progressivists, by constantly talking about the future and the both more liberal and more egalitarian, both closer to nature and more cultured society of the future, project into this future contradictory dreams far more than they obey a dialectical reason as severe and binding as reason, period. Traditionalist conservatives understand far better the imperatives of long time spans and of long-term survival, the absolute necessity of familial and national discipline, of healthy demographics, of a religious respect for proven traditions. The serial liberations of progressivists are often similar to the demolition of the arches of a bridge that goes from the past and the present to the future. They are similar to an unchecked unravelling of the social fabric, in which human will or history carve out the institutions. Haunted by the great changes of history — from mediaeval christianity to centralized monarchies, from feudalism to urban communes, from arts and crafts to industrial capitalism, from liberal capitalism to State capitalism — the progressivists forget that the unraveling of customs, or that demographic decadence can cause the ruin of any great institution, and that there is not future for a people undergoing [this].

Beyond the person-God in which you don’t believe, there is the Cosmos-God, the God-of-long-history, the Tao-God, who can’t be rejected without committing suicide.

When monarchy was constructed it was built on the Männerbund; the unit of human males who form a tribal clan. In Great Britain the new democracy, which we may call the Ekklesiasterion (House of Commons), was built right on top of the Castle of monarchy. Then the cathedral of left wing mimetic power was built right on top of that. In each successive act no permission was asked of the previous power structure, and legacy institutions like The Crown and the House of Lords continue to exist in a neutered form.

It is our intention to build the Techno-Commercial Skyscraper right on top of the Cathedral without permission.

So these two prohibitions, against must and ideology in a vacuum, are your first two commandments. Others may also be listed.

(1) Thou shalt not say must or ought.
(2) Thou shalt not practice ideology without reference to power.
Some other commandments:
(3) Thou shalt not be knee-jerk, narrow-minded or possessing of second-hand opinions.
(4) Thou shalt not conform the world to his own incentives, but conform both himself and the world to a superior incentive structure. Never design from selfishness.
(5) When designing, thou shalt not obey societies values, but step outside of them to engineer better ones.
(6) Thou shalt not be a religious or secular fanatic, progressive or puritan.
(7) Thou shalt not be an idealist. All who believe in perfection are evil.

 

Originally from «Neocameral Future, Preface and Introduction» by Axel Mckibbin, posted on Sunday, July 3, 2016.

l&r

are just two arms of a single body.

archeo-agorism (moved)

here was reproduced «paleo agorism» By cyborg_nomade  from https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/author/uriel515/  July 2, 2016

then altered & moved to: https://informationtradition.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/archeo-agoric-apocalypse/

O puissant angel of our glaring doom

This is what XS maintains:

There is perfect philosophical integrity between the tragic foundations of Occidental Civilization and the cybernetic industrialism that defines its ultimate limit. Within this neoreactionary frame, reaction is never regressive enough, nor modernity ever advanced enough. Something more comforting — less distant — will be seized upon in both temporal directions. That is the minor theme of fate. No effective constituency could ever want to push far enough in either direction, to the point where the circuit of time closes, upon doom (coldly understood). It does not matter, because politics does not. Doom matters. The rest is pitiful species vanity, tragedy, and control malfunction. It will burn, without comprehending why.

From the perspective of doom — only glimpsed, slowly, after vast disciplines of coldness — everything you are trying to do is a desperate idiocy that will fail, because humanism (hubris) is the one thing you can never let go. The drama dictates that. There’s no point flagellating yourself over it. The cosmos is not so poor in flagellation that it requires your meager contribution.

“Yes we can!” is everything Neoreaction is not. Perhaps you even see that. Yet you repeat it with every measure you propose. Take your favorite ideological slogan and attach “Yes we can!” as an appendix. If it works, you now know the epoch to which you belong.

Only doom can (and will).

Carry on, though. You will, in any case. It entertains the gods.

February 10, 2016 admin 33 Comments »

chronos is overrated

reproduced here for the sake of etnernity & the Black Library

ise de firste postus of de Blacke Forge: XenoSystems.net :

Once it is accepted that the right can never agree about anything, the opportunity arises to luxuriate in the delights of diversity. Libertarianism already rivaled Trotskyism as a source of almost incomprehensibly compact dissensus, but the New Reaction looks set to take internecine micro-factionalism into previously unimagined territories. We might as well enjoy it.

From crypto-fascists, theonomists, and romantic royalists, to jaded classical liberals and hard-core constitutionalists, the reaction contains an entire ideological cosmos within itself. Hostility to coercive egalitarianism and a sense that Western civilization is going to hell will probably suffice to get you into the club.

There’s one dimension of reactionary diversity that strikes Outside in as particularly consequential (insofar as anything out here in the frozen wastes has consequences): the articulation of reaction and politics. Specifically: is the reaction an alternative politics, or a lucid (= cynically realistic) anti-politics? Is democracy bad politics, or simply politics, elaborated towards the limit of its inherently poisonous  potential?

Outside in sides emphatically with the anti-political ‘camp’. Our cause is depoliticization (or catallaxy, negatively apprehended). The tradition of spontaneous order is our heritage.  The New Reaction warns that the tide is against us. Intelligence will be required, in abundance, if we are to swim the other way, and we agree with the theonomists at least in this: if it is drawn from non-human sources, so much the better. Markets, machines, and monsters might inspire us. Rulers of any kind? Not so much.

NGE commentary: we agree, except we´d replace the word ‘reaction’, for what agrees with us, with ‘regality’, ‘regalitarian’, or even, more grossly, ‘rexarian’.

signed,

 

Rexus Nexus

Fish Folkes

reproduced here en whole, «Fish People»:

Since the opportunities for XS to agree (in advance) with PZ Myers don’t come along too regularly, it’s worth seizing upon those that do. For anyone who thinks cladistics are important, this point is worth strongly defending:

There are multiple meanings of “fish”. We can use it to refer to specific species or an extant category of animals: salmon are fish, halibut are fish, herring are fish. No one objects to that, and they all understand that if I said “humans are still salmon”, that would be wrong. […] But another way the term is used is as a descriptor for a clade. A taxonomic clade is a “grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor”. […] So, for instance, humans belong to the mammalian clade, which includes mice and cats and cows. If we have transhuman, part-cyborg descendants, they will still be mammals, because, note, by definition a clade must include all the descendants of an ancestor. We’re trapped! There’s no way our progeny can exit the clade!

In fact, it’s such a sound point, it’s worth generalizing.

 

---

To this veteran N(r)exer Alrenous replies:

I like to say a human is a spectacularly bad copy of a prokaryote.

That said, definitions. https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2016/06/definitions-considered-meaningful.html

Sure you can define a clade like that if you want. But is it useful? Does calling trans-humans mammals actually tell you anything about transhumans, or does it empty the term ‘mammal’ of meaning?

It’s better to define in reverse. If I want to talk about a particular meaning of ‘clade’ then I define ‘clade’ to have that meaning. However, I then must investigate whether transhumans are still in the human clade, because I decide actions, not their consequences, so it’s not up to me.

I want clades to be useful, therefore every member of a clade must share some trait. This works out with hierarchy. Humans are not fish. Humans are archeo-fish, and fish are also archeo-fish. As time passes archeo-fish share fewer and fewer traits, but necessarily new clades, with relevant information, are born. Total description is conserved, at least relative to the amount to describe.

However, clades tell you nothing about horizontal transmission. Mechanical implants are horizontal, and should be orthogonal to the clade system. As for genetic engineering, our genes will decide how we tinker with our genes, but ‘humans’ and ‘transhumans’ will be related like archeo-fish to fish.

Posted on July 6th, 2016

---

 

Of course someone produced Lovecraft to the scene:

S.C. Hickman Says:

Descendants of Dagon arise: http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/d.aspx

Then suddenly I saw it. With only a slight churning to mark its rise to the surface, the thing slid into view above the dark waters. Vast, Polyphemus-like, and loathsome, it darted like a stupendous monster of nightmares to the monolith, about which it flung its gigantic scaly arms, the while it bowed its hideous head and gave vent to certain measured sounds. I think I went mad then.

Once I sought out a celebrated ethnologist, and amused him with peculiar questions regarding the ancient Philistine legend of Dagon, the Fish-God

the ‘Right’ gives too much phraseologic ground

those who are against the Regressive Left, give the Left too much credit.

e.g. they call them historically-positive words like ‘Progressive’ (sounds like ‘one who wants progress’), ‘Liberal’ (sounds like somebody who wants Freedom for people).

why would you do that? i know the recent history of these words, but look into them in previous centuries or in other context than the ‘Right’ pov. why would you call the enemy of Civilization (the Regressive Left) relatively benevolent words? don´t do it. this has got to stop.
‘Liberal’ means among other things ‘generous’. “generous,” also  15.”nobly born, noble, free;” from late 14c. as “selfless, magnanimous, admirable”.
nobody thinks it´s bad to be called Liberal, except for a minority of people.

Call them Commies, Lefties, Liars (in the cases that they´re known liars), fifth columnists, xenofetishists, ethnomasochists, xanthophobes, leukophobes, Third-Worldists, etc.

also, things like, calling oneself “Thought criminal” or whatever, that´s not cool anymore. it was maybe cool in the 90´s and early 00´s, but you´re still giving into the the language of the Regressives. it´s not a crime to think what is right.

Nickes de Landus