This is basically formalism. Of course no attribution is given. Compare the statements below with MM and Land;
"Societies and the movement of progress they inherit are based in belief. Unless a person is a zombie, operating without cognition, they are infested by belief. Whether it’s belief in oneself as someone or a belief in others, the central concept of belief drives societies. This is incarnated by religion, culture, science, or any deity to which society gives its arbitrary credence. Adjacent, and corrosive of belief, is the concept of trust. Trust between two or more people amounts to a handshake- a simple assessment of threat. Trust encodes the belief that two or more people have a mutual understanding of what they are saying and deem it to be true. Eye-contact helps. A third party can verify this in more developed elaborations of this central conceit, especially involving money. By replacing physical trust quotas with immutable code, the blockchain resolves this issue. This is why the blockchain is a central material tenet of cypherpolitics."And;
"For this reason the cryptographic position drives towards the elimination of all forms of democracy, the updating or depuring of traditional political positions and ultimately the deletion of politics. In order for this to be realizable, we begin with the elimination of belief."And;
"Therefore a rejection of belief is one of the undergirding principles of a cypherpolitics. The system of trust on which politics is based is fundamentally flawed. It cannot function alongside transparency. Any attempt to signal transparency is suspicious and will be met with outright rejection. Trust is the irritant around which the pearls of paranoia take shape. There is no human way of knowing if someone has expressed the truth. This can only be verified through technology. The only way for someone to subscribe to a cypherpolitics is to leave all traces of belief systems behind and only maintain the absolutely essential approximation of the ‘truth’. Heuristics follows- belief is avoided and we gain ground through strategies of obfuscation and indeterminacy."— Cypherpolitical Enterprises: Programmatic Assessments, by Stacco Troncoso
Now here is Moldbug on Democracy;
"My guess is that the conventional view of democracy, which I of course grew up with, is what we can call an adaptive fiction. An adaptive fiction is a misperception of reality that, unlike most such misperceptions, manages to outcompete the truth.
"For example, suppose we somehow became convinced that warm beer is refreshing, whereas cold beer is poisonous. Obviously a fiction, and obviously maladaptive in our society. However, if we imagine a hot country ruled by brewers, who control their serfs by paying them only in lager, which being warm leaves them both tipsy and unrefreshed, hence quite incapable of revolt... you get the idea.
"In this brewers' republic, the warm-beer fiction is what Gaetano Mosca called a political formula. (Mosca's philosophy is nicely summarized in James Burnham's The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, which at $50 for a used pocket-book is positively a bargain, and about as close as you'll get to Oligarchical Collectivism.)
"A political formula is a belief that makes the ruled accept their rulers. Since the former tend to outnumber the latter, a political formula is, if not absolutely essential, an excellent way to cut down on your security costs. A political formula is adaptive because the rulers have, obviously, both motive and opportunity to promote it.
"The best example of a political formula is divine-right monarchy - simply because this formula is defunct. Hardly anyone these days believes in the divine right of kings. Since at one time, most everyone did, we have incontrovertible proof that adaptive fictions can exist in human societies. Either divine-right monarchy is a fiction, and people then were systematically deluded. Or kings do rule by the grace of God, and people now are systematically deluded.
"Or, of course, both. Because Mosca's second example of a political formula is - democracy."— Democracy as Adaptive Fiction, by Mencius Moldbug
Now here is Nick Land on trust;
"Every public institution of any value is based on distrust.
"That’s an elementary proposition, as far as this blog is concerned. It’s worth stating nakedly, since it is probably less obvious to others. That much follows from it is unlikely to be controversial, even among those who find it less than compelling, or simply repulsive."And;
"The twin pillars of industrial modernity (i.e. of capitalism) are trustless institutions. Natural science is experimental because it is distrustful, and thus demonstrative. It raises the classical demand for proof to a higher level of empirical skepticism, by extending distrust even to rational constructions, in cases where they cannot be critically tested against an experimental criterion. Only pure mathematics, and the most scrupulously formalized logical propositions, escape this demand for replicable evidence. The ultimate ground of the natural scientific enterprise is the presupposition that scientists should in no case be trusted, except through their reproducible results. Anything that requires belief is not science, but something else. Similarly, the market mechanism is an incarnation of trustless social organization. Caveat emptor. Capitalists, like scientists, exist to be distrusted. Whatever of their works cannot survive testing to destruction in the market place deservedly perish. Reputation, in its modern version, has to be produced through demonstration."— On Difficulty, by Nick Land
Either neoreactionary ideas are being copied without attribution, or others are converging on similar themes on there own. Either way, I welcome both.