Posts Tagged ‘nick land’

New Magazine Jacobite Details The Exit-Oriented Right

Monday, June 5th, 2017

A new magazine for the exit-oriented Right, or those who want to escape society into small Balkanized groups removed from the herd, picks up where the mainstream conservatives are still afraid to tread. To recognize exit is to realize that the West has fallen and most cannot be saved, but that small groups might be able to break away and live separately, presumably if they have nuclear weapons and are not simply walloped by whatever large tax-and-spend entity can physically reach them.

Helmed by veteran Libertarian-leaning conservatives Robert Mariani and J. Arthur Bloom, Jacobite has already attracted top-tier writers like Nick Land to write screeds proclaiming that our time is doomed and escape is the only solution. The magazine will be both online and in print, and you can explore more at the Jacobite website and on social media.

“Modernity Is Not An Option”

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

On Red Ice TV, philosopher Nick Land expands Neoreaction into an Alt Right critique of modernity, making for a highly interesting interview.

Land has packed every essential concept in the cluster of dissident anti-modern thought — postmodernism, aristocracy, post-democracy, religion, identitarianism and extreme libertarian anarcho-capitalist viewpoints — into a series of statements which explore the depths of each of these through their interconnections.

While this requires more time and patience than many interviews, being more of a graduate-level seminar than a pop media product, his breadth of understanding and analysis of the intersection of these different ideas makes Mr. Land’s interview an informative listen. Great to see the Red Ice crew bringing this influential thinker on-air!

Cold, Ice Cold

Saturday, April 22nd, 2017

Philosopher Nick Land talks about the transition that the West is currently experiencing as a shift from being nice to being more realistic. “Nice” is like bourgeois values: offend no one, befriend everyone, and always gesture vividly toward your acceptance of all people, behaviors and ideas.

Naturally, this niceness is fatal to any group because it opposes the idea of standards, as well as the basic notion of finding some things to be true and others not, therefore unacceptable as answers to certain questions. To be nice, one must believe that all people are basically the same and thus are “universal,” or uniformly good for the most part.

The problem with nice is that it is a form of competition. If your neighbors are nicer than you, you are seen as a less desirable business partner, mate, customer, friend, coworker and seller. When one person on the block goes down the path of nice, the others must “keep up with the Joneses” and virtue signal their niceness as well.

This psychology originates in the bourgeois ideal of being a mercantile middle class. You are not responsible for leadership directly, and yet you have a duty to earn money and keep up (including the Republican “work hard and go to church” mentality) and so you adopt nice as a means of marketing yourself.

When every man is a shopkeeper, he must always think that any person around him is a potential customer. So when it comes time to act, standards are out as these will alienate someone; nice is in because it enables anyone to be a customer, and who cares if they are good or not, so long as they have money?

Like most human illusions, this one is fallacious too. The shopkeepers that are longest-esteemed are those who uphold standards and enforce social order because they are trusted by the upper portions of the bell curve, and everyone else imitates those. When the herd takes over, however, this becomes inverted.

In addition, those who are starting out with nothing will use nice as a way to get a foot in the door… with guilt. Who can turn down a nice guy? White knights everywhere rely on this theory, and it works enough that society keeps producing white knights like an unwanted but voracious weed.

Businesses use a variation of the “nice guy” strategy any time they support a little league team, highway cleanup or local symphony. Unlike regular nice, however, this gives back to the community as a whole. This means it is not personal like nice normally is. However, this means that other businesses can use nice as a simpler version.

The problem with nice is that, like other bourgeois ideas such as “the customer is always right,” it results in acceptance of anything-goes behavior. This in turn makes the business less efficient for others because it is busy being nice to the insane, selfish, lonely, bored and sociopathic.

When the mental virus of nice leaves behind business and migrates into the broader culture, it creates a pathology of deference. Individuals lose the self-esteem they need in order to demand that there be standards. Instead, they take the only safe option that is compatible with nice — they get out of the way — creating that “anything goes” feel.

This creates a society of neurotic people who are afraid to stand for anything, and as a result, welcome any new degeneracy or foreign invaders in their midst. To them, the only winning strategy is more nice, because any lack of it leaves them exposed to someone else demonstrating more of it and thus capturing the high ground, at least in social terms.

Equality creates this form of competition because in an egalitarian society, being non-egalitarian is the only real sin aside from obvious sociopathy like murder, assault, rape and violent theft. Those who are nice are inherently egalitarian; by the converse, those who fail to demonstrate nice will be seen as ideological enemies.

The bourgeois mentality of salesmanship and the prole culture ideal of equality thus conspire to create a society where everyone is a sitting duck. To defend themselves against bad behavior is to invoke the wrath of the Crowd; to accept bad behavior and use it to demonstrate nice, on the other hand, is a win. This way, good becomes evil in results, a form of inversion.

The way around nice is removal of the anti-hierarchy created by equality, which mandates a vast mass who are equal ruled by a few leaders who exist to implement further egalitarian reforms. If we recognize each person as having a place, it makes sense to see them as having immutable self-interest related to that position.

For example, a thief always steals; this is what thieves do. The less-intelligent always seek to overthrow the more intelligent, much as the less-moral seek to overthrow the more moral. The herd seeks to dethrone the exceptional. The ugly and sad want to destroy the beautiful, healthy and cheerful.

When we escape the mental grotto of nice, we can see that not only do people work in self-interest specific to their roles, but that it is more humane to recognize them as they are. Give people clear direction and limit the damage they can do, and they are less likely to live in a miasma of lowered self-esteem based on their past failures and bad acts.

In order to have this exist, however, the best must always oppress the rest, because in one of those rare but ineffable binaries of life, otherwise the rest will oppress the best. Since having the best in power provides the best results, and these distribute to all citizens, it makes sense to put the best in power, much as we select the most talented surgeons or mechanics over the rest.

A new era dawns in which cold, hard logic will be victorious over social sentiments and individualism. Cold, hard logic is like ice in winter that kills all but the hardy; it removes mental confusion by focusing on results and reasoning about how to achieve those, and leaves feelings and group emotions by the wayside.

This view liberates us from a fundamental curse: caring about what is popular. Ultimately, nice is an expression of popularity and fear. People fear that they will not be included, and therefore, it is popular to include everyone, which requires abolition of standards. As we awaken from the stupor of this idea, our civilization can become functional again.

Socializing And Socialism: Not Really Different

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

When confronted with a truly penetrating analysis, most people run away. Any thought that looks deeply into the human condition will be inherently offensive to most because it will reveal their fears and failings. This creates a comedy of error where whatever is prized in society, is a lie, and whatever is not mentioned, leads to the truth.

The primary case in which this symptom appears is the question of socializing. Being around people is fun; we are “social animals” who depend on others for feedback, like intelligent mirrors; we seek other people to work with us, mate with us, spend free time with us and provide things to us. Human individuals are cells in the body known as civilization.

Socializing creates a problem however: to socialize well, one must approach the situation with a minimum threshold, meaning that all communications are tailored so that all or most people can understand them. Similarly, one cannot appear to be elitist, so everything must be communicated.

The opposite of this would be a maximum threshold, or exclusive group that requires people to meet certain standards and tailors the communication to those instead of a lowest common denominator. Maximum threshold groups are inherently anti-social, yet sit at the top of all social systems, because people need something to struggle toward and herds need some kind of shepherds.

Nick Land talks about how Northern Europeans are afflicted with a desire to be “nice,” and he is not wrong. Fred Nietzsche writes that Europeans were infested with a virus of altruism. Both of those things are perverted however; the root is socializing, as demonstrating that minimum threshold through being nice, altruistic or otherwise inclusive of everyone.

This inverts the original hunter-gatherer rule. What all the Leftists who are lying when they write that hunter-gatherers were pleasant socialists forget is that hunter-gatherers were mobile, and the rule of a mobile group is that anyone who holds back the group gets left behind. Sure, they were “socialists” in regard to giving food to their own families, but when it comes time to move to a new patch of forest or escape a forest fire, grandma in the wheelchair and the retarded kids get left behind.

For that reason, socializing in intelligent populations arose as an inversion of the general rule. Friendship was signified by the intent not to leave someone behind, and for each of the friends to view themselves as in the debt of the other and therefore prone to save them even when manifestly inconvenient.

This brings up the “prisoner’s dilemma,” however, which we see is the same as the “free rider” problem. If a friend is tested, will he stick to the arrangement, or make short-term profit by escaping that burden, after already receiving the benefits in advance? In another way of putting this, if you are crossing a chasm by rope, make sure that the person who goes across first will actually toss the rope back!

If taken to its extreme, the free rider problem becomes a condition like socialism, where people are automatically included in the wealth of society and therefore, have no incentive to do much; the work then falls entirely on the backs of the 5% or so who struggle to be effective because they are “nice.” We are in that situation in America today because our social feelings led to universal inclusion.

All human populations suffer this dilemma but it only afflicts the intelligent ones. Simpler populations default to an all-or-nothing rule; they never help anyone unless it is to their advantage. Intelligent mixed-race populations demonstrate a more discriminating and effective version of this, and when they are dropped into more social populations, quickly dominate them. This is why some people hate Jews and Asians in the West: they win fair and square by playing by their rules, not ours, and this makes us realize we need to rethink our rules because they are nonsensical.

However, intelligent populations like their niceness and socializing. The only solution here is to have a strong morality not of inclusion, as Christianity does, but of exclusion, as the hunter-gatherers and warriors do, and to recognize it as “nice” because it works best in the face of constant threats. Our ancestors did this, but then conquered the threats for the time being, and all fell apart.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 4: Milogate

Friday, March 3rd, 2017

In this episode, the team tackles Milogate and extrapolates from it to homosexuality and “social justice” issues that the Left has primed our society to fascinate itself with while waiting for the End. Instead, we look at some unorthodox solutions and question whether these issues are issues at all.

0:00 – Introduction of the topic

1:30 – Roderick and James discuss Milogate and how the Left would react to a similar situation

8:50 – Peter and Roderick spar on the Gay Question

21:20 – Brett discusses how Leftism and homosexuality co-exist

30:00 – Where do we go from Milo?

41:15 – Does the Alt-Right need a leader?

  • No, the Alt-Right will not die with Milo
  • Roderick notes that the Alt-Right is a diffuse movement that doesn’t need a leader
  • Peter argues that a reading-list, so to speak, is better than a head ideologue for the Alt-Right

46:00 – How should the Alt-Right subvert censorship?

  • Brett notes that censorship of moderates like Nick Land lead to more hardcore people rising up
  • We need to offer something like “thought leaders”

56:00 – Should we withdraw from the mainstream?

  • Brett notes that there is a short term benefit, but we also need a long term strategy
  • James notes that we don’t need the mainstream media anymore
  • 1:01:28 – Alex Jones on Goblins

1:02:00 – Should we punch Right?

  • “Punching Right” by Greg Johnson
  • Brett discusses what “punching Right” means
  • James notes that the shitlords do shift the Overton Window
  • 1:07:30 – “Punch Everywhere” by Andy Nowicki
  • Peter argues that punching everywhere strengthens movements
  • Everitt and Brett discuss the concept of Whiteness
  • Perhaps culture is a better metric than ‘Whiteness’
  • 1:27:00 – Brett confirmed for Zionist

1:29:30 – Closing and Outro

Visit our Nationalist Public Radio Archives to listen to past episodes of the show.

Deranged Twitter Suspends Philosopher Nick Land For Unknown Reasons

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

The crisis over social media is reaching epic proportions: these sites, which are the new public spaces of globally connected world, are technically owned by those who paid for the servers, code, electricity, bandwidth and staff to run them; however, they are needed for the free exchange of information by people worldwide.

As of today, Twitter has suspended the account of Nick Land, a paleolibertarian philosopher who writes on topics including Neoreaction and Anarcho-Capitalism or things very much like them. Many of his posts concern seasteading, economics, the downfall of liberal democracy and the rise of tribalism.

However, the glitch is that Land is not an extremist — in fact, he is the opposite, in that he approaches questions from an analytical viewpoint from a historical and economic perspective, instead of the kind of personal or ethnic focus that many have adopted. In this way, Twitter is shooting itself in the foot by removing sensible voices and allowing the emotional to crowd the discourse.

Perhaps this is a first step toward justifying further attacks on the non-Left by removing the intellectual forces that keep non-Leftist dialogue anchored, giving the more radical fringe power, so that it can then be targeted and banned. Either way, this is a great loss for all on Twitter who value thinking about the next stage of history instead of cheerleading for the recently past one.

Natural Mathematics Produces Greater Intelligence Than Humans Can

Monday, August 22nd, 2016


Over at Outside In, Nick Land makes some great points and some that are harder to support. But the core of his philosophy takes some effort to spot. For example, a cryptic post about the dominance of the Qwerty layout keyboard reveals a Landian theme:

In such circumstances ‘historical accidents’ can neither be ignored, nor neatly quarantined for the purpose of economic analysis; the dynamic process itself takes on an essentially historical character.

He quotes this source for a reason, which is that it reveals how markets and natural selection work on a mathematical level that is more advanced than human design. Nature is smarter than us.

This does not mean we should go back to living in mud huts, but the contrary: nature has built into itself a series of thresholds and tests so that only those who merit it can achieve high technology.

While Land relies on a technological progress timeline to show the defeat of liberal society, in an inversion of Kaczynski’s dour take on the same, history suggests that the pattern of a civilization and not its technological level determines its level of success.

That is to say, as Traditionalists have explained for decades, we do not wish to “back” in time; we wish to create the design-type of society that has always worked instead of pursuing alternatives such as the modern civilization design.

This is no different than management theory. Certain arrangements of roles and activities in groups of humans always produce success, no matter what $current_year is; others always fail, independent of the age.

What is interesting about Land’s theory is that it supports this idea. In his analysis, natural evolution — gradualism, selection, arbitrary modification — produce an end result that reflects the composition of the group choosing. When idiots are numerous, idiocy results; when intelligence is given precedence, one gets a society with the four pillars or some approximation.

This brings us back to Nietzsche. The four pillars evolved just like the eagles: we took early birds (pre-civilization humans) and applied intense selection pressure plus strong positive rewards for seizing opportunity, and the result was an apex predator (hierarchical civilization). This in turn modified the participants to be more able to fulfill that role.

Kaczynski and Land seem to agree that technology has created a “bubble” wherein humans have been separated from the consequences of their decisions by an inclusive civilization, and for that reason, idiocy rules. A more thoroughly analytical take reveals that this process occurred even in low-technology civilizations, and is the product of a wealth boom brought on merely by social organization, which is inherently exponentially efficient compared to individual subsistence farming and hunter-gatherer activities.

When this wealth boom happens, most societies begin dying just like yeast dumped into a jar of syrup: they breed until they consume the available resources, then die out. This is how nature regulates species that cannot regulate themselves; they self-destruct. We could see the failure of our civilization as just one step in the attempt by nature to produce a human genotype that does not lead to civilization self-destruction.

As those of us who will form the next civilization, which is only possibly by military/political displacement of the current occupants, look toward the future, it becomes clear that our enemy is unrealistic thought. Land’s praise of the underlying structure of nature is at its heart conservative, and a clarity we should all heed.

Neoreactionary fragmentation

Saturday, April 11th, 2015


Like most political change in this era, Neoreaction formalized itself on the internet and continues to manage itself there, mostly through frenetic activity on Twitter. The clacking keys of today are (alas) the swords of yesteryear, and salvos fly back and forth between continents and time zones with great velocity and greater gravitas, despite being coded in the 140-character pidgin of postmodern social networking.

Recently Nick Land, who is more of a shepherd-patriarch than raging youngster in the “#nrx” tussles, recognized the split that has been inherent in Neoreaction since its early days:

The basic tenets of Heroic Reaction:

— Moldbug is over-rated.
— Capitalism needs to be brought under control.
— The errors of fascism are dwarfed by those of libertarianism.
— White racial community is the core.
— ‘Atomization’ is a serious problem.
— Answers are already easily available, so over-thinking is unhelpful, and even seriously pathological.

Unlike #NRx, #HRx is primarily a political movement. Its theoretical appetite is modest, since it has faith that everything it truly needs can be retrieved — more-or-less straightforwardly — from the folkish past. – Outside In, “HRX,” April 11, 2015

Ever since Mencius Moldbug wrote that he was not a white nationalist, but he understood and sympathized with them, the Nietzschean aspects of Neoreaction have come into view. Although the movement arises from post-libertarian thought, part of libertarianism in its purest form is Social Darwinism, which serves as an end-run around the liberal civil rights agenda which holds any action is bad if it has “disparate impact” on the poor, minorities, womens, LGBTBBQ, etc.

This approach requires the assumption of literal biological equality of ability between people, such that if someone is poor it is by chance or villainy alone and not lower IQ or motivation, which is itself the great illusion of the modern era attacked brilliantly by Stephen Pinker in The Blank Slate. Any thinker who escapes the ghetto of the post-modern mindset will do so by first rejecting this WWII-era political assumption.

Social Darwinism escapes this quagmire by allowing freedom of association and, by removing the necessity of paying entitlements like welfare and health insurance, allowing the more competent to rise above the rest. Anyone who has read IQ statistics realizes this will create a Eurasian society here in the West where indios and African-Americans for the most part serve as a permanent underclass as they do now, for the most part, except when promoted by government incentives.

The question now before Neoreaction is thus: do we rely on capitalism and Social Darwinism to sort out our situation, or is more of a hands-on approach needed? This draws us to a split between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer: Nietzsche argued for a “going under” or escape from higher principles and return to nature, while Schopenhauer thought that the solution was to breed our noblest and smartest people into a new aristocracy. Nietzsche’s solution, like those of Adam Smith and democracy itself, is “hands free”: we set up a system, people participate, and magic results come out that we assume will be best.

Not all of us agree. The following excerpt is from an upcoming interview between myself and The Right Stuff writer Meow Blitz:

My critique of Neoreaction is based in two areas. The first is that, in an effort to attract a popular audience, it reduced itself to a form of individualism. This happens to all internet movements as people want to join so they can appear “edgy,” but fear getting too far from socially acceptable ideas. Second, Neoreaction refuses to accept its conservative heritage and to endorse organic civilization. Liberalism operates through “systems” which are designed to avoid strong culture and leaders, relying instead on “invisible hand” methods like market forces and popular votes. Conservatism desires almost no government and self-rule by culture. Culture requires a racial basis and race requires nationalism, and those three are necessary together to create identity, without which social standards — other than the nominal prohibitions on murder, rape, pedophilia and the like — are impossible. Neoreaction without strong nationalism simply becomes libertarianism, which then quickly degenerates into liberalism.

In my view, invisible hand systems dodge the question of leadership and values. They do so in order to preserve The EnlightenmentTM value of equality, which means that we have no kings but require mass consensus to do anything. From this perspective, error began with the formalization in The EnlightenmentTM although the degeneration began much earlier for that formalization to even occur. Invisible hand systems are fundamentally Enlightenment creations, where prior — and, in my view, future — systems will emphasize the immediate practicality of the situation.

This represents another form of “going under,” which is the escape from the higher principles of The EnlightenmentTM and going back to common sense, natural law and the game theory logic behind the complex avoidance of centralization and decentralization alike found in nature. Why have principles at all? The task is twofold: leadership for the civilization and within it, moral standards to keep people in line without needing a police state.

Identitarian writers may have one-upped Neoreaction by discovering this necessity. To keep social order, you either need Panopticon or a population which mostly polices itself. To keep systems like capitalism from raging out of control and covering the planet in McDonald’s, you need strong culture to have values higher than mere profit enhancement. But in that, capitalism is no different than any other “tool” in our arsenal. Sometimes, government regulation makes sense, but without strong leadership and a culture that primes citizens to be vigiligant for not just violations but alert to fluctuations in quality, it fails. Even ethno-nationalism alone as a principle becomes consumptive as happened with the NSDAP. There are no tools which we can start up and imagine that they will “magically” solve our problems. We — or at least, those among us with the most skill to lead, and all of us together as administrators of culture — cannot rule through external black box mechanisms, but must get in there, roll up our sleeves, and do it ourselves.

When we do not need a capacity, it degenerates. Our leaders now are degenerate because they are elected, and elections reward showmen and snake oil saleswomen but not realistic leaders, true, but also because they are atrophied. Leadership at this point is a matter of looking over two spreadsheets, a budget and public policy polling. Leaders pick the intersection between profit and popularity, make a speech and hope for the best.

Degeneration occurs when intelligence has done its mission as well, as revealed by E. Ray Lankester in his Degeneration: A Chapter in Darwinism. In contrast to Utopian predictions, his research illustrates how in the absence of need for intelligence, it atrophies and becomes weak, allowing cruder and more violent elements to prevail. Conveniently, that describes the decline of every civilization since the dawn of humankind.

To avoid that fate, we must make intelligence relevant again. Our “going under” involves using primitive methods in place of sophisticated ones, and reverting to simple but widely-applicable stances like self-interest and its extension in tribalism instead of moral and economic stances. The more we try to make perfect, as human beings, the more we fail. It is better to uphold the older ways because they were imperfect and as a result, kept us constantly challenged and away from the atrophy of late civilization.

This does not mean a return to mud huts and subsistence farming. On the contrary, it suggests we should use technology to its fullest extent, but instead of relying on blank slate invisible hand systems, to start making leadership more important. Put each person of intelligence in charge of something and see where he succeeds. Reward those who do well, all the way up to those who should lead us at local, regional, state, nation-state and national — racial/ethnic — levels.

In this, I propose a new direction for Neoreaction: stop with the politics and economics, and focus on the design of civilization itself. The tool becomes the master when it is not guided by a strong hand. The strong hand we need is not a Fuehrer, but good leadership at every level, even for the average citizen to be morally upright and apply strong cultural principles. Then on top of that, we need the return of kings and a society which emphasizes hierarchy and excellence instead of the participation and equality which lead to degeneration.

Keeping up the grand tradition of inscrutably internally reflexive nomenclature, I suggest we call this “organic reaction,” and that it be known not as a system, but a type of civilization design that leads to better results — “the good, the beautiful and the true” and “the perennial things” (Huxley) or “tradition” (Evola) — so that we as individuals and the society around us are in harmony working toward a cooperative goal of ever-increasing excellence.

As Bill and Ted said, “Be excellent to each other.” Maybe it is time we were excellent to ourselves as a species, as well.

Recommended Reading