Hello I am not insulting my readers by calling them shit heads nor do I demand you all read this before I respond. But I do not have time for a summary. Here are two biased ones:

http://www.vocativ.com/12-2013/dark-...ake-seriously/
http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/

Some general links that seem to be relevant here
http://knowmadiclife.com/blog/2013/3...-enlightenment
http://www.xenosystems.net/mission-creep/#more-1685
http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/...carlyle-rising
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/theorie/
http://unqualified-reservations.blog...qualified.html
http://bam-pow-oof.tumblr.com/post/3...series-by-nick
http://amosandgromar.wordpress.com/about/


http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/searle20131202
http://davidbrin.blogspot.ca/2013/11...tense-end.html

I found this because Nick Land has done some neat work in speculative realist philosophy before going insane and writing stuff like that manifesto (and also because Digg is now good again), and it's interesting to me how readily Deleuzeanism can easily lead into this line of thought.

I have my own thoughts, but I'm saving them for now because I think this stuff is at least interesting.

This is also good: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20...actionary-faq/

It will be a while until I get to read through any of these so that I can (neo-)react to them . Presently preparing to get fucked by finals, but during break I'll give it a look.

right. get lucky in here for shits and giggles.


just some quick input on my part before i pass out-- i'm currently getting fucked by finals-- this yarvin guy sounds like the worst. which is to say, like steven pinker. it's shit headed to say this is the least violent, most wealthy era for the world

also the racism is interesting for a number of reasons, and the appeals to iq (and status symbols and markers of financial competence) as proof of ability 'to lead' (or in other words as indicative of a natural, essential, innate superiority) makes the link offered up in your other thread relevant in this context (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976)

from the second link itt

It’s not hard to see why this ideology would catch-on with white male geeks. It tells them that they are the natural rulers of the world, but that they are simultaneously being oppressed by a secret religious order. And the more media attention is paid to workplace inequality, gentrification and the wealth gap, the more their bias is confirmed. And the more the neoreactionaries and techbros act out, the more the media heat they bring.

this is the same situation described in the habitus thread regarding speculators and the market. (so then ideology for people in your wheelhouse isn't superstructure but structuring structures as well.)



i'll be curious to see what others make of this

Yeah Yarvin/Moldbug really is the worst.

Not sure I am able to respond to this in a systematic or worthwhile way. I've read quite a few of the sources you linked and have read the first 4 sections and the last section of Nick Land's piece; since that thing is a behemoth and becoming less interesting to me, I'm not sure I will finish it.

Anyway, after reading it, I'm not sure what exactly neoreactionaries are "for." Is it a return to monarchy, government on a business basis (a theoretically bankrupt concept so long as there is taxation), anarchocapitalism, etc? Maybe I didn't read enough into it, but there doesn't seem to be a clear answer.

I've never heard of this label before or of this Moldbug character. I'm not sure the label neo-reactionary is a good label. Is everyone who doesn't think democracy is the best possible form of governance a neo-reactionary? Or do you have to be a racist as well? Or do you just have to be against progressivism? Or do you have to favor monarchy over democracy?

I really am not sure what to make of it and what kind of response to give because, to me, the label "neoreactionary" does not seem to mean anything distinct. I know this is a shitty post, but I'm kind of overwhelmed by the smattering of a bunch of different ideas under one odd label.

Originally Posted by zyphex

Anyway, after reading it, I'm not sure what exactly neoreactionaries are "for." Is it a return to monarchy, government on a business basis (a theoretically bankrupt concept [only] so long as there is taxation), anarchocapitalism, etc? Maybe I didn't read enough into it, but there doesn't seem to be a clear answer.

wat

Originally Posted by PM

wat

Why I say it is theoretically bankrupt so long as there is taxation: The Fallacy of Government on a "Business Basis"

And why the implied "[only]?" Because I suppose anarchocapitalism could be described as government on a business basis. At least there isn't a contradiction in calling it government on a business basis, whereas an institution based on taxation cannot be said to be run on a business basis for the aforementioned reasons in the above link. The contradiction in Moldbug's conception of a tax-collecting government on a business basis is why I call it theoretically bankrupt; his system really is not government on a business basis, but something distinctly on a different basis -- taxation.

why i implied that your implied [only] is 'wat' worthy is because i think your response is missing the point.—what i mean by that is not that you're wrong but that for once i'd like to hear your ethical take on these things and not your abstracted economical take.

Originally Posted by PM

why i implied that your implied [only] is 'wat' worthy is because i think your response is missing the point.—what i mean by that is not that you're wrong but that for once i'd like to hear your ethical take on these things and not your abstracted economical take.

If you were looking for my ethical take, you could have asked that instead of just saying "wat." I assumed you were asking why I labelled it a theoretically bankrupt concept, and that reason is purely due to economic theory, not due to ethical beliefs.

Anyway, that's no biggy. Not sure what precisely you want my ethical take on, but I suppose I'll state the obvious and say that I don't think a government that appropriates funds through threats of physical force is ethically justifiable. On what basis? Self-ownership, or the non-initiation of aggression principle. On what basis ought that be the principle that determines the ethical justifiability of an action or institutional structure? On a libertarian extension of Karl-Otto Apel's discourse ethics (a view formulated, yet in my opinion poorly, and at times incorrectly, by Hoppe).

I'm not always convinced of the argument myself. I've tried to reformulate the argument as my senior thesis in college, but while I think I did a much better job than Hoppe, I still believe I may have attacked the issue from the wrong direction. In any case, I suppose that forms my ethical viewpoint.

Originally Posted by davobrosia

I have my own thoughts, but I'm saving them for now because I think this stuff is at least interesting.

If you have the time, I'd love to hear your thoughts, Davo. It'd probably help direct the discussion because I haven't been sure what approach to take with a response.