positions and conclusions are logical given a number of premises. These premises are Lockean anarchistic premises within which individuals precede society and political organisation of humans, which therefore naturally and logically renders political organisation superfluous to the spontaneous ordering of these anarchistic individuals, in a word it is libertarianism.

This is not that hard to deduce, given the author is very clear on being libertarian and states as much in his section of “statist pathologies.” His formulation of reactionary libertarianism is again logically sound. Libertarianism based on prior political arrangements follows quite clearly. His major problem, however, is that he is critiquing neoreaction which unlike his conception, is not logical or coherent at all, in fact this lack of coherence is celebrated as something positive. Hestia and Land never explains their position in any logical way, they don’t lay out their doctrine collectively because they comprise of a number of individuals with different positions, some almost openly reactionary libertarian, others reactionary libertarian in denial. This was formally acknowledged with the trike (eth-nat, tech-comm aka libertarian and theonomist) conception. There is simply no formal doctrine, so in effect Zerothposition is far, far more developed than they, and far, far more logical and honest.  This leads the author to correctly see in them a similar theoretical framework (libertarian) and then to correctly apply libertarian principles, which primarily consist of libertarian anthropology, which is to say Lockean anthropology (aka the whole basis of the liberal web of modern theory.)

The result is that Zerothposition correctly rejects all of those aspects of analysis which can be said to have derived from Moldbug precisely to the point at which they conflict with libertarianism. This has already been done by Nick Land with the Dark Enlightenment essay in a more convoluted way, and with the neoreaction project as a whole. In fact, the clear congruence between between zeroth’s position on a range of points and with Nick Land’s, Jim’s and a number of writers at Social Matter for instance is striking. Moldbug and Unqualified Reservations have no dog in this fight. Divided power analysis, Cathedral analysis and the like approached from a libertarian angle, with libertarian precepts kept in working order become hollowed out and fitted out for libertarianism. Divided power becomes assumed to be a tiresome regurgitation of the principal-agent problem thus casting out De Jouvenel’s key insight of the duality of power as being both power pursuit and altruism/social and the therefore fundamental role directed nature of the human agent. The Cathedral becomes yet another silly conspiracy theory of secretly organising groups as opposed to the result of divided power in setting the roles and practical circumstance of the actors in society. Liberal anthropology in effect chases out anything inimical to it by default.

So we can see with Zerothposition that he greatly objects to the arguments for secure power on the basis of the people rebelling, or as in this passage on “Overthrow the Crown”:

“In his examination of absolute monarchy, Perilloux demonstrates a complete ignorance of how challenges to monarchical power occur and succeed. When people are denied a voice and are either unable or unwilling to exit, they effect change by revolt. The royal military is generally unfit to deal with a hostile populace, as it is meant to protect the realm from foreign centralized threats, not the sort of decentralized but violent revolution which could depose a monarch by rendering his lands ungovernable. As long as the dissidents do not make the mistake of attempting to fight Goliath on Goliath’s terms, they can create a nightmare for the Crown through the use of guerrilla tactics and disappear back into the general population before they present a target to the royal military. Though the royal military has powerful weapons which are denied to the public, the use of these weapons will destroy the lives and properties of innocent people, as well as infrastructure that the Crown needs. This will only anger the public and cause fence-sitters to side with the rebels.”

Zerothposition is correct as far as Lockean anthropology goes, and having read Social Matter one will be hard pressed to find them express a conception of anthropology which is not in accordance with modern liberal theory, which is to say Lockean. As a result, Zerothposition can quite confidently criticisize Perilloux’s approach as a non-Lockean precept has not been made clear, and is not evident at all. On the other hand, reading Land for example, or Jim, or Landry (or any number of other Social Matter authors,) makes it very obvious to a third party that a Lockean position is evident and they write under the neoreaction moniker. It would follow that all “neoreactionaries” would have the same understanding of anthropology, even if broadly, no?

From completely non-Lockean anthropology, which is implicit in most of what Moldbug wrote and explicit at a number of points, we can dismiss all of zeroth’s position in the above passage as being completely severed from observable reality. There is simply no successful rebellion which is not led by a segment of the power structure in place, and in fact, almost all rebellion is developed by actors within the power structure of any given place. Exceptions prove the rule . Man thus ceases to be capable of spontaneous peer to peer organisation (a continuation of that great fraud of the social contract in which individuals all merge together peer to peer), but is dependent on structure and organisation. Black Lives Matter for instance has clearly been funded and organised into existence by foundations and the Democratic political apparatus, as was the Civil Rights Era, while the Protestant Revolution appears to have clearly been sponsored and encouraged by various secular monarchs of Germany and North West Europe. It appears the current migrant crisis follows this same pattern, with either NGO encouragement and information distribution and now the uncovering of NGO ferrying. Spontaneity which rests on Lockean foundations is fundamentally laid bare for the fraud it is when one removes those foundations.

Neoreaction is locked in the continual battle of Lockean anthropology and Moldbug theory which Locke is clearly winning.

Political party formation

Unfortunately, liberal theory acts as an exceptionally potent hallucinogen. One huff of it sends the user completely off their heads. Political science or economics (across the board, and including Austrian economics) are clear examples of this, with the most obscene and blatantly retarded ideas enshrined as good sense. Purely retarded theories. The idea of legitimacy is one good example from politics, and on consideration, the idea of questioning the legitimacy of your government is absurd. Outside of political theory and political discourse, I mean, has anyone ever stopped in the middle of the day and thought to themselves “actually I will decide if the government should have my allegiance, hum, yep. I will reconsider tomorrow”? No, the concept is absurd. The only people who would raise such a question will be those seeking power themselves, rendering such a concept an issue of power conflict and not of intrinsic human behaviour, and just how many people have schemed for power against government? Barely any before the advent of democracy and the free for all of divided power and electoral politics, no, such a state of affairs is created by power conflict. The issue of legitimacy is a silly one and not worth considering seriously. Governments are legitimate by default. A review of the history of this idea of legitimacy is fruitful in this regard (Filmer has much to say on this.)

There are other areas in which this liberal crack messes up thinking, and the creation of organisations is a central one.

How do you form a political organisation that is not a mess? You do it from the top down as you would a business or an army. You have your core start up team, staff of generals, political party leadership led by a clear leader with a clear command structure and an understanding of their roles, the project, and the organisation.

These people then secure their resources, have a clear direction and then set about recruiting staff, soldiers, people. The recruitment process is one way and selective. They don’t just open the door and let anyone come in and tell them what to do, how to do it and what their direction and goals should be, that will give you a rabble of idiots. This presupposes the start up team/ general staff/ political party heads have a fucking clue what they are doing, which if they are liberal crack smokers they won’t. They will likely kick open the doors because, like, we can’t tell people what to do and stuff, and we need to let spontaneous order work man, and we need numbers, plus they are my friends and stuff, or some such variant (note the lack of liberal structure in the military, business and political parties.) Of course, being “right wing” it will be dressed up in some variant of freedom and “thinking for one self” which routes back to the legitimacy nonsense. The leaders smoking liberalism will also have all sorts of bizarre notions which will render organisation a mess.

Back to forming the organisation coherently, it is pretty much taken for granted that the military, the start up, the political party has zero fucks to care about recruits little opinions because that is not what they are for. They are there to join, be given a role and a purpose and to contribute to the endeavour, to which they will be grateful for the purpose they now have. The military and those effective political parties of the 20th century understood/ understand this very well. The recruit is nothing, and they should not consider their opinions worthwhile until they have attained a relevant position following significant development and training to provide their opinion. For businesses this is less pressed, but is still pretty much there.

So we have a small core who knows what they are doing, which then develops a plan and organisation, and then recruits according to this, and the authority and doctrine flow down.

For a political party specifically, this process will require a small and very intelligent core of thinkers fluent in the political party’s theory so as to be able to develop doctrine. A formal gatekeeping mechanism must be in place. A political journal for example. There must be a clear party as well. No secrecy, the party must pretty much be recorded and open. Claims to be able to maintain anonymity in the modern era are absurd. Not possible at all, and the party leadership should be visible anyway. It is not a terrorist organisation, and not a threat to the government.

The gatekeeping must also ultimately fall to a single person, much as Mussolini did with Fascism. Any non-offical claims to doctrine must be rejected and attacked. Something that wouldn’t be difficult at all, and likely wouldn’t even occur at all.

Once doctrine is clear and complete, education in the doctrine is possible on a simplified basis, which is the same with all education. First you take the information by rote, then you begin to understand, then you can engage. Many in the organisation will not need to learn much, only so much as to understanding their role and the goal. Others of more value would learn far more and progress through the ranks to be potential leadership material.

From the end of the recruit, they must simply accept they know nothing, and have nothing to offer until they learn and are trained. Those not willing to join as recruits, and instead attack with their own ideas are enemies to be dealt with by the party leadership. They may engage the attack openly and may even learn from the arguments, but they don’t let them join or claim to be of the party. The doctrine is right, not you.

But again this all depends on the party leadership having a fucking clue, which is the fatal stumbling block.

On developing political theory and organisations, or how to get shot in the head and chucked in a canal like Rosa Luxemberg

The underlying assumptions present in any attempt to organize a new political theory will ultimately determine what is to become of it, and a look at the examples of fascism, communism and neoreaction provide effective demonstrations on how to do it, and how not to do it.

Both fascists and communists had very clear organisations through which intellectual developments were veted, checked against theory and kept within a clear party line. They thus had organisation and were able to develop coherent (if crazy due to inhereted liberal theory) theory. Neoreaction was conceived as a laissez faire crab bucket where everything and everyone could throw in their own opinions and spontaneous order was supposed to take over. Think more Rosa Luxemberg and left communism, than Lenin, Hitler or Mussolini.

Fascism and communism being led by people with clear understanding of power knew very clearly that you could control what people in your organisation said, and you could keep your theory in line by simply stating “we are X, and this is officially Y.” Neoreaction led by Land denied this was possible because they have a dysfunctional understanding of how people work.

The inherent rejection of the ability to organize from the top down is implicit assertion of the rejection of the points and the theory put forward by Moldbug, which is why Land’s Dark Enlightenment essay and neoreaction should not be read as a continuation of Moldbug, but as an express rejection of Moldbug. If you let make their own crap up, you just end up with retarded trash that floats back to pure liberalism because that is what happens.

So what is neoreaction? everything under the neoreaction aggregator, every piece of random crap people identified as neoreactionary claim it is, no matter how incoherent, and every claim by a journalist. So it is nationalistic, supporting of the glorious revolution, pro-Whig history, pro-restricted democracy, pro-disintermediation without institutions (lol), pro-monarchy, anti-monarchy, pro-Trump, pro-ground up cultural creation etc. A stew of crap basically.



Futility of the alt-right

The maintenance of culture over power remains key to the right in all its incarnations, which explains their general ineffectiveness yet general popularity (right is generaly popular, despite the massive effort of the press.) It also explain their inability to make any sense of history or general events, as instead of being able to analyse events, every single event must be put through a filter of culture above power. The result is always colourful, crazy and incoherent.

One only has to look at the proliferation of various pet theories in the alt-right and neoreaction to see this enacted over, and over again. Ever new mystical explanations and bizarre concoctions are devised and argued over. All of these concoctions share the same underlying premise that people are all sovereign individuals, they all agglomerate together by their own volition and we merely have to explain to them all why they should agglomerate in formation X. Nationalism, for example, is a perfect example of this, as is recognizing shared genetic interests, in fact, pretty much all political theory dating back to Hobbes is of this type.

The right in particular though, follows this through into areas of total stupidity and has settled in a rut of taking this to an extreme of rejecting governance and institutions. Libertarianism for example, and anarcho-capitalism are premised on the need for either minarchist governance or no governance as culture being a spontaneous thing (its not) just grows from these sovereign individuals (it doesn’t.)

If, however, we reject this frame for the ideologically based hallucinogen it is, then we can look at things such as the rise of radical Islamism with fresh eyes. It no longer becomes something intrinsic to Muslims nor a irresistible force which will persist. History shows this to be pure nonsense, with radical Islamism having a history, a very modern history at that.

So, instead of looking at this process as a cultural one which has bubble up from the Ummah, let us look at power above culture, and then try to establish if any organisations and institutions can be seen behind Islamism which can explain its origin, its funding, and it sudden development in the 20th century. Luckily a lot of this has already been researched by leftists and is quite openly available.

It seems quite clear that Islamism was funded into existence with Saudi money and CIA assistance in Pakistan and Afghanistan as a means to generate conflict for the USSR. The CIA also used the trick in places such as Egypt to act as counters to socialist parties. The Israelis got in on the act in Palestine as well with the support of Hamas contra the PLO. All of this is quite clearly on record, as the fact of the matter is that in politics violent actors are an asset in all instances, be they black criminals or Muslim islamists, they are useful.

Islamism then, is a culture which has been funded into existence, and remains in existence due to the maintenance of institutions (madrassas, Saudi and Gulf funding, Western secret services support – see Syria.)

We can do this again with the whole anti-racism issue. Anyone trying to explain this as some cultural process that just occurred has an awful long row to hoe and tends to go into all sorts of bizarre claims that are unsupportable. On the other hand, one can trace the activities of the USA elite through the philanthropic foundations and demonstrate the clear line of foundation money preceding the spread of anti-racism. The subsequent augmentation by the governments of the respective countries and additional foundations present a giant skeleton framework on which the whole anti-racism superstructure rests. Trying to deal with this with “real talk” is frankly absurd. The money keep flowing in torrents.

But none of this can be seen by the right, because the first act is always to put events through the left-right sovereign individual filter after which, out pops nonsense.

When all the alt-right have spun their wheels, the whole funding structure will still be there, and they will be forgotten.

Nothing to get excited about

All cultural emanations are mere secondary effects of institutional entities, as such, we can look at the potential effect of Trump, both in what he can create, and what he can destroy, by taking into account what institutional structures he can bring about and what culture will be selected and/ or created by these institutions.

Firstly, despite his reference to draining the swamp, Trump’s potential to make any lasting impression beyond even the most superficial is very limited. Taking the Cathedral analysis into account (actual Cathedral analysis, not the liberal theory infested mockery) we can establish that there is a vast area of governance which Trump (even if he wanted) could not touch.

Starting with NGOs, he won’t touch them. Moving to foundations, he won’t touch them. Moving to the various “private” companies deeply connected with government such as Google, Facebook, Reddit etc. he won’t touch them. Moving swiftly to education, he won’t touch it. Moving on to private wealth which is used to forward left wing agendas (such as the egregious example of Soros) he won’t touch it.

Now let’s move on to actual admitted government, which is merely a sub section of the real government structure. He will have to pull teeth and risk major damage merely to defund a small part of it.

And what about pushing his own culture by shaping his own institutions? I don’t see any real plan, and this is exactly what is wrong with the right wing. They are stupid and believe the same stupid things that the left wing does except they believe them in an even more pure form. The right totally believes that culture is spontaneous, that each person is a sovereign individual and that culture is the amalgamation of these sovereign individuals spontaneously working together. The left meanwhile grabs education, uses media, controls the narrative and creates institutions and funding sources to keep their cultural developments in existence. The left in effect being liberalism of the actual rulers, the right being liberalism of the non-rulers. The right is therefore functionally retarded and useless. Tits on a boar useless.

Instead of rejection of this gibberish the right wing will continue selling each other snake oil about disinter-mediation, sovereign individuals, a new Reformation (the last one gave us the modern state, but hey, don’t let that upset your fantasy of “liberty”) and widespread “don’t tread on me” liberty.

Unless Trump has a solid, extra governmental organisation, with its own security apparatus and ability to operate outside of the scope of the laws of the Republic, and it is actually organised and subject to his judgement and a clear and organised plan, all we will see is lots of screaming and noise, but nothing fundamentally done, because all the institutions are in place, the funding is still there and there is no potential for new institutions (which don’t even have a guiding purpose – what is Trumpism? it seems to be bland protectionism)

Any claim that the Cathedral is finished demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the thing and a lack of understanding that culture is downstream from power and Trump isn’t power.