England: The Land of Discount Slaves

After the release of the ‘Easy Meat’ report (which I read and summarized in that link), some predicted that the country would reform its ways and kick out the slavers.

Instead, roughly nothing has happened, although it has been used for a good headline on a UKIP advertising campaign.

Ukip 1400 Rotherham ad campaign.

For this ad, many prestige publications attacked the party, rather than perhaps considering the problems in their society that lead to tens of thousands of girls being enslaved for profit (often enormous profit, exceeding £600,000 annually per girl).

While there has been some bureaucratic shuffling here and there, and a few concerned newspaper headlines, essentially nothing has been done, and in fact the original report has been largely ignored in favor of the soundbite-friendly ‘1,400’ number, and the localization to a single region when the original report substantiated complaints to the entire country and the broader region of Northern Europe.

Because this has been a long term pattern in the UK, we should not expect anything to change on a dime. In fact, we should expect the problem (which is only a problem for white Britons — for slavers, it’s a bonanza of profitable pleasure) to become considerably more acute, and more widespread over the next decade.

Since the UK has elected to pursue the enlightenment system of reformatory criminal justice, we should expect more Muslim entrepreneurs to respond to the enormous profits that even an idiot can scoop up in front of the playgrounds of UK schools for the cost of a six pack of lukewarm beer. The worst that the state can do is put a person into a brief vacation-type jail sentence, after which he is free to return to his former line of crooked employment.

When a single kidnapping can provide more money in a year than a typical British person is likely to earn in a lifetime, you’d be quite stupid, at least materially speaking, to enter any other business. Further, kidnappers seem to enjoy higher status than most other classes of UK businessman.

For one, to be of diverse descent is to automatically enjoy a protected status. For another, it creates no emissions, it’s a green business, it requires no factory equipment, and most of the front line workers are young women.

The country that piously abolished slavery is becoming incapable of condemning the enslavement of its own population. It has become so accustomed to being able to issue moral complaints about other societies without actually having to do anything themselves that, when a moral crisis appears, it has no capacity to act in a meaningful way. It can create bureaucratic task forces and place charities on watch lists, but to take decisive action has become politically unspeakable.

If we accept the proposition the women of a country are its future, we should translate that into the observation that the future of the United Kingdom is slavery.

The West, accustomed to being on top of the world, may soon find big parts of itself being seized and trundled off to foreign hoards. Having lost the will to live, to defend itself, having taken the reflexive pose of toleration without regard to what is to be tolerated, it is losing its freedom.

We should also consider, that historically speaking, for such things to happen is not beyond the pale, and is actually quite normal. For all of Europe to be free of Oriental despotism of all kinds is odd. What is normal is for big swaths of what we call European countries to be dominated by foreign invaders for centuries at a time. This was certainly the case until World War I decimated the Ottomans, and it was the case before the Ottomans made Constantinople their new capitol.

Also, it is not ‘the people’ who wake up and resist the invaders. It’s also not typically ‘one great man’ who emerges from ‘the people’ to push them back. Far more typical is for the aristocracy to make a good living selling their own people out to the invaders, whom they are too weak and weak-willed to resist.

When a people are broken, everyone is broken, from bottom to top, and whatever deliverance may be forthcoming typically comes from outside, and at a different time.

Orson Scott Card on Civil War

One of America’s most popular living authors of fiction writes (h/t Anarcho Papist):

Rarely do people set out to start a civil war. Invariably, when such wars break out both sides consider themselves to be the aggrieved ones. Right now in America, even though the Left has control of all the institutions of cultural power and prestige — universities, movies, literary publishing, mainstream journalism– as well as the federal courts, they feel themselves oppressed and threatened by traditional religion and conservatism. And even though the Right controls both houses of Congress and the presidency, as well as having ample outlets for their views in nontraditional media and an ever-increasing dominance over American religious and economic life, they feel themselves oppressed and threatened by the cultural dominance of the Left.

And they are threatened, just as they are also threatening, because nobody is willing to accept the simple idea that someone can disagree with their group and still be a decent human being worthy of respect.

Can it lead to war?

Very simply, yes. The moment one group feels itself so aggrieved that it uses either its own weapons or the weapons of the state to “prevent” the other side from bringing about its supposed “evil” designs, then that other side will have no choice but to take up arms against them. Both sides will believe the other to be the instigator.

In 2009, when this was written, it seemed less likely. In 2014, it seems much more likely, as the free marketplace for ideas shuts down, as the ideals of free speech set out by John Stuart Mill become ignored and deprecated, and people on both sides are more open about calling to their men ‘aux armes.’

In 2013, Jim predicted something similar to what Card anticipated. He also predicted the shape of early conflicts, eerily predating the conflict in Ferguson, MO by more than a year.

Excerpts from Carlyle’s ‘The French Revolution’

Carlyle's French Revolution manuscript burning

It took me more than a month, but I’ve finally finished Thomas Carlyle’s epic poem/history of the French Revolution. Some people have commented to me that they tried to read this and could not get through it.

I do think that it’s worth going through, even if you have trouble with it. It helps to have some pre-existing familiarity with some of the major characters and events of the time period, because otherwise, it’s easy to get lost with all the mentions of characters and events all tumbled together in rambling oration.

What I got from this is a sense of what it might have been like to live through the events, without knowing what would happen in advance. Most history suffers from what Taleb calls the narrative fallacy. Carlyle treats the events as if neither he nor you know the inevitable outcome of events. This adds to the sense of chaos that isn’t usually present in histories of the French revolution, which, in today’s context, usually try to suffuse chaotic outbursts of violence with philosophical meaning that they did not actually possess.

Excerpts from the Homeric Tragicomedy

The work has some lovely images in it. On the fall of the Bourbons, Carlyle says:

 The oak grows silently, in the forest, a thousand years, only in the thousandth year, when the woodman arrives with his axe, is there heard an echoing through the solitudes, and the oak announces itself when, with a far-sounding crash, it falls.

Another aspect of the Revolution which is under-appreciated is the degree of hunger and economic chaos that came with the rise of Republicanism. People are always starving. Trade and specialization break down (adding additional context to the later works of Bastiat on economics). There are numerous outbreaks of backyard gun-smithing, because there’s nothing to do for anyone except to arm themselves to fight both internal enemies and foreigners.

Mobs of ill-kempt women are always emerging at first to harass the aristocratic remnants, and then their Republican replacements, for bread.


It is Spiritual Bankruptcy, long tolerated; verging now towards Economical Bankruptcy, and become intolerable.

The radicals urging for reform are incapable of actually addressing the problems that the society suffers due to social chaos.

The King’s Treasury is running towards the lees; and Paris ‘eddies with a flood of pamphlets.’ At all rates, let the latter subside a little!

To my eyes, it reminds me of our contemporary social environment, in which bloggers flood the minds of the general public to little avail.

And then as to Pamphlets– in figurative language; ‘it is a sheer snowing of pamphlets, like to snow up the Government thoroughfares!’ Now is the time for Friends of Freedom,; sane, and even insane.

Industrious labor becomes displaced by speculation. In come the political designers, all of whom have their own crankish ideas on how to remedy France’s terminal illness.

This is the Sieyes who shall be System-builder, Constitution-builder General, and build Constitutions (as many as wanted) skyhigh, — which shall all unfortunately fall before he get the scaffolding away.

A Constitution can be build, Constitutions enough a la Sieyes: but the frightful difficulty is that of getting men to come and live in them!

The French Republicans at times are quite reminiscent of libertarians of today. Constitutionalists, in Carlyle’s view, err in believing that political design is what matters more than political practice.

The Constitution, the set of Laws, or prescribed Habits of Acting, that men will live under, is the one which images their Convictions,–their Faith as to this wondrous Universe, and what rights, duties, capabilities they have there; which stands sanctioned therefore, by Necessity itself, if not by a seen Deity, then by an unseen one. Other laws, whereof there are always enough ready-made, are usurpations, which men do not obey, but rebel against, and abolish, by their earliest convenience.

Your Revolution, like jelly sufficiently boiled, needs only to be poured into shapes, of Constitution, and ‘consolidated’ therein?

France finds itself rocked by tumultuous debates, ruled by writers and editors, whose rhetorical conflicts can have no final resolution. When there is violence, in tends to be spasmodic, with no well-defined ends.

Great is Journalism. Is not every Able Editor a Ruler of the World, being a persuader of it; though self-elected, yet sanctioned, by the sale of his Numbers? Whom indeed the world has the readiest method of deposing, should need be that of merely doing nothing to him; which ends in starvation!

People tend to hope that rebellion will result in better conditions for the people. Historians, of which Carlyle is no exception, tend to caution the hotblooded that most revolutions fail to meet their aims, especially when they succeed.

Reader, fancy not, in thy languid way, that Insurrection is easy. Insurrection is difficult: each individual uncertain even of his next neighbour; totally uncertain of his distant neighbours, what strength is with him, what strength is against him; certain only that, in case of failure, his individual portion is the gallows!

During the chaos, the men who profit the most are speculators and farmers alike:

Higher than all Frenchmen the domestic Stock-jobber flourishes,– in a day of Paper-money. The Farmer also flourishes: ‘Farmers’ houses,’ say Mercier, ‘have become like Pawn-brokers’ shops,’ all manner of furniture, apparel, vessels of gold and silver accumulate themselves there: bread is precious. The Farmer’s rent is Paper-money, and he alone of men has bread: Farmer is better than Landlord, and will himself become Landlord.

This sort of economic arrangement emerges during the crack-up boom which accompanies the death of all paper money regimes. In the cities, speculators win and lose fortunes. Outside the cities, the farmers make out much better than bandits.

Carlyle has a sage’s eye for dramatic events and dialogue. As Robespierre is executed in the same sky-blue robe that he wore to usher in his new secular religion:

A woman springs on the Tumbril; clutching the side of it with one hand; waving the other Sibyl-like; and exclaims: “The death of thee gladdens my very heart, m’envivre de joie;” Robespierre opened his eyes; “Sclerat, go down to Hell, with the curses of all wives and mothers!” — At the foot of the scaffold, they stretched him on the ground till his turn came. Lifted aloft, his eyes again opened; caught the bloody axe. Samson wrenched the coat off him; wrenched the dirty linen from his jaw: the jaw fell powerless, there burst from him a cry;– hideous to hear and see. Samson, thou canst not be too quick!

In the end, even after the King-killing, and numerous revolutions, the problem of hunger remains with the People:

Unhappy Senators, unhappy People, there is yet, after all toils and broils, no bread, no Constitution. “Du pain, pas tant de longs discours, Bread, not bursts of Parliamentary eloquence!” so wailed the Menads of Maillard, five years ago and more; so wail ye to this hour.

Eliminating shams, according to Carlyle, does not necessarily build a self-supporting order to replace it:

Anarchy is destruction: a burning up, say, of Shams and Insupportabilities; but which leaves Vacancy behind. Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,– the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one.

As for the External form and fors of Life,– what can we say except that out of the Eater there comes Strength out of the Unwise there comes not Wisdom! Shams are burnt up; nay, what as yet is the peculiarity of France, the very Cant of them is burnt up. The new Realities are not yet come: ah no, only Phantasms, Paper models, tentative Prefigurements of such!

What is still stranger, we understand all Frenchmen have ‘the right of duel;’ the Hackney-coachmen with the Peer, if insult be given: such is the law of Public Opinion. Equality at least in death! The form of Government is by Citizen King, frequently shot at, not yet shot.

Vacuums expect to be filled.

Concluding thoughts

It was impossible for me to read this and not notice how closely modern American conservatism resembles French radicalism. The peculiar obsession of American conservatives with the written constitution and the notion of citizen equality is unmistakably French. The hopes that many radical modern conservatives have in rebellion are also paralleled by the hopes of French rebels.

After Jackson, and even before under Jefferson, America shifted closer to the ideals of the French radicals on the other side of the ocean than they did to the monarchist mother-country. This drift became more explicit as time went on.

Even today, we have an American magazine which some conservatives consider ‘moderate’ entitled Jacobin. The real Jacobins, per Carlyle, wore the scalps of their executed enemies and flayed the skins off of men and women alike, using the men’s skin as leather because female skin was too soft for serviceable material:

Still deeper into one’s heart goes that Tannery at Meudon; not mentioned among the other miracles of tanning! ‘At Meudon,’ says Montgaillard with considerable calmness, ‘there was a Tannery of Human Skins; such of the Guillotined as seemed worth flaying of which perfectly good wash-leather was made.’ for breeches, and other uses. The skin of the men, he remarks, was superior in toughness (consistance) and quality to shamoy; that of women was good for almost nothing, being so soft in texture!

We must notice that, under a régime of equality, the forces of justice do not spare women from the skinner’s knife, even though their hides make for poor material. Perhaps feminists ought to be careful about what they ask for in this world.

The darkly funny aspect of this is that whereas Holocaust Denial is an unforgivable sin for Americans, Terror-Denial and Terror-Minimization is part of the curriculum in American higher education. Perhaps even worse than the deaths at the guillotine are the deaths by starvation and malnutrition, caused by the political mismanagement of the Republican regime. Such deaths are common under leftist regimes always — Stalin’s gulag killed fewer than the famines, and Mao’s Red Guards killed fewer than the starvation that his policies caused.

We see this return to barbarism routinely when the left attains power, shortly before the factions auto-cannibalize.

It is just so in Venezuela today, as I write, and will be so again if the American Jacobins, those warriors de la justice sociale, achieve their ends.

Intellectuals like to think that ideas matter more than anything, and that designing order for a country is the most important and challenging part of maintaining order in that country. We saw this sort of conceit operating throughout the 2000s as the American foreign policy establishment attempted to remake the Middle East under a new order of Constitutions by force of arms.

One of the chief themes that Carlyle tries to communicate is the general fruitlessness of parliamentary debate as a means of solving existential problems within a nation. The nature of debate is that there are rarely real winners. When someone wins a debate by force of the pen, the loser can come back the week afterwards as fresh as ever. When someone wins a battle by the sword, the loser can’t just come back the week afterwards, because they’re dead.

It’s tempting to be drawn into Parliamentary-war, but there can be no lasting resolution to such wars, because they’re only rhetorical. A debate can feel as dramatic as a duel, but a duel has a clear resolution, whereas most debates do not.

When one considers that the problem of public order is not really a design problem, but instead a problem of maintaining public virtue with no means of enforcing it in a cosmic sense, as in it’s not possible for a human dictator to command that order using a magic wand, even if magic wands tend to be effective symbols of power, everything becomes much trickier.

The point that I draw from this epic is that for civilization to remain in place, the leaders must be Good, and the people must want to be Good and be overall oriented towards maintaining order. Once chaos begins to take hold, social coordination breaks down, and people begin to get into insoluble, dis-coordinated conflicts. Re-establishing order can take centuries if it becomes at all possible, and maintaining it becomes even more difficult.

That Farting Sound Of Technological Stagnation

Via Hacker News today, here’s a post from a former graphics developer at Valve claims that the vaunted SteamOS, a Linux-based gaming OS intended to supplant Windows and compete head-on with consoles, is going to be vaporware.

Hey, this is just a thought, but maybe Valve developers could stop locally optimizing for their bonuses by endlessly tweaking and debugging various half-broken dysfunctional codebases and instead do more to educate developers on how to do this sort of work correctly.

The entire Intel driver situation remains in a ridiculous state. I know Intel means well and all but really, they can do better. (Are they afraid of pissing off MS? Or is this just big corp dysfunctionalism?) Valve is still paying LunarG to find and fix silly perf. bugs in Intel’s slow open source driver:

Major Performance Improvement Discovered For Intel’s GPU Linux Driver

Surely this can’t be a sustainable way of developing a working driver?

Anyhow, onto SteamOS/Steambox. Here’s a surprisingly insightful comment I found on Slashdot. I don’t agree that SteamOS is done just yet, but you’ve got to wonder what is really going on. (So where are all those shiny Steam machines they showed earlier this year anyway? Does all this just go into the Valve memory hole now?)

This post is, alone, not an indicator of anything. But it is part of a pattern of American technology companies promising substantial (or just incremental) innovations, and then failing to deliver them on anything resembling a sane time table.

Let’s go through a list of ‘next big things’ that were eventually dropped or put on an indefinitely delayed time table:

  • Google Glass, quashed by prog concern-trolling
  • Self-driving Google Car
  • The Facebook App Ecosystem (died when Zynga choked to death)
    • Facebook was supposed to be the ‘identity layer’ for the internet…
    • …but they’ve had so many problems establishing user identities that they’re just becoming an added layer on top of the government’s existing ‘identity layer.’
  • Real time restaurant demand management software (Groupon Now flopped at launch, as did the company on IPO)
  • Personal cloud storage as a driver of tech IPOs (Box.net and Dropbox have delayed IPO indefinitely; all major tech companies have released clone products that are priced competitively)
  • Google was going to attempt to de-anonymize the web by favoring verified authors in search results, even touting it in the CEO’s book…
    • …but then quietly cancelled the program a couple years later with little explanation.
  • Moore’s Law has not kept up
  • ‘Crowd-funding’ has been marginal and has now earned a bad reputation for enabling fraud and incompetent producers.
  • 3D printing wildly over-hyped relative to its actual utility in the moment
    • Requires more technical know-how to produce quality prints than advertised
    • Insofar as it requires technical ability to use competently, it doesn’t meet the requirements of its florid sales pitch
  • ‘Cloud computing’ has become an increasingly toxic buzzword thanks to the activities of the NSA and other high profile security breaches.

And of course, there’s more.

The problem that Americans have is that they believe that they can innovate and compete globally in the 21st century while relying on theories of economics and politics which are frozen in the 1930s. They just think that they can keep motoring on without making any fundamental revisions or checking some old assumptions made in the FDR era.

Without innovation in the capital structure of society, conditions become too chaotic to effectively innovate in technology. Zero interest rates make it attractive to invest in lengthening company capital structures, but it makes it impossible for those structures to calibrate effectively to the real conditions of society.

What that means is that it becomes affordable for companies to invest in Quests For The Holy Grail, but it becomes impossible to actually find the holy grail. Launching new quests is cheap, actually following through is not possible due to an inability to find accurate price information.

Progressives are mostly comfortable with ‘disruptive innovation’ as long as people remain in FDR’s concentration camp of glorious happy progress. Once people start to chew at the barbed wire, the opinion-making class becomes apoplectic, demanding that it stop immediately. Writers even go berserk when people develop a dispatch service for taxi cabs that uses smart phones — a marginal change if there ever was one.

The trouble that the opinion-making class is in is that they are focused on what’s going on within the barbed wire, and ignoring most of what’s happening outside of it.

Book Review: Templexity by Nick Land

Book cover - Templexity by Nick Land

This will be a short review because Templexity is a short book, just released yesterday.

If you’re reading this blog, you’re probably already familiar with Nick Land’s recent writing. Templexity is rather different from his blogging work: it’s what mainstream literary and film criticism would read like if the American mainstream wasn’t hopelessly mired in the Brezhnev era of political correctness.

The Foreward doesn’t really sell the book, but it picked up for me as the professor began using the movie Looper as a jumping off point to write about contemporary politics, economics, cyberpunk, and older science fiction.

“You should go to China,” Joe is told by his criminal overseer , Abe. “I’m going to France,” Joe insists stubbornly. Abe responds with what – for us – is the most critical line in the movie: “I’m from the future. You should go to China.” With these words, Looper makes Sino-Futurism its topic. The hyper -modern China Event overspills the existing order of time.

Visually, what’s interesting about Looper is that the American landscape is completely dilapidated. Ordinary people who are fortunate drive rusted-out cars. Gangsters ride hover-cycles imported from China. That is to say, imported from the future. As a literary device, Land describes the city as futuristic, a clustering of future-time events, whereas what’s outside is kept relatively unchanging, in the past.

A ‘city of the future’ is Gibsonian in precisely this sense. That is nothing new, nor could it be. It has always leaked back, in coincidence with modernity. Tomorrow is a social magnet, as has been known for some considerable time, at first merely reflectively, but ever increasingly as a techno-responsive object.

Civilization is an accelerating process, not a steady state. As its name suggests, it is channeled primarily through cities (which explode). The incandescent intensity of a hypergrowth-dominated urban future consumes our historical horizon , and an exceptionally impressive perspective on this developing spectacle is to be found in 21st century Shanghai – a fact Hollywood has no real choice but to relay.

Reading this short tract, it reminded me of the time in my life when I could buy an American magazine and be impressed by what was written there. I used to be able to read American magazines and newspapers and feel like I was gleaning meaningful acculturation from it. I no longer feel that way when I read most of what Americans publish.

But I felt that way again when I read this one. From the book:

“What happened to America?” is the Cyberpunk question par excellence.

Indeed. The reason why this is readable, and most of what you can get in Anglo-America isn’t anymore, is perhaps because of this dilemma. America finds itself trapped in a paradox of time, of negative interest, fading slowly backwards.

More Reasons to Say No to Voting

  • Democracy is a destructive political selection method that places the property and lives of the better part of the civilization at the disposal of the worst instincts of the majority.
  • It’s for this reason that the Founding Fathers opposed Democracy as stridently as they did. It took more than 150 years for the American Republic to institute Universal Suffrage, and almost 200 years to go all the way into the pit.
  • It’s not so much about the time you spend voting at the polls, but also the time that you spend informing yourself about different candidates for election.
  • You could be spending this time & money on improving:
    • Your life
    • Your children’s lives

Its the time and energy that people spend on making these electoral decisions that fuels so much of the media.

What James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 is just as true today as it was when he wrote it:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assembleand administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

Was James too wordy for you?

Maybe so. That’d be one of the good reasons why universal suffrage is a bad idea.

Returning politics to the hands of the capable and removing it from the hands of the incompetent is a good long-term goal. Preventing as much of the inevitable destruction and civil war that tends to be comorbid with outbreaks of democracy is a high-minded goal, and one worth striving for. Madison won the debate in the short term, but Democracy won in the long run.

More reasons you shouldn’t vote:


  • Not voting and arguing against voting is less about the direct impact on the election, and more about depleting the legitimacy of the democratic process.
  • Depleting the legitimacy of the democratic process is less about persuading commoners against it (who will lose political power, but gain in other areas), but about converting the leaders who can be converted, and demoralizing or otherwise neutralizing those that can’t be.
  • Voting feeds the business model of electioneering. Not voting puts electioneers out of work.
  • An increasingly anti-democratic public mindset is one that is more expensive to persuade to remain democratic or to return to belief in democracy.
  • While voting in slightly less destructive representatives might have a minor (and questionable at that) impact on policy, any short term gains will be overwhelmed by long term destruction.

Go to work or stay at home, but don’t vote.

Become more engaged in civil society instead. Voting has no chance of resolving the difficult collective problems facing Americans and people in similar political situations. The only vote that you might want to consider is one to secede from the union. Anything else is a major drain on your attention and time.

[NOTE: Thanks to reader Thorgeir Lawspeaker for correcting the embarrassing mis-attribution of Federalist No. 10.]

Who Needs Nationalism?

Attilla and His Hordes Destroy Italy and The Arts - Eugene Delacroix

Attilla and His Hordes Destroy Italy and The Arts – Eugene Delacroix

Nationalism is the most controversial sector of the neoreactionary trichotomy. The most ardent nationalists tend to be suspicious and hostile towards neoreaction, but not always. This essay will survey the modern situation, perform a brief historical review, and then move on to practical considerations of political strategy as it relates to the ethno-nationalist tendency. It closes with a recommendation.

The recent historical background

Since World War II, all the great powers have repudiated previous-held doctrines of rights to ethno-religious self-determination that became popular after the European upheavals of 1848. The victorious Allies supplanted European nationalism with an internationalist set of Universal Human Rights which repudiates the idea of ethnic and religious exclusivity that nationalism requires.

The obvious reason why this happened is because the USSR was an internationalist Marxist dictatorship. The US is and was a universalist democratic world-Empire with an elite intimate with the USSR. Internationalists conceived of and manned the new international system with all its acronym’d financial-political institutions.

The authorities forbade nationalism in Europe during the post-war, while encouraging it in the third world.

You can be a Cuban nationalist, an Angolan nationalist, a Palestinian nationalist, a Peruvian nationalist, or a black South African nationalist, but you can’t be a German nationalist, because Hitler was a German nationalist, and we all know how that turned out.

While there have been some unprincipled exceptions in the 20th century, such as the Jewish nationalist state of Israel, Rhodesia, and apartheid South Africa, the international community tends to correct for these exceptions when they stop being politically tenable.

In many European countries, expressing nationalism of any sort, especially white ethnic nationalism, is often a crime punishable by jail time.

In the United States, since the passage of civil rights legislation, ethnic nationalism is not a political crime as it is in Europe, but it is a class of business crime. Much like how the IRS relies on business owners to collect taxes on its behalf, the EEOC relies on business owners to police speech that might threaten egalitarian norms regarding ethnicity and gender. It’s not illegal to express a preference for palefaces over the rest, but preferring palefaces in hiring will get your business fined or seized by the government.

Nationalism is yesterday’s leftism


Adolf Hitler - Shelter in Fournes

Shelter in Fournes – Adolf Hitler

The tension between Neoreaction and ethno-nationalists derives from the leftist origins of nationalism.

The first modern nation-state was post-revolutionary France. In France, local languages, borders, and religious practices were subordinated to the emerging French state, culminating in the rule of Emperor Napoleon and his ensuing rampage across Europe and North Africa.

Because Neoreaction tends to admire the pre-revolutionary political system which consisted of decentralized European aristocratic rule buttressed by official religion, the centralizing, proletarian tendency of the nationalists tends to be incompatible. The aristocratic system was by no means recognizable as nationalistic. Royal families are often foreign to the lands that they rule over. Inter-marriage among nobles tended to send sons and daughters to far-off lands where they may not have even spoken the the same languages as their subjects.

If you’ve read Shakespeare’s plays, you’re familiar with the linguistic quirk of identifying a noble by the same noun as the land that he rules over. Gloucester is both a man and a place on the map. He is the flesh-metaphor for the land and its history, and his decisions are made for the land and the bloodline whom God has elected. The land belongs to God and he picks someone worthy to handle the territory until he gets back from whatever He is doing in the meantime.

Aristocratic politics consider the People to be part of the land, and not the sole creatures for whom the political system is ordered to serve.

This is even the case for cities. The noble who rules the city rules for Florence, he rules for Rome, he rules for Munich, he rules for Dresden, he rules for Milan, and so on. The duke is the city and the city is the duke.

The patriotism is for land, for buildings, for landmarks, for forests, but not so much for the perishable people who live in them. The people themselves are only vessels for their eternal souls, and perhaps their souls can be said to have a mark on the land in which their bodies inhabit for a time. The crest of the land’s ruling family is a symbol that encompasses the culture, the laws, and the bloodline charged with upholding it.

Under nationalism, the People are the leaders, and the political ruler only holds his scepter by the mandate of the People rather than the mandate of Heaven.

Rather than a set of provinces united into a kingdom or an empire, it’s a number of regions unified into a nation-state administered by bureaucracies on behalf of the people who live there. The king is no longer the father of the people, ruling on behalf of God. Instead, there is the leading man who merely represents the will of the People, which tends to be fickle and unwise.

What works in today’s nationalism

The reason why nationalism still has an appeal is because the internationalism that replaced it has no popular appeal. Educators can train the elite to love foreigners more than their own people, but natural love for the familiar tends to overpower the ambient propaganda to favor the foreigner over the neighbor to people who aren’t exposed to elite indoctrination.

It works mainly as a corrective to the unworkable notion of the universal brotherhood of man. Nationalism becomes attractive as Western elites declare over and over that there is nothing worth preserving in Western people or Western culture, that all principles must be subordinate to the unworkable principle of human equality. Nationalists will say that this is not so, and that a given people should value their own close relations more than they value those who have no relationship with them.

For people in the university system, nationalism must also have a strong appeal. Marxist internationalists have conquered every university in the Western world. The curriculum at each school is heavily influenced by the internationalists. You can’t go through a single course at any level without getting a strong dose of hatred for the native people of the West and the indigenous culture. It’s understandable that many of the people exposed to that curriculum who don’t buy it wind up reacting in such a way.

Because the assault on traditional Western culture is so unrelenting and pervasive, the many people alienated by the propaganda run towards nationalism for relief.

The nationalist failure mode

ITALY - CIRCA 2002:  Garibaldi in Dijon, 1871, by Sebastiano de Albertis (1828-1897), 1877, oil on canvas. Franco-Prussian War, Italy, 19th century. (Photo by DeAgostini/Getty Images)

Garibaldi in Dijon, 1871 – Sebastiano de Albertis

The trouble with this corrective is that it’s only a minor one.

It replaces global egalitarianism with a more local egalitarianism. It replaces a shallow internationalist culture which turns over itself entirely every decade or so (pop culture struggles to remembers the 1990s — forget about the 1590s) with a bunch of memes of pretty blonde girls in European folk costumes mixed with some serious-not-serious pictures of goose-stepping Nazis, as if nostalgia for 1938 is a stand-in for thousands of years of European heritage.

This is not entirely fair to say, specially considering the high quality and record of work produced by outlets like Counter-Currents, Radix, VDare, the old Alternative Right, and other outlets. It is fair to say about many of their readers, however.

The other common failure mode, which was one of the reasons for the annihilation of the aforementioned goose-steppers, is the frantic, continuous, never-ending creation and polishing of a dolchstoßlegende. The legend flatters the egos of the common people too much, and promotes excessively positive feelings towards mere distant ethnic relations.

Part of the responsibility of power is being able to backstab others before they backstab you. Being stabbed in the ass may not be particularly fair, but it’s part of politics. Games are fair. War is dramatically unfair, especially when there is no shared culture among the belligerents.

Contemporary nationalists, unlike their forefathers of 1848, care little for the brotherhood of Italians, of Germans, of Englishmen, or of Greeks. They want to promote a never-before realized notion of an international brotherhood of pallor, which reaches much farther than other attempts to do such a thing in history. That’s similar to the motivating ethic behind the European Union, but with less non-European multiculturalism.

Part of the motivating impetus behind the creation of the EU was to prevent wars caused by European nationalism to unite Europeans based on their shared culture and values. It has not succeeded on any of those points besides prevention of war, and even in that there was the Balkan episode and the numerous outbreaks of ‘Islamic terrorism’ (really small raids lead by Muslim immigrants and converts).

The first point of the six founding aims of the European Union  is to promote peace, European values, and the well-being of the European people. At one time, the founders of the EU were idealists, also. Radical nationalists, the likes of whom go to jail regularly in Europe, differ in degree and on what other points they quibble with as it stands with the treaty organization.

Frustrated idealists of today look at the bureaucratic monster that oppresses the European people and fail to remember the high-mindedness that motivated the birthing of the beast in Belgium.

As Richard Spencer discovered on his arrest in Hungary, international European brotherhood is more of a poetic construct than one that counts for much of anything when it’s important.

The problem is, as anyone who has traveled up and down Italy can tell you, is that even the concept of ‘Italy’ is fundamentally incoherent, even in an age of standardized language and mass media. Abusing terms of geography to turn them into accurate cultural descriptors is a political error.

The formalist perspective suggests that we should rather promote borders that reflect the character of the territory, that the culture, people, and land ought to be more important to the political structure than what a poet thinks ought to be the case. Race idealism often seems to come very close to ‘race realism.’

Stating the obvious: your brothers are your worst enemies

Looping back to the complaint about the dolchstoß whining: the main issue with ethno-nationalism as a sole criteria for political organization is that it encourages an unworkable grouping based in artifice that must manufacture external enemies constantly to maintain any sort of social cohesion.

There would be no need for the dolchstoß focus if there was a genuine cultural affinity there among ‘whites.’ The attempt to cohere a complaint of ‘white genocide,’ as if Ban Ki-moon could be convinced to deploy blue helmets to Germany to defend the human rights of ethnic Germans, is funny.

“Ow, my ass, it hurts so hard from all the times I’ve been stabbed there,” is not an effective rallying cry. Up until relatively recently, the liberals have been making a stronger appeal, if only because they’re more willing to appear confident & powerful.

You don’t muster the strength to defend against an assault by whining louder than your enemies whine, by whipping yourself harder so that you can win the gold medal in the Victim Olympics. You win by defeating your enemies.

The obvious problem that the new nationalists have is that no one hates them more than the White people in power. Faced with the challenge of assembling a rival coalition to the axis of Davos Man, most of the lesser voices prefer focusing on the rainbow coalition of political proxies employed by the people who are actually in charge. This would be like pretending the Indians were the real power to worry about during the French & Indian War. The latter were proxies for the larger power.

It’s much easier to maintain your poetic illusions about European brotherhood if you can convince yourself that your co-ethnic enemies are actually just being manipulated by secret puppetmasters, and that it’s just your job to wake up the sheeple so that they can start to recognize their own interests.

To be able to say “oh, it’s really just the perfidious Jews behind all the bad things in this world” takes a lot of the pressure off that might otherwise be present to address the complex reality of political coalitions which often fall across ethnic and religious lines.

The overarching nationalist strategy appears to be the creation of a broad European coalition to overpower the fraying internationalist coalition. The problem with broad coalitions can be seen in the failing internationalist coalition: a lack of cultural cohesion and geographic incoherence makes long-term cooperation impossible. This is one of the reasons why empires of all sorts tend to be short lived. The provinces have interests that are not reconcilable with one another or with the imperial capitol. Davos Man is on the ropes.

The other sub-strategy, more common in America, is that of a White variant of Zionism, a cracker re-imagining of Hertzl that calls for the formation of a White ethno-state. The weak point in that formation is similar to the many weak points in Israel: namely that ‘the Jews’ much like ‘the Whites’ is culturally, genetically, linguistically, and politically incoherent. Israel has been beset by foreign enemies since its formation, is an economically inconsistent basket case, and requires continual foreign aid and unstable military alliances in order to maintain itself.

Many in the nationalist sector idealize ‘the Jews’ as a hyper-competent, hyper-coordinated international brotherhood which somehow manages to outwit and subvert European culture at every turn.

Fortunately, this isn’t true: most of them are motley, with cracked ideas about politics and economics, and far less cohesion than is commonly assumed. Part of Israel’s contemporary crisis derives from errors in the original Zionist formation: that secular Jews, orthodox Jews, Sephardics, Ashkenazim, and Eastern Europeans all shared a sufficiently common culture to maintain a strong state. People too often project from the small number of (rapidly diminishing) elite Jews, failing to notice the mediocrity that makes up the majority of the group.

Less than a century after its founding, Israel clings to its nuclear weapons for protection, is surrounded by enemies of increasing power & aggression, and is losing the support of its most important strategic ally. Financially, Israel suffers from rampant inflation, continual raids upon its territory, and diplomatic isolation.

Copying this failed political strategy is not something that I want to participate in.

An alternative for your consideration

The way to clobber a failing broad coalition is not to desperately assemble another broad coalition that has no geographic continuity.

What you have to do is to start small, and then grow outward from the beginning.

Second, you have to stop romanticizing lost causes, especially if you’re an American. The only people that Americans hate more than anyone are losers. To declare that you’ve lost, that you’re the weak hand, or that you’re the victim is to surrender before you’ve even begun.

Cultures with a long record of losing love hearing stories about how badly they were clobbered by people who are better than they are. Not all Europeans are like the Irish, who malinger over their failures for centuries at a time, whatever their other virtues might be.

To that end, it’s better to take personal responsibility for those failures, even if it’s plausible to blame some other group. Taking responsibility projects an image of strength, whereas blame hands the locus of control onto another party. You don’t want the other party to have that in their hands.

Facile ethnic similarity is not sufficient for a durable political community, although it does contribute to that end.

Empires don’t begin from enormous global coalitions from the outset. They begin when one isolated political unit becomes much more powerful than their neighbors. It doesn’t come from claiming brotherhood with strangers, but from creating meaningful bonds of honor with those who are close.

It’s also important to pay heed to practical considerations. Every politician is “in favor of good things and opposed to bad things.” The trouble is in developing the skill and the power to promote the good and ward off the bad.

Europeans need conflict between themselves more than they need to form an enormous international cuddle-pile. The weakness in European culture did not fully take hold until the doctrine of the universal brotherhood of man took hold. If we are brothers, we are also rivals.

We need to encourage political competition at the local level, secession, and other methods that will help to break up these stultifying international coalitions. Connecting with historical tradition is part of that, but so is palingenesis.

The white tree of Gondor on the flag of Elendil

Is Techno-Commerce Enough?



The most annoying tendency among a certain class of person (which I’ve fortunately not seen as much recently) is the notion that technology is somehow in and of itself a self-directing force. It’s mostly a libertarian tendency, but it’s also present within technology communities and within the hearts of some technocratic liberals.

This often comes with some bold predictions about the future of technological development, usually made by someone who both isn’t an engineer and has no relationship to the process of actual technical development or bringing novel technology to market.

Similarly, only professors can describe capitalism as a self-perpetuating engine, whereas people who actually need to go and do capitalism tend to regard it as a phenomenon describing the strenuous efforts of a small number of individuals. Setting up a company that generates profits is by no means a self-directing process. The company does not tell the executive what to do. The company is only a legal model of a real social structure made up of humans. Similarly, ‘capitalism’ is only a model of a general kind of behavior and not the behavior itself.

My position on singulatarianism is the same as N.N. Taleb’s position, which is to say that I think it’s prediction methods based on trend projection are invalid. Mandelbrot might be able to tell you more.

Similar is a notion that commerce alone can act as a unifying principle for a kingdom, republic, or other polity. While it may be critical, it’s not the sole factor that causes men to come together to form a durable society. The chief reason for this is that commercial activity is innately competitive.

In order to maintain social stability, you need to prevent merchant princes from physically killing each other to gain a market advantage. This is tougher to achieve than you might think, having lived in a country in which most commercial disputes are resolved peacefully or at least through legal conflict that never rises to overt violence.

Apart from pirate ships, the idea of a truly multicultural society has never existed. Rome may have contained people from many cultures, but the unifying culture was Roman and native to the Italian peninsula. America may be ‘multi-cultural’ today, but its leading culture is unmistakably English and Protestant. Attempting to plant the legal norms of the English into foreign soil results in failure in just about every case unless the ruling group of that foreign soil is also English. You can foist a constitution on Iraq, but you can’t make Iraqis behave as if they were Anglos.

Legal norms are impossible to separate from the people who follow those norms. If Americans can’t convince the residents of inner city Baltimore to respect property rights, writing a more efficient legal structure will not work. You can build a legal ‘machinery of freedom,’ but that machinery does not in and of itself compel compliance. When people are stripping the copper from that machine, it stops working.

 Not Sufficient Alone, But a Competitive Necessity

Nonetheless, there are many key technologies that any polis needs to remain competitive in in order to maintain independence in the future. Due to regulation and sclerosis, the financially invalid United States is poised to fall behind in all of them. Here’s a selection:

  1. Nuclear defense technology. The US has pursued boondoggle laser-based systems for years instead of using nuclear countermeasures that would be politically incorrect but physically effective.
  2. Human enhancement. The US harasses geneticists, biologists, and bio-technologists, and others who would research methods for improving human capacities. Paranoia about cybernetics has also stalled development along these lines.
  3. Artificial intelligence. The US has been more free with this than most other countries, but any lead that exists is liable to slip.
  4. Nuclear power. Since the hippies conquered America, pursuing this line of development has been politically fraught.
  5. Space development. Space matters because it’s the ultimate high ground, granting superiority in a number of strategic situations. Asteroid mining also represents a transformative opportunity.

The issue with hopes to stall or ‘turn back the clock’ on technological development is that international politics is competitive.

If Vladimir Putin develops an inexpensive and effective defense against ballistic missiles, the relative position of Russia compared to the rest of the world would change for the better immediately. It would also mean that, without a counter-measure developed on a crash schedule (and even with one), the entire political balance of power would be upset in a moment.

To say that technical excellence can be sacrificed because it somehow saps the spiritual vitality of a people is like saying that steel is inferior to bronze.

While reliance on easy-to-use technology is often a weakening influence on individuals and groups, abandoning technology altogether is a worse choice.

Cortez exterminated the Aztecs with steel. While technology should not be pursued or adopted blindly, to forsake technical development (and the commerce that it must use for fuel) is to commit political suicide. Modern men tend to think that large-scale war has ceased to be a permanent factor since the development of nuclear weapons. Given history, this is likely to be a false assumption.

The issue with attempting to prioritize solely ‘military’ technical development is that commerce fuels conflict rather than the other way around. The unique, hidden knowledge uncovered by trade is irreplaceable.

Cybernetic Aristocracy

Some voices around neoreaction may at times try to get away from the characterization of facile critics as being simultaneously atavistic and fixated upon what is sometimes frightening technological development.

It’s wrong to attempt to disown this characterization, because, properly understood, it’s correct. Neoreaction looks both backwards for anything that it can use to forge a winning future politics.

Voices ranging from Francis Fukuyama to the various liberals at the Baffler and elsewhere have declared research into the technology of human enhancement to be incompatible with democracy and egalitarian philosophy more widely. It’s not only impossible to research applied technology that might have in-egalitarian results, but even to run simple genetic testing companies like 23andme without harassment from the authorities.

The critics are correct: while it’s an American maxim  that “God made man, and Sam Colt made man equal,” other technological developments are not so egalitarian in their implications.

If you can breed a human with bulletproof skin and a 160 IQ, a $500 handgun is not going to do much to him. If you can manufacture a $70 anti-air drone informed by an artificial intelligence of incredible capability, there’s not much that a Predator controlled by a sluggish human operator separated by a fragile satellite connection could do to protect itself. If you can blow up an F35 from outer space when it’s still on the landing strip, all that money that went into its development becomes useless.

Americans have grown so used to the technological lead provided by the ingenuity of their ancestors that they have forgotten what it might be like to meet an adversary that is superior on every level.

Getting to that point will be enormously challenging, and is not inevitable.

A conflict between a technologically inferior society and a superior one tends to end rapidly if the latter one does not restrain itself.


Part of what makes neoreaction interesting is that it often interprets past social arrangements as related to technological phenomena rather than merely examining past social arrangements as morality plays about the wickedness of our ancestors.



If sexual repression and patriarchy helps your empire develop the Gatling gun while the Zulus are hiding behind wooden shields, perhaps the social form that makes such a thing possible is even more important than its lower-order effects.

Liberals have stated loud and proud that they do not want to be part of a country that leads the world. They have stated loudly and without any alternate possible explanation that they will happily sacrifice competitive health for their mistaken ideology.

They don’t  just oppose technological advancement: they oppose anything that might arrest our dysgenic trajectory.

They identify with the Zulus of history, and are very sorry for shooting so many of them so efficiently.

So, so sorry they are. Very sorry. Always saying sorry.

Sorry that we’re not sorry.

The thing to understand is that when a government has ceased to become a going concern, worrying about winning internal conflicts becomes much like trying to win inter-Zulu power struggles. If the American mainstream has elected to identify with the Zulu, let them share the fate of the Zulu, except perhaps with less honor and less demonstrated courage.

A future aristocracy is likely to be a cybernetic one, if we are able to maintain a level of civilization sufficient to support technological development. If civilization does not remain at a sufficient level to support technical development, then any society that emerges from the ashes will be similarly aristocratic.

Hardening the Trichotomy

Periodically, elements within the neoreactionary trichotomy tend to take pot-shots at others on opposing angles of the map. Most of the time, I try to stay out of it, mostly because I only like entering conflicts that I can win decisively, just as a personal quirk.

What I hope that this essay (and the previous one in this series targeted to the religious wing) gets across is that the different elements that make up a successful Western politics are all essential. There’s a tendency in man to look down upon all aspects of the human experience that he himself is not directly involved in. Appreciating the whole requires maintaining a perspective from a higher level.

Book Review: A World Class Transportation System

Don't call it a grave. It's the future you chose. - Ron Paul

A civil engineer named Charles Marohn recently wrote a short eBook about America’s collapsing transportation infrastructure and dysfunctional city planning process entitled A World Class Transportation System. If you’re interested in these issues, it’s worth ignoring the rest of this post and going to buy the book. The book coincides with the launch of his Minnesota-based nonprofit called Strong Towns.

Why should you care about transportation policy? Because failing infrastructure is often spoken about, but rarely from the perspective of an engineer who needs to examine the underlying financial and engineering issues that go into urban planning. He writes:

I’m tired of watching Rome burn while the insiders fiddle, seeing bridges fall down and expensive roads go bad while we spend billions on new stuff we will never be able to maintain.

Transportation policy in America needs to focus on building cities that are financially productive and then connecting them with high speed, high capacity roadways.

The main reason why American living spaces have come to seem so anti-human is that they’re not designed towards the goal of creating productive and aesthetically pleasing places for human habitation. Rather, they’re designed by politically connected bureaucrats to spend enormous amounts of money to no economically rational end.

From the perspective of an engineer who needs to examine municipal finances to make decisions, many local governments throughout the US are doomed to insolvency due to unsustainable maintenance costs on existing infrastructure. Similar issues exist internationally, but being an American, their issues are less pressing than the issues that threaten to have more immediate consequences.

Marohn recounts:

It allows one generation to live at the expense of the next. I’ve seen cities that are deeply caught up in debt that they now spend 50% of their budget (and rising) on debt service. I’ve seen cities where no council member is under sixty years old take on thirty and forty year debt obligations. Both of those instances are inter-generationally immoral.

What makes this book different from somewhat similar examinations of the problem like The Geography of Nowhere is that it’s more based on a detailed firsthand knowledge of working in infrastructure than it is on purely aesthetic and ideological considerations. He forecasts that

It will be too late to save [most exurban towns] — we’re going to lose hundreds in the next decades — but to help the rest thrive again, we need to re-localize the economy. This proposal would help with that process.

Having examined differential tax receipts between different kinds of business districts, he can also criticize with authority the many strip mall style development efforts that rest heavily on government subsidies.

Many roads which are expensive to maintain do not come even close to repaying the expenditure for their ongoing maintenance based on the tax revenue deriving from the businesses and residences who use them.

While the book is superb on diagnosing the issue, it’s hopeless on suggesting political solutions. He acknowledges that “local governments are often run by idiots and we can’t trust them to make decisions… government leadership doesn’t attract idiots but rather reflects the general competence of society…”

This is precisely the chief issue with democratic selection: the People merely get a representative of its own intrinsic mediocrity.

The section that does make sense is that because so many city councils are staffed by incompetents, it may not be challenging to displace entire local governments in more rural & suburban areas with focused & covert efforts.

The practical proposals that make sense to me tend to be around how to renovate economically depressed downtown areas that may have unrealized economic potential.

The main issue that the existing American government is going to have is that it will not be able to maintain its property going forward. Roads will continue to break down. Funding to slow the decay will not be available because the economic spaces that it controls are becoming less productive as the spaces require more leverage to maintain at a permanently decreasing output rate.

The solution is to focus less on the roads and more on the places that the roads connect to. Relearning and re-implementing the design principles that work will be an enormous challenge to achieve under the political rule of an older generation that has come to value quantity of development over quality.

Fortunately, starvation selects for leaner, faster, and more competitive creatures.

Response to “NRx Needs Capital”

A writer shared the following open letter on Twitter earlier today. I’m unsure he wants his name published, so I shall reproduce the text of his writing instead:

NRx needs capital

Neoreaction is poised to become a truly great movement. “But NRx is not a movement!’’ goes the cry. “It is a(n) (salon|analytical framework|prophecy of doom).’’ Whatever you want to call it, the fact of the matter is that neoreaction is a group of humans with common ideas, common goals (even if those goals are just to burn away the quasi-religious fog around everyday phenomena), and, crucially, common enemies. These enemies will, if they can, destroy you: expose your real names, threaten your employment, your families. Your livelihoods depend on your either remaining anonymous or your having, as the wise man said, “fuck you’’ money.

This is nice. Maybe you don’t care about that right now. You’re young. You can scrape together a living writing freelance for the Daily Caller or whatever. Or maybe you’re behind so many layers of protection that you can give dissidents in China (or wherever) lessons in opsec. But in order to take your impact to the next level it sure would be nice to have some extra money, and it doesn’t look like Peter Thiel is forthcoming (or maybe the disappearance of this indicates that he is).

Currently this isn’t possible, because, unless I’m mistaken (and I’m outer circle if anything, so I could be), everyone is looking out for himself. This is fine, but such operations as there are will have to remain small-scale.

My proposition is simple: rather than individually collecting bitcoins or PayPal donations from your blogs, why don’t the hardest of the hardcore pool together some significant capital (pledging at least your fortunes, if not your lives or your sacred honor), invest that money and grow a small financial empire? Then when Gawker exposes one of you and you lose your job, you and your family aren’t completely out in the cold. Or you could buy some serious computer hardware and try to mine bitcoin. Or you could build a secret moon base. Surely with all the time you have to read old books, one of you could read up on investing.

tl;dr: Pool significant money. Invest and reinvest it, watch it grow. Build secret moon base.

This sort of talk is somewhat useful at identifying the problem, but not so useful at determining a solution.

The thing is that it’s not terribly sustainable for any group of people to demand credit without providing corresponding value first. You can beg for donations like NPR, but unless you’re broadcasting like NPR does,and paying the staff that NPR does, and getting the government funding that NPR does, it’s awfully challenging to raise money like NPR does. The tote bags are a thing because people want to feel like they’re getting something in return for their money. They also draft beautiful fundraising letters to provide recognition for the people who do give them money.

Glomming together to beg for money more effectively is not going to result in success, because fundraising is a difficult activity that requires focused people who have skin in the game to sweat at providing enough value over a long period of time to justify donations.

A rich man may have opportunities before him that can return 7x his risk capital or significantly more over a period of a few short years. It’s difficult for a loose confluence of people to compete with that. This is perhaps why Moldbug is a CEO now, and not a blogger.

If you were pitching neoreaction to an angel investor, what would there be to pitch? Not much of anything, but there’s still something of interest within the entire mess.

My personal perspective is that the legal construct of the non-profit corporation is a vehicle expressly built for leftist causes. I don’t think it’s wise to build explicitly right-wing PACs or right-wing non-profits because the Federal government is suppressing them aggressively. Much better to build taxpaying corporations either within the US or outside of it.

Instead of demanding payment merely for existing, it’s better to create debts through generous labor first. Agglomerating a bunch of NRx funds into a fat bank account to be spent for mysterious purposes is not a sustainable method. For one, it means that funds can’t be doled out in a rational way. For another, it means that the fundraising is a one-time event that will likely end in project failure. The typical result of such an arrangement is to have one trickster run away with all the money.

To fund a long struggle, what’s needed is for sects to sustain themselves indefinitely in a decentralized fashion (decentralized being distinct from atomized). And there are indeed various operations in motion towards that end.

People who tend to believe that raising money is step #1 tend to discover that the only funds they can raise are on dreadful terms. Becoming worthy is the wiser step #1. There are many intermediate steps between “get money” and “build moon base,” and most of them are not even a little bit sexy. The majority of intermediate steps are incredibly boring and stupid, but nonetheless necessary. It’s not that the moon base isn’t worth building. It is.  It’s just that getting there requires more than stomping one’s feet and demanding a seat on the rocket ship.

I’m not particularly interested in raising funds for a movement (and the author tried to preempt this line of refutation and I agree with some of his spirit). A ‘movement’ is a metaphor for a military movement, as in telling a company of men to take a hill three miles to the east. I disagree that it’s a sensible metaphor for a group like neoreaction.

It makes sense to me to only find funds for movements that matter, as in taking specific hills, rather than raising funds to command men to move around a lot with nonspecific directions about where they are supposed to go. It’s the difference between commanding “Move!” and commanding “Move three miles forward to occupy hill #398C within map section G6.”