Thursday, July 13, 2017

In case you missed it

I'm not Moldbug. I don't even have the same priors as Moldbug. I don't even want the same solution as Moldbug. I'm not even a reactionary.

I can be long-winded so I will present a summary of my positions here.

I don't believe that sovereignty is conserved.
"Moldbug says that sovereignty is conserved.
"David Friedman already refuted this by saying;
"'Power is diminished when it is divided. If one man owns all the food, he can make me do almost anything. If it is divided among a hundred men, no one can make me do very much for it; if one tries, I can get a better deal from another.'"
— The Machinery of Freedom, 2nd ed., p. 18
"They cannot both be right, and yet they are. How is that possible?
"Let us define a third rule;
"As power is divided the remaining concentrated power centers battle to control the divided systems. Power is both diminished in total destructive power, and the number of holders expanded.George Soros may pay Black Lives Matters to burn down your neighborhood, but the führer / God emperor / king could burn down every neighborhood.
"To say that Soros is as powerful as Stalin, or even as powerful as King George, is mendacious. Soros may kill hundreds. King George can wage a civil war that kills millions. The low death tolls of the ancient world were essentially due only to their low populations. Imagine the death toll from a modern English Civil War with nuclear weapons."
The Freidman Rule Meets the McKibbin Rule 
I think hidden power is just dandy.
"Thus intellectuals tend to be enemies of civilization, since they, being the out-group never experience freedom, and like a bullied child, if they cannot have it no one else can. The average person, being a cognitive miser, can have this, so he seeks ignorance and takes the blue pill.
"So here is the perverse thought. What if the problem is that the Matrix is not convincing enough? Basically, what if the solution lies in creating a more convincing perceptual freedom? One that fools even intellectuals?
"What if the problem is not the Cathedral, but the glitchy nature of its simulation?"
Perceptual vs. Concrete Freedom
I think the truth is bad for you, and I regret having learned it.
"So would I do it again? Would I trade a gain of emotional serenity for a loss of social isolation, lost booty calls, and never ending silence?
"In fact if I had a time machine I would say to my past self, 'ignore your fucking uncle and remain a socialist. You'll get more pussy that way, and you'll have more friends.'"
What it Takes to be a Neoreactionary 
"I never should have learned the truth. Understanding the world is a curse. I apologize to everyone who I have inflicted my terrible writing on. Save yourselves while you still can. Return to the Matrix before you reach the point of no return. The truth is evil, and not worth knowing."
I regret having ever woken up 
I'm a right wing Marxist, and a materialist.
"As some of you probably already know, I subscribe to a materialist technology-driven view of humanity. To the consternation of many, I am basically a right-wing Marxist, (if there is such a thing). This is because I come out of the Hegelian/Landian techno-commercial wing of neoreaction. I essentially believe that all human culture is driven by material forces, especially the material force of technology, and that religion and ideology play very little role in shaping human destiny since they are themselves products of material conditions."
— All About White Nationalism: it's Beliefs, Prospects, Enemies, and Potential Consequences. Realistic Plan Included.
I hold radically different priors than Moldbug and the rest of NRx.
"The fundamental difference between this blog and others in the NRx sphere, is my tech determinist view of the world. Moldbug believes that society is downstream from power. He focuses on memetics as the evolution of ideas. He basically says, "ideas evolve and are selected for both virulence and their effectiveness at controlling power." This is like Hans Hermann Hoppe who focuses on the economics of power systems. Where Moldbug is a cultural anthropologist of power, Hoppe is an economist of the same. Moldbug's sources are many, but primarily point to Ludwig von Mises, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Gaetano Mosca, James Burnham, and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
"So we have radically different priors.
"I view the world as essentially the outcome of technology acting upon human nature with the most dramatic proof of this being the devastating effect of birth control on gender relations and human sexuality. My priors find their origins in Theodore Kaczynski, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Frédéric Bastiat, Carroll Quigley, Friedrich Nietzsche, and David Friedman (who once commented on this blog). Friedman, Quigley, and Nietzsche are the most important of my influences. My genetic worldview is basically a Darwinist re-articulation of Hindu/Buddhist concept of eternal suffering."
— Priors
I am basically a nationalist. I also don't hate democracy, especially the "one-party illiberal" kind.
"America has a pedophile billionaire. Imagine a world were that guy is your king.
"Do you really think that your progressive overlords would be any less insane in a modern monarchy? Remember, Moldbug actually wants progressives to rule you. He actually believes that they will behave responsibly if given absolute power. What a naive vision. And what if they decide to practice their sexual perversions on your children? What if the local lord thinks your son would look good in a dress? What is your recourse? Do you really think that these corrupt people wouldn't wind up ruling you? Imagine a globalist oligarchy with absolute power. That is what Moldbug's vision would really be, whether he realizes it or not.

"No thanks. I'll keep democracy.

"You are all fucking fools if you think you will be any freer under any other system.

"Oh, and for those of you who hate immigration? There is absolutely no reason to think that monarchy will be any better on the subject. Granted, it will not have an incentive to import people to win elections. But it will also not have any incentive to not enslave people, import them, export them, or whatever. There is absolutely no proof that a monarchy won't be co-opted by globalists. The fact that ancient monarchs were not globalists is only caused by the fact that globalism did not exist at the time, and could not, because of the absence of technology. Today is different, and the elites can always afford more palace guards while they turn your country into a Third World hell hole. They will do whatever profits them at your expense. Donald Trump anyone? If he can sell out do you really think a king won't? Hmm?


"I regret anything I have ever said in favor of monarchy. At this point I am a nationalist."
Neocameralism is Globalism: or the great immigration/emigration pump of capitalism, and how Moldbug's entire central thesis is flawed
I think the solution is to hide all power within market systems.
"The formalization of everything into the market converts all potential violence into market action. All is formalized as a game. It eliminates the ability of hierarchies to co-opt and subvert the power. All bureaucracies are forced to compete for business. This compels them to perform with competence. All aspects of human nature are provided for by the market, absorbing all discontent. The need for tribalism is provided by the market, eliminating ethnic conflict. Everything is formalized, ending all violence. All prestige games are provided for, destroying all revolutionary energies. All sexual reproduction is controlled, causing convergence with capitalism and closing genetic rift. All religions are commodified, annihilating the ones that won't play nice. All morals become brand management, punishing mere virtue signaling.
"All competing power centers are democratized. All competing production centers are mutualized. All competing wealth is socialized. All executive pay is unionized. All firms are made to compete. All legal codes are made to compete. All bureaucracies are forced to compete. All government services are voucherized. All tribalism is subordinated. Market formalism is a system of total class warfare through gamification."


  1. > I think the solution is to hide all power within market systems.

    How would this help with nationalism as opposed to continuing globalization, considering how Capital has actually worked? What would push surely stronger parties (be it in numbers, weaponry, etc.) to respect any claims made by problem-filled groups like American Blacks, Uyghurs, Palestinians, etc., instead of seizing whatever resources or territory and beating the complainers until they die, flee, or submit (or in other words, ethnically cleanse)?

    You have interesting ideas, but bluntly speaking a bunch of it is just the same old Anarcho-Capitalism with its NAP.

  2. All kinds of solutions using multiple overlapping social filters.

  3. "I think the solution is to hide all power within market systems." This is a great idea, but its just a tool that a sovereign could choose to use IF they chose to govern well. It doesn't answer the question of WHY the sovereign should choose to govern well. Moldbug's proposed solution at least attempts to deal with this question.

    I think your criticism of his solution is correct that economic motivations are not enough to guarantee good behavior. Like you say, the hypothetical elite with total power may want to pervert your children for reasons other than economic. What if they're crazy, insane, or just evil. Economic motivations wouldn't keep the population safe from them then.

  4. Don't see the fix. Just seems like wishful thinking to claim stronger actors would do it your way.

  5. You're both of the opinion that genetics can be largely transcended by technology or market incentives. And in so far as this is demonstrably false, no market societies function without European (I include Ashkenazim under this umbrella) or East Asian DNA at their foundation, you're both mistaken.

    Whether your stated priors are identical is of little importance other than academic pedantry.

    1. "no market societies function without European (I include Ashkenazim under this umbrella) or East Asian DNA at their foundation"

      Latin America and the Middle East have markets. A few continents would seem to refute this assertion.