Originally published 2014 Feb 05:
Sunshine Mary has taken exception to Runs On Magic.
Runs On Magic wrote:
I actually want children and family someday. As I see it now, the best strategy is to become high status, have abundance with women, and eventually pull the best one from a traditional culture.
Your plan *might* work. If the traditional culture is strong enough to raise good girls to marriageable age, and also weak enough to prevent you from stealing those girls, you should be able to succeed. Russia and the Philippines are reasonable places to try such a plan.
The problem, however, is that the traditional culture might actually be strong enough to lynch an outsider who thinks he can stroll in and steal a bride.
Look at the Amish and the Mormons. They’re very traditional. They have reasonable birth rates. They don’t make it easy for outsiders to roll in a grab a woman.
I should have added that I don’t know of any Amish people who actually lynched an outsider. I think they’re a bit more subtle than that.
I’ve been having more and more discussions with Atheists about this whole God thing, and I’ve found the typical assumption is anyone pro-Christian is obviously a Bible Thumping Zealot. And I think that’s fucking ridiculous. It’s reductio ad absurdum, or whatever.
Here’s the thing. I’m one of those newly convinced guys, after looking into this stuff more out of interest in the story and my typical love for conspiracy theory type stuff. I’ve also seen more than my fair share of Biblical quotes in the Manosphere drawing parallels to Game Theory, as well as a virulent, almost rabid hatred of anything Christian both in the general culture and more specifically (and more vitriolically) from ‘Atheists’.
The neo-Victorian wondered about taking over an existing nation-state for the philosophical cause of neoreaction.
If we desire to actually live under a regime more congenial to our NR nature than the USG (or God help you, the EU) we need a practical vision for implementation; while Anissimov outlines a very realistic structure (similar to the way the Founding Fathers ran it), I note he doesn’t take the next step of pointing out the schwerpunkt.
I see these options, either currently available or becoming available during the historical/technological developments of the next 10-20 years: 1) Taking over the machinery of an existing nation-state; 2) Taking over the machinery of an existing U.S. state (something like the Free Sate Project); 3) Seasteading/Spacesteading 4) The NR as a world-distributed phyle a la The Diamond Age; 5) A city-state in America 3.0.
The “Cathedral” is not a “thing,” it’s not a conspiracy, as such. It’s main components, Big Education and Big Media, are already being undermined to certain extent by the Web, as in Stephenson’s novels. The American university system was a bubble, as Glenn Reynolds has emphasized, and is going to downsize and lose influence over the next 1-15 years. MSNBABCBS have already lost well over 50% of their peek audiences, and the remainders skew oldster.
The young (I’m not on of them, BTW) in America, the EU and China, Japan, and all the other countries with no/negative population growth, will not serve as wage slaves for Boomers, They just won’t. There will be a restructuring of debt and pension obligations (the “Big Haircut”) because reality demands it–or, as twistedone151 has it, major collapse. I’m betting on restructuring.
Every Big Government in history (Rome, the European royal houses, etc.) looked invincible at some point, and every one underwent radical transformation or complete replacement. So it will go with USG and the ChiComms, too. The question is when. It might be after my lifetime, or maybe there really will be some “singularity” that causes the End of History As We Knew It.
Right now, the evidence before my eyes is that USG can’t even enforce pot laws. Big transformations often bubble and brew below the surface and then explode in a short period of time. Society is a stochastic process, and no one can really predict the future long-term, but the one thing I am sure of is that my nine-year-old son and his cohort aren’t going sit on their asses while a bunch of aging Boomers cause a “final, catastrophic collapse” because they refuse to take a haircut on their “guaranteed” pensions.
“1) Taking over the machinery of an existing nation-state”
I don’t see how this can be done, at least, not without A.) needing more people than we have; B.) costing more money than we have; and C.) bringing on UN or US intervention to “restore democracy.”
“2) Taking over the machinery of an existing U.S. state”
See point A) under (1). Recall the utter failure of the Free State Project. We don’t have enough people to take over a state. Especially when you consider the effects of the poor job market on mobility; you aren’t likely to move somewhere else if you can’t find a job there.
Taking over an existing nation-state might be easier than you think. The trick is that the nation-state is not the real center of power. Fanatical adherence to some tribe is the key to reactionary power. A nation-state is just a tool.
Suppose I were to point out a hyper-religious community that was politically to the right of Oswald Mosley. Suppose they allow immigration only for sincere converts. You would be able to live in a right-wing tribe, but of course you would have to conform.
There are many such tribes on Earth right now. It’s just a question of picking the tribe you like. If you want to be a fanatical Jew, for example, conversion is possible (but not as easy as some might like). If you want to be a fanatical Mormon, conversion is easy, but staying in and living up to the standards is a bit more difficult. If you want to be a fanatical Muslim, there are any number of mosques that would compete to convert you.
If a few neoreactionary geniuses could convert to some suitable right-wing tribe, they could enlighten that tribe with neoreactionary insight. The tribe could rise to dominance within its region, as tribes often do. Neoreaction could then rule, in the form of a neoreactionary tribe. Of course, there’s no guarantee that the tribe would be smart enough to stay recognizably “neoreactionary.”
Suppose Mencius Moldbug became Chief Rabbi of Israel and tried to enlighten them with his flavor of neoreaction. While he lived, his students would make it difficult for him to exercise power while maintaining philosophical purity. After he died, his philosophy would be distorted and lost in power struggles, and the surviving Israel might be strong, but probably would not stay neoreactionary. So you can argue about whether Moldbug’s success in such a scenario constitutes truly “taking over” Israel for the cause of neoreaction.
[and in response to further questions]
>I don’t dispute it’s technological feasiblity, but it’s social, economic, and legal/political viability.
In the 1960s, “pirate radio” ships were able to turn a profit by operating commercial radio entertainment stations on ships located off the shores of countries with restrictive laws.
Seasteading is the next iteration of that business model. As for “legal” viability – well, the USA’s navy will probably shoot first and ask questions later, so the model is viable so long as it’s far enough from their supply lines to make punitive raids uneconomical.
>I expect the majority of would-be seasteaders, upon finding out what living crammed on an ocean platform is really like (rather than what their optimism bias conjures up in their heads), will abandon ship for greener pastures in a matter of months.
Certainly. And the majority of males who dream of being a “private military contractor” would never be able to hack it. Nonetheless, hired guns still have a viable business model in terms of material lucre – although the spiritual consequences of killing for hire might involve prolonged roasting where the fire is not quenched and the worm perisheth not.
>And for secular/materialist rightists who aren’t good at faking piety? (If I was any good at convincingly professing something I don’t believe in, I’d likely be faking Progressivism for the personal material benefits.)
I know that feel, bro. If you’re a secularist, Singapore might be willing to take you. If you’re a hard-working genius, Singapore or Hong Kong might make you rich and powerful.
> Secondly, all of these “tribes” exist at the sufference of the Cathedral, and I don’t expect that to last, especially if any of them start pursuing neoreactionary modes.
I hate to be too confident about the superiority of Asians to Westerners, but I must point out that the Western “Cathedral” survives on money from the People’s Republic of China. I don’t expect the “Cathedral” to last in its current form when the winds of economic destabilization start to blow. The Westerners will be able to persecute and prosecute many Western neoreactionaries. We might see Jim Donald dragged off in shackles to share a cell with Edgar J. Steele, for example. But the USA is not going to exercise similar levels of control over Singapore, the PRC, Turkey, etc.
In general, if you can only speak English, you’re at a big disadvantage for finding a (neo)reactionary home. If you get outside the USA/UK/Five Eyes bubble, you start to see that the rest of the world never liked or trusted the Cathedral very much.
Borepatch speculates that corruption is the core raison d’être for the EU.
Two blogs I read, one by Seth Roberts (a PhD who professed at UC Berkeley) and another by well-informed sci-fi writer Vox Day often discuss the corruption and inaccuracy of studies produced by modern academia. Mr. Roberts frequently advocates self-experimentation and using the scientific method to get reproducible results and to understand them correctly.
Truth be told, the scientific method better represents science than people in white lab coats.
While people in scientific institutions have access to more resources and have better technology to measure and document outcomes, the further removed they are from Joe Everybody, the less likely it will be that you and I can reproduce the results they’ve obtained for themselves.
For all we know, they could’ve been paid off by a corporate 3rd party in order to represent a product well. “Science” in this instance becomes a moot point.
Secondly, even scientists don’t know what they’re looking for. In Cracked’s recent piece “6 Shocking Studies That Prove Science Is Totally Broken,” they pull out five very good examples:
A Shocking Amount of Medical Research Is Complete Bullshit
Many Scientists Still Don’t Understand Math
… And They Don’t Understand Statistics, Either
Scientists Have Nearly Unlimited Room to Manipulate Data
It’s All About the Money
It’s a good rant.
I actually have some small erudition in philosophy, including philosophy of science. At present I lack the mental energy to crank up into philosophy mode and write formal arguments, so I’ll pass that duty off to Brian Martin, who is actually rather famous.
In my spam filter (un-opened): Life is short. Have an Affair
…I remembered that it has actually become illegal and punishable for anyone in Britain straightforwardly to advocate the protection and strengthening of marriage and families.
So – this is the modern world: a place where it is okay to advocate ‘having an affair’ at every level from sleazy spam e-mails on upwards; from all varieties of the Mass Media 24/7, and to the pinnacle of contemporary art, politics and social research.
But a world where to oppose this is strictly and explicitly against the rules of ‘decent’ society, and subject to harsh sanctions.
The rules and regulations are those related to Hate Crimes/ Incitement to Hatred – which is being interpreted that any negative or non-positive remark = hatred-promoting when directed at certain groups; and various requirements that non-traditional sexual and lifestyle options must 1. be taught and 2. be positively presented in schools; and multiple laws, rules and regulations (both generally and in specific organizations and institutions) against ‘causing-offence’ (enforced such as to favour only Left-approved categories of persons).
In sum, there is a combination of: A. Laws/ rules/ regulations which are very loosely-written and which are being breached almost all the time by everybody; plus B. A legal (and bureaucratic) system which enforces these laws/ rules. regulations selectively and unilaterally.
Jim Donald pointed to Iran as proof that sending women to higher education destroys fertility rates.
A long-time commenter, B, wrote:
cutting intellectuals’ heads off, etc. has a rapidly diminishing rate of return. You can’t compete with a highly compelling narrative via repression unless you have a more compelling counternarrative. Otherwise, your intellectuals flee, ghostride or go underground to oppose you. But you NEED those intellectuals-you need their brains, freely given, unless you want to build a system of sharashkas.
For instance, the Lubavitcher Rebbe (and whatever you think of his religious views, the man was a beacon of how you can develop a thriving community with reactionary values in the middle of Cathedralville, against all odds) said that women who wish to pursue higher education should do so-after their first child is born. And many have. Having a compelling counternarrative allows you to take the practical knowledge which the Cathedral sits on, and let the agitprop roll off you like water off a duck’s back. When you have a counternarrative, the power structure of the Cathedral and its representatives just look funny, like a bunch of dancing idiots.
I suspect the issue of fertility rates and the Cathedral’s monopoly on higher education deserves its own post, but that will have to wait for some time. I have already procrastinated too much today – I have meatspace tasks which require my attention.