What does Holla Forums think of neoreaction?

What does Holla Forums think of neoreaction?

Other urls found in this thread:


Neo-reactionaries apparently learnt nothing from Imperial Russia/China's failed attempt at "no, we just want your tech and skills, not your politics, philosophy, or anything else that might fundamentally alter the political system, dumb Westerners"

You could educate citizens that monarchy is in their best interest, and that democracy inevitably leads to decline.

Neoreaction also includes neocameralism, or joint stock owned corporate governments. Governments make more money for their shareholders by providing better government; as your citizens grow wealthier and standards of living go up, you can be more selective with immigrants, and people with skills and money will opt not to emigrate to a different place. Moldbug wanted democracies to dissolve into neocameralist city states.

For people who think they would've been kings rather than peasants

The problem most people have with democracy is that they feel politicians aren't responsive enough - I don't know how you're going to win them over with a political system that's even less responsive to people's desires.

kek, neoreactionaries outing once more that they're just libertarians on steroids. And you do know that shareholders vote for the CEO-I mean, king, right?

Moldbug's a cherrypicking prevaricating mischling Jew that just can't understand that the success of the city-states he holds up as the pinnacle of human development is due mostly to unique factors that can't reasonably be replicated by most of the world (Singapore), and I don't trust any non-Arab that holds Dubai in high esteem

Or for people who realize a return to autocratic government does not mean a return to agrarian feudalism.

There are several non-democratic vectors by which power in a democracy could transfer, most notably a coup or an elected strongman becoming corrupt.

True, but not every citizen is a shareholder. In fact, shareholders do not even necessarily have to be citizens.

Neoreactionary criticism of democracy and demotism aren't contingent on Singapore being successful.

No. It's regressive, anti-egalitarian, and for people who can't handle democracy.

Substantiate what you mean when you say people are equal

There are a lot of things to dislike about democracy. Try reading the following:



They're my favourite right-wingers because they read.

some dumb ass shit my man.

I am very confused by neoreactionaries who seem to think that democracy is the source of all problems, when it's well-known that, for example, most Americans don't view politicians as responsive to their desires, but instead to those of the ruling class. How will less-responsive, even more oligarchical governance resolve this issue when the proletariat and bourgeoisie are fundamentally opposed to one another? Most of them aren't going to be in the ruling class either, so I'm not sure what the actual end goals they hope their non-democratic governments will achieve. What happens when the owners decide to govern according to the ideology of authoritarian neoliberalism, i.e. "Corporate America will protect PoC and LGBTQ from Trump?" Most of these people seem a whole lot more butthurt about minorities and gays or whatever than they really care about economics.

Also, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't become repressive. Monarchies were overthrown for a reason. Why wouldn't joint-stock-corporation-countries collude with one another to prevent standards of living from getting too high for the proletariat, when the bourgeoisie owns the government to an even greater extent they currently do? No one is going to prosecute them for this.

But at least they are not the alt-right.

If I were some Soros tier millionaire I would hire assassins to kill them all and make it look like an accident in every case, so that their numbers would dwindle without ever allowing any of them to be martyred.

Their problem with democracy is that it doesn't stress the interests of autistic unlovable involuntary celibates. That is it.

What does Whig History have to do with thinking that your ideology is regressive?

The entire argument is postulated on "winner take all" and "rep democracy" being counter intuitive, whereas direct democracy doesn't require either. I don't want a big masculine authoritarian to make desicioms for me, take your cuck ideology somewhere else.

You might as well have linked the alternative hypothesis.

Ideology is spooky as fuck m8.

Their critique of bourgeois democracy shares a lot with ours.

But their solution is not to abolish the oligarchy in bourgeois "democracies" but to formalize it, and their arguments that this represents an improvement for non-oligarchs are wholly unconvincing.

Nobody wants autocracy.

They view the typical Silicone Valley autist as the true agent of history. They are not concerned with the liberation of the average person. It is not a priority for them at all. If they address it at all, it's the usual truncated "job creator" excuse making.

Why are so many NRxers social conservatives, then? In the NRx-sphere, it is taken for granted that behavioral traits are genetic, Autism Level is genetic so that the ruling classes are there more or less due to superior intelligence, and so on. Considering that most Silicon Valley capitalists are socially liberal, why wouldn't they continue to govern in a socially liberal way, as in, the opposite of what they would want? Why wouldn't their state leadership become something akin to Obama with an iron fist? Capitalism is fundamentally amenable to social liberalism unless racial divisions need to be sown in times of crisis to protect property rights, after all.

I think you overestimate the social liberalism of Silicon Valley types. Of course there are a lot of liberals there, but there are also a great many "libertarian" autists, like Peter Thiel. It is a short leap from "libertarianism" to fascism, as Holla Forums's evolution demonstrated.




You're wrong.

I agree that the transition to "formalism" would be counter productive to many of NRx's goals, mainly because of what sort of people are in current oligarchies.

The intention is to make the opinions of citizens completely irrelevant to the functioning of government, that way the government will not care what you think. Far better than the current system, where the government is two opposing propaganda machines attempting to control the state. Consider the average social scientists reaction to Trump's election: clearly these people are trying to direct society, not study it. Everything has been infiltrated by partisans.

Monarchies were overthrown for a lot of bad reasons, and some good ones that will largely be taken care of with medical science.

Why would you assume competing companies would trust each other? Why would it be a goal to depress standards of living?

Distracters nearly irrelevant to economic interest will quickly become an unimportant part of political discourse in neocameralist leadership. Identity liberation nonsense doesn't make money.

I think there is a fundamental difference here. I suspect that many Silicon Valley people are libertarians first and foremost, as in, they believe that free market capitalism is optimal and improves peoples lives through creative disruption and so on. Many of them are anti-racist and pro-LGBTQ.

Holla Forums is on the other hand racist first and foremost, and libertarian is an afterthought. I think this should be understood in the following way: State action is understood as something that benefits "genetic inferiors" at the expense of whites, so logically a True Free Market would place whites in their rightful place in the hierarchy, or they subscribe to a Hoppe-esque type of "libertarianism", for whom it is pretty clear that hatred of gays, minorities, non-Christians, etc. is central to their ideology.

You're an AnCom? There are more obvious problems with that governing structure.

Regressive is the opposite of progressive.

literally saudi arabia

Because more extractive institutions would make more money for the bourgeoisie, presumably. It is not as if companies that "compete" don't collude with one another. Just a few years ago in Silicon Valley there was a scandal over wage-fixing agreements between Apple, Google, Facebook and the like. Companies will collude when collusion is more conducive to profits than competition.

Okay, but why will this lead to social conservatism and/or white homogeneity, which seems to be an end goal for many NRxers? From NRx conceits on Autism Level and economic growth, we would expect that liberal, diverse (in some sense) corporate states would generate more money, because smart people who are Asian, Indian, gay, socially liberal, or whatever, would be more inclined to live under said corporate state than a Christianist one.

I mean, I'm willing to entertain the idea that, for example, people in California or the Northeast would find a liberal NRx government palatable enough. Half of the country is happy when their half of the propaganda machine wins, after all. Assuming the heritability of political beliefs and the settlement patterns of America, it's possible that the greater South and greater North + West Coast will never be able to agree ideologically. I just don't get why many fans of NRx are also social conservatives.

This. Except instead of beheadings there would be crucifixions.

Look up the Californian Ideology. A lot of Silicon Valley NRx types are heavily influenced by Ayn Rand.

I've read this before, but is Ayn Rand really a social conservative? Her "thought" is more social darwinist if anything.


She didn't describe herself as such, and arch-conservatives like Buckley hated her, but it's not really much of a stretch to classify her as one, at least in some ways. She hated hippies and leftists, she thought homosexuality was immoral, and while she "critiqued" racism she was pretty clever about disguising her distaste blacks and Native Americans.

Moldbug began the movement, and he wrote about how progressivism/universalism is a mystery cult of power, or it employs a bunch of fairly meaningless concepts (humanity, progress, justice, etc.). Universalism is, from the beginning, predicated on lies about human nature and human goodness. It's another religion telling people what they want to hear, but about this world, not the next one.

In some sense is pretty key. Whites are not the smartest country in the world, but you can't flood Britain with Australian Aboriginals and expect it to function as well afterwards.

It's not impossible, I suppose, for neocameralist states to collude with each other on taxes. There will be a huge benefit to defecting though (all those rich, talented, high paying immigrants).

Not necessarily. It will cut off the Cathedral (Universities, journalists, and opinion mobilizers) from its ties to power, though, which probably slow down the rate of increasingly radical critical theory becoming mainstream opinion.

the main problem with Land's neoreactionary politics is that it's primarily a philosophical project
Dark Enlightment didn't emerge out of an ethical system, from which any political movement seems to amass itself (in my opinion, anyway), but out of Land's "mad dark deleuzianism"
look at his works and interviews from the 90s, he was full on anarchokiddie with Sheldon Cooper's mannerisms
then he basically proved Badiou's point of Deleuze's rhizomatic project being proto-faschist, as it invites the unincluded N+1 into the epistemological system that takes it over as an absolute agent in the paradigm of impotency
well, that leaves us to clear one point: Land being a virulent defender of nihilism doesn't care for any well being whatsoever but the acquisition of his philosophical project, which is the accelerationism-bound singularity base for new epistemological system
to break neoreactionarism one needs only to break down his philosophical project
and people like Brassier and Negarestani have already done so, positing a speculative answer to the problem of nihilism-affirmation through the phenomenological incapability of perception of ethics outside teleology (similar to the free will doctrine Zizek holds)
here is the full lecture of Brassier on Land's accelerationism if anyone's interested

also, as an additional comment: Nick Land's work should not be overlooked by any means, he has some amazing insights and the dark enlightenment itself posits some "true contradiction" problems that are not to be avoided due to the fact that they are truly important
as a thinker Land is as important for the new philosophy as Wittgenstein was for the 20th century
now the problem of the potential of his project and their end-goal potency is one that certainly in need to be discussed
especially on the left

Yeah, but if a state tries to go against the implicit status quo, someone else can always declare war on them for some reason or another, assuming both parties aren't nuclear-armed. Currently, the bourgeois state uses antitrust law to prevent collusion to some extent. The bourgeois state has the biggest gun, and corporations are dependent on the bourgeois state to defend their property rights, so they play along. I can't see any equivalent of this in a NRx world, except for "which state-corp has the biggest gun?"

off my board.

Not all NRx is accelerationist. Moldbug wrote before Land did.

This is an odd assumption. Nuclear technology is not an unambiguously positive thing for the city state idea (in fact I think it's closer to the opposite), but conquest is much harder now.

Can't "The Cathedral" be viewed as an outgrowth of genetic characteristics of Western Euros to some extent? For example, higher levels of individualism, family structure, participation in civic institutions, more inclusive economic institutions, lower amounts of corruption, and so on?

As far as I know, most of the idpol academics you're referring to are mostly read by one another. Everyone on the right complains about idpolers in colleges but I've met literally zero of them. The mainstream media is increasingly viewed as a joke in the US, as most of these journalists live in a bubble where they are only exposed to one another. We just elected Trump.

I was imagining something like an immigration policy focused on admitting, say, foreigners coming through the university system.

But anyway, what does the bourgeoisie care how well the state "functions"? The definition of "functions" for the bourgeoisie can differ wildly from the definition of "function" for the proletariat. All the bourgeoisie cares about is that their property rights are not threatened, and these will surely be the same people running the state-corp, seeing as we already have the bourgeoisie running the state in practice. As long as profits keep rolling in, they really have no reason to care about social upheaval unless it threatens to overthrow the existing order.

For example, almost everyone on the Right is currently concerned about immigration. Blind devotion to diversity aside, immigration from third world countries mostly functions as a transfer from workers in rich countries to workers to their employers, so I would expect this to continue under a liberal state-corp. If the state-corp doesn't run any welfare programs, the reduced labor costs will mean more tax revenue at the end of the day. I guess people could leave, but as we can see from, for example, California, the state-corp could insulate the professional class from the impoverished masses in various ways. They would also be incentivized to prevent the most talented people from leaving, forcibly if necessary.

The same is true of, say, vice industries. These make money, so there is no real reason to expect that things like pornography or gambling would be banned or that a religious revival would occur. I personally think the only reason that drugs continue to remain illegal is because the CIA makes money trafficking them.

Thanks for not picking on "Whites are not the smartest country"

Perhaps? The term's a bit loose. For the most part, the Cathedral is what happens if you give political power to people who mobilize opinion- they immediately argue for the dispersion of power, so they can become more powerful, and they also try to establish rules (think of the current rate of pejoration) so they can exercise immediate influence. The average journalism major is interested in saving the world, and the average person saving the world is interested in leaving a mark on it.

If you mean universalism, to some extent (it's the least offensive position you could muster in any company), but white people can obviously feel differently, and it's hard to deny we've been raised on universalist mantras.

Only possible with the internet, but nonetheless extremely important. The discourse shifted from mobilizers and journalists to controversial retweeters, and democracy is probably much more unstable now.

It's generally costly to implement social controls like this, and if you begin enslaving people for being productive that's going to hurt productivity in the long run.

Or it reduces profitability. You shouldn't expect the state to be too paternalistic here, but that's one of the appeals- a lot of neoreactionaries are converted libertarians.

The stuff about immigration is true. A lot of neocameralist states wouldn't have minimum wages, and would be pretty indifferent to their lower classes. At the same time, I suspect a lot of neocameralist states would be careful about nickel an hour, let all the brown people in factory labor because they would run into crime problems that would ultimately drive off their professional class. People have different motivations for NRx though- there are some 1488ers who want white patriarchal enclaves with eugenics, Moldbug wanted free thought and Austrian economics, Land wanted the extinction of all mankind, etc.

I agree, and I personally don't care. Anyways, NRx is easy to defend because it's amorphous- Moldbug was a neocameralist, but some NRx bloggers are monarchists or even Church state types.

Traditionalist school=/=NRx