News:

OK fuckers, let me out of here. I farted for you, what more do you want from me? Jesus fuck.

Main Menu

Neoreactionaries

Started by Verbal Mike, November 24, 2013, 08:58:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on November 30, 2013, 07:06:30 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 30, 2013, 07:00:27 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on November 29, 2013, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2013, 06:45:35 PM
I think they've realised their libertarian ideals are not popular in democracy and so, instead of figuring out ways to sell them to the public, or modify them, they've decided instead, libertarianism requires a dictator-CEO and a board of aristocratic directors, to do away with democracy entirely.

:lulz: In order to be truly free, we first must do away with freedom?

Brother Nihil has said precisely that.

Wow. Stupidity or mental illness? It can be so hard to figure out which.

Apparently, the illusion of a "contradiction" is caused by two things:

1.  More and more people can do whatever they want, which LOOKS like freedom, but really isn't, because this includes women, and that fucks with his freedom, as a guy, to actually have sex with something other than a sock, and

2.  Some sort of mystical shit about a cathedral.  Now, I've been to the Basillica in St Johns, which is a BIGASS cathedral, and while the people that run it are Catholic, they didn't seem to be enslaving people right in the open.  I'm not sure why this works, but it does.  Also, women should be forced to have sex with Brother Nihil when he wants them to do so.

Bonus reason #3:  Brother Nihil desperately wants to get laid, but doesn't know exactly how to go about making it happen...And Libertarianism is old hat, and nobody listens to Pagans, so I guess he figured he'd just mash the whole thing together and see what happens.

Guess what?

He won't be passing his genes on to the next generation.  So there's something to be said for all of this, after all.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Cain

I do actually agree with the neoreactionaries that democratic formalism should not be confused with freedom.  Democratic structures don't guarantee freedom, and freedom can flourish under other political systems.

That said, democracy tends to be better for encouraging such freedoms, when focused on its ideal type, and retains the ability to dismiss unsatisfactory leaders with better mechanisms than other systems.

Cain

#17
Also, the Anti-Neoreactionary FAQ mentioned by Stross is really good, and I do recommend it http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/

Reginald Ret

Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2013, 11:30:41 AM
Also, the Anti-Neoreactionary FAQ mentioned by Stross is really good, and I do recommend it http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
Interesting, thanks.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

Cain

In particular, I liked this line:

QuoteIf Barack Obama said the entire country had to convert to Mormonism at gunpoint as part of a complicated plot for him to bone Natalie Portman, we'd just tell him no.

Telarus

Telarus, KSC,
.__.  Keeper of the Contradictory Cephalopod, Zenarchist Swordsman,
(0o)  Tender to the Edible Zen Garden, Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times,
/||\   Episkopos of the Amorphous Dreams Cabal

Join the Doll Underground! Experience the Phantasmagorical Safari!

Verbal Mike

I think the sad truth is that the Neoraction is simply an honest logical conclusion of Libertarianism. If you think things work best when everything is private property, the state/polity itself should not rationally be excluded. Liberatrian precursors to the Neoreaction have outright said that incentive-wise, a feudal system should entail better management altogether. (Or at least Hoppe did, I think, don't remember whether he even counts as Libertarian/AnCap.)

Basically, from Libertarianism, if you don't end up regaining your senses and turning left, intellectual honesty will compell you to descend to "Anarcho"-Capitalism (repressed Neofeudalism) and from there to the Neoreaction. The Neoreactionaries are the only honest part of that spectrum. Everything else is just waiting to fall all the way down there.
Unless stated otherwise, feel free to copy or reproduce any text I post anywhere and any way you like. I will never throw a hissy-fit over it, promise.

Reginald Ret

Quote from: Verbal Mike on December 02, 2013, 12:00:51 AM
I think the sad truth is that the Neoraction is simply an honest logical conclusion of Libertarianism. If you think things work best when everything is private property, the state/polity itself should not rationally be excluded. Liberatrian precursors to the Neoreaction have outright said that incentive-wise, a feudal system should entail better management altogether. (Or at least Hoppe did, I think, don't remember whether he even counts as Libertarian/AnCap.)

Basically, from Libertarianism, if you don't end up regaining your senses and turning left, intellectual honesty will compell you to descend to "Anarcho"-Capitalism (repressed Neofeudalism) and from there to the Neoreaction. The Neoreactionaries are the only honest part of that spectrum. Everything else is just waiting to fall all the way down there.
Regarding Anarcho-capitalism: Why do you think rejecting hierarchy without rejecting money is repressed neofeudalism?
Sure, it will inevitably lead to feudalism but that doesn't make it inherently feudalistic.
It just makes it hopelessly idealistic. Utopian, even.
Or is that what you mean by calling it dishonest?
Because it doesn't take into account the unavoidable consequences?
Could we perhaps give eachother room to describe the violent parts of hierachy as bad without coming to any definitive conclusions regarding the ultimate solution?
Ultimate solutions tend to be sooo absolute. And that begs for violence bringing us back to what is commonly considered an undesirable outcome.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

von

Quote from: Verbal Mike on December 02, 2013, 12:00:51 AM
I think the sad truth is that the Neoraction is simply an honest logical conclusion of Libertarianism. If you think things work best when everything is private property, the state/polity itself should not rationally be excluded. Liberatrian precursors to the Neoreaction have outright said that incentive-wise, a feudal system should entail better management altogether. (Or at least Hoppe did, I think, don't remember whether he even counts as Libertarian/AnCap.)

Basically, from Libertarianism, if you don't end up regaining your senses and turning left, intellectual honesty will compell you to descend to "Anarcho"-Capitalism (repressed Neofeudalism) and from there to the Neoreaction. The Neoreactionaries are the only honest part of that spectrum. Everything else is just waiting to fall all the way down there.

It (neoreaction) may appear to be this, but really examine some of it closer and you'll see why: neoreaction isn't a new ideology. It's literally just an excessively vague set of ideals that are worded in language that allows it to be shaped into the belief systems of damn near every radical-righttm system.

I could easily say that neoreaction is a "logical conclusion" to ethnic nationalism: A volkisch leader as monarch, an upper eschalon on pure-bred volk as aristocracy, and acceptably-bred volk as commoners, who under the command of the royalty, protect the military and economic interests of the volk by giving their labour as workers, farmers and soldiers. "Enemy" is other ethnic groups, as they infringe on resources the volk could use.

Likewise, I could say that neoreaction is the "local conclusion" to religious extremism: A pope as monarch, bishops as the aristocracy, and lay religious peoples as the commoner, who protect the interests of the faith by work, war, etc. "Enemy" is other religious groups...again, they breathe air that could be used by the truely faithful.

Again, the laissez faire capitalist can be a neoreactionary as well: Monopoly CEO as king, shareholders as aristocrats, employees as...well, we have the trend set out thus far. Again, all working to the benefit of the monopolist corporation. "Enemy" is other companies, cuz they steal "our" customers and use "our" resources for production.

Boots on the ground, a "purist" in any of these ideologies would be quite unlike his fellows from the other groups, but when you put it under an umbrella like "neoreaction", you can garner a following of dumbass teens, racists, 19th century capitalists and mormons hard-line religious people like moldbug has done with his nihil-tier followers. In essence, moldbug is a blogger...so he cast a wide net so that he could cater to the entire right at once -- not the religious right, the racist right or the moderates, but to the whole thing at once: great way to garner readership...or so it would seem.

Most of the more "righty" places I peep in on from time to time either:

A) don't even know about, care about or discuss neoreaction
B) Think it's fucking stupid, albeit for slightly different reasons that would give a leftist.

Example (from stormfront...yeah, that one):
Quote
...Their attitude towards the Jewish Question is also usually unforgivable, and they glamorize capitalism, usury, the idea of an aristocratic ruling class, and often Jewish supremacy. These are not the kind of people we want to associate ourselves with, although in times they may serve as the useful idiots, in that they pose no threat whatsoever because their ideas will never lead to a large movement, and that they do have somewhat of a key into the minds of the elite with which they can make them consider their racial views. Apart from that, no they aren't White Nationalists, and we'd do well to look elsewhere for guidance...

and honestly, that's about the best example of how people are reacting to it. Patriots? Can't find an opinion...too busy discussing drone strikes and what makes .223 better than 7.62x39 and vice versa. Asatruar? No opinion...different groups largely focused on local politics or politics specifically related to their faith. 4chan? Threads about the idea either auto-sage with about 3 replies, or else neo-nazis, christians and libertarians pick the OP apart on the grounds that they don't agree with it, and then the OP dies.

But yeah, it appears to be a "logical conclusion" to libertarianism because it's simply a blanket ideology that appears to have been made specifically to appeal to the right as a whole -- regardless of how disparate that target market is.

hmm, makes me think of how I read something the other day about how "traditional values" are becoming the new "in thing" for hipsterdom. Perhaps neoreaction is the declawed, "safe" version of the hard right. In the 20th century, rebellious teens wore che shirts -- in the 21st HITLER  :lulz:

Verbal Mike

von, thanks for that analysis, very interesting. My gut feeling is still that Neoreaction is actually a conclusion of Libertarianism/"An"Cap, albeit generalized to appeal to other authoritarians as well, but I might need to reconsider that.

regret – the simple fact of the matter is that money as we know it is an instrument of pure hierarchy. Because money is a system of survival vouchers, the liberal ideal of "free choice" regarding contracts, labor, and trade, is simply a falsity. There is no freedom in a choice which places a gun against your head. Sure, if you have money in abundance you can make relatively free choices. If a few dollars can be the difference between survival and starvation, as they are for far, far too many human beings, money is coercion.
I'm quite willing to see Right-Libertarians/"An"Caps as merely naive (hey, I was kinda somewhere on that spectrum for a while myself) but if someone holding a position like that were to consider the consequences logically and with intellectual honesty and integrity I am convinced they would have to either accept that they are actually authoritarian or abandon those ideologies.

In other words, it's not even about the ultimate solution nor about the inevitable consequence of their impossible ideology in practice. It's about the present reality of oppression and hierarchy and where one draws the line. If you get to enjoy the power of money, the power to dominate and control other people, and consider that morally neutral or even generous, while railing against governments' domination and control of people, that's dishonest or disingenuous or downright retarded.
Unless stated otherwise, feel free to copy or reproduce any text I post anywhere and any way you like. I will never throw a hissy-fit over it, promise.

Verbal Mike

(I should note that I currently label myself Marxist and Anarcho-Communist/Left-Libertarian so I'm far, far from neutral here. :P)
Unless stated otherwise, feel free to copy or reproduce any text I post anywhere and any way you like. I will never throw a hissy-fit over it, promise.

Reginald Ret

Money is just a method, it is not the primary fault in our society. People use it for bad shit, so what? The same can be said of concrete. Or garbage bags.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

Verbal Mike

I think you misunderstand me.
Money as we know it, as a system, is violent.
This is because money is set up as a system of survival vouchers, meaning that whenever money is in play, people with less access to money are forced, literally forced at the threat of violence, to succumb to the whims of those with more access to money. In other words, when you use survival vouchers to manage an economy, you are setting up a system of class domination. And when those with more access exercise the choice of how to dispense the money they have, they are exercising dominance over others. No matter how generous they think they are being.
Unless stated otherwise, feel free to copy or reproduce any text I post anywhere and any way you like. I will never throw a hissy-fit over it, promise.

Salty

That is a really intereting way of looking at money I had not considered. Thanks.

What would you propose as an alternate use of money, or system that avoids coercion in that way?
The world is a car and you're the crash test dummy.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Verbal Mike on December 05, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
I think you misunderstand me.
Money as we know it, as a system, is violent.
This is because money is set up as a system of survival vouchers, meaning that whenever money is in play, people with less access to money are forced, literally forced at the threat of violence, to succumb to the whims of those with more access to money. In other words, when you use survival vouchers to manage an economy, you are setting up a system of class domination. And when those with more access exercise the choice of how to dispense the money they have, they are exercising dominance over others. No matter how generous they think they are being.

And your alternative would be...
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.