Top products from r/Absolutistneoreaction

I must say I always look forward to articles by this author, he is unusually intelligent.

An interesting primer on what he describes as the foundation of liberalism:

> since the spiritual doctrine is consubstantial with the very Constitutional anatomy of the philosophical State, the (Liberal) State is exalted as the incarnation of the laws of Nature, of pure Reason, and indeed, Hegel dared argue, the Divine itself. The (Liberal) State isn't a power that imposes itself on human freedom; it is that which frees men from the predations of power ("equality", "civil rights", and so on). It is not the expression of the deformation of human Nature in original sin- but that which restores corrupted Man to his true Nature with its secularized salvific efficacy.

can be found in a recent work by Thomas West, The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom

--

I also feel that this post by the Z man is relevant, The New Druze.

I think the subsidiaries are who they've always been, including the church, except they've been absolutely crushed over centuries of centralization. The exception is corporations, and woke capital is (among other things) them making a bid to occupy the centre--if they can weaponize the periphery better than the government, they'll win.

The immediate counter to the Jouvenelian phenomenon is formalization of power. When power centres exist informally, it becomes very easy to play the HLvM game, harder if they're formal. But the real solution is to re-sacralize the social order, as when there's a clear hierarchy from the gods on down, all humans are no better than subsidiaries. At least that's the idea. There may be some evidence of Jouvenelia even in fully sacralized orders though.

>So, if we can agree that being bereft of a shared language for discussing human dignity and flourishing is itself detrimental to human dignity and flourishing, then to that extent at least, I have made the case.

But you haven't. You're implicitly claiming that the center is, in fact, empty until and unless someone occupies it; while simultaneously claiming there is always, already a center.

From such a perspective, the statement:

>We can formulate the discrepancy as follows: the more the distribution of goods and status is centralized, the more vehemently we deny the existence of any center.

is reinterpretation of the lack of any such center's justification; or even more accurately, the meaninglessness of justification itself. This appears like Postmodernism 101.

>But the reliance of a political order on hysterical and escalating delusions is an indictment of that order.

According to whom? You're presupposing exactly what you've previously claimed doesn't exist:

>But we don’t have such a shared language, precisely because the effect of the direct relation between state and individual created by the system of rights makes any such shared language impossible: any assertion of shared values or virtues would inevitably privilege one group over others and therefore be the ground for a claim that the former were violating the rights of the latter.

In fact, assuming you agree with bobby’s statement:

>Language transcends the physical; we merely associate physical marks or sounds to "get" a meaning that inheres in nothing but shared conventions of attention.

This “shared language’s” absence is indicative of the dominance of your own perspective. Why would you expect language users to accept “shared conventions of attention” which mark such users as “hysterical” or “delusional?” Especially if these conventions prohibit the most grand resentment and desire.

>Amit Aujla: What’s the most important or influential book you’ve read?

>[Thiel:]The Sovereign Individual (Touchstone, 1997), by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg, is an unusual book that I read at a singular moment, just before starting PayPal. A lot of thinking about technology oscillates between two extremes: It’s either a big historical force acting over the long term or it’s a matter of short-term trends to bet on. The Sovereign Individual is different because it takes foresight seriously: If you think hard, you can understand and make plans for a future lasting 10, 20 years or more–and that’s how you have to think to be successful.

...

>The plotline sounds like a science fiction novel. Early in the 21st century, the cybereconomy produced by the Information Age liberates sovereign individuals as economic transactions occur outside government regulatory confines via such means as computer-generated electronic money (e-cash).

Alas, for all that MacIntyre gets right, it must be admitted that chap. 16 of A Short History, like chap. 4 of his later book, After Virtue, is riddled with misconstruals of Kierkegaard’s thought. (More on which in this excellent volume.)

To begin with the end of your response.

I don't think eliminating people who don't want that would be enough, unless you are willing to go full Khmer Rouge. Most of the people who are pushing ideas that would expand state power and bureaucracy are not doing so to push state power and bureaucracy. It happens as an unintended consequence. Many of them might in fact believe that they are limiting it, for instance, by expanding freedoms, rights, and so on, and yet not realizing that to enforce these rights they will have to radically expand state power. This is why, instead, I am more interested in disrupting the ideological apparatus that keeps the who wheel rolling, not unlike what Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and so on did to the ideology that dominated before them. I mean, mass murder eventually happened - just further down the line.

Why does my preference matters? At the moment, it really doesn't. Look at me. I'm just a dude discussing semi-obscure writers on a fringe sub-reddit of a fringe movement. My ideas will only matter if I can one day present, argue for, and eventually rally others to my ideas.

I would also say that I am an impotent subject who desires not to be impotent. If I wasn't, I would just go on to enjoy life under modern capitalism like all the other subjects out there. After all, it's not an uncomfortable existence. Though for personal reasons I do hate it.

And now, for the actually hard question - who gives a damn.

Okay. This is a bit hard to tldr for the sake of a comment, but here goes. I really need to get reading and writing so that these things can be out there to provide further context.

So when I say "I don't want to see any more expansion of state power and bureaucracy'', I am saying the following things:

Negatively: I oppose further expansion because I consider state power, bureaucracy, and the legal-rationalistic model as understood by Weber has de-humanizing, alienating, and turning us into human resources to be taxed and managed. I disagree fundamentally with Imperial Energy's conceptualization of the state as a sort of super-predator, and rather follow Foucault in agreeing that it's basically a shepherd of individuals, an impersonal resource manager. This clashes with my conception of the good life and how we should lead lives as humans, and therefore I take exception to it and will fight against it.

To expand further, the modern state also more or less dissolves natural human relationships such as associations, guilds, and nations, leading to a general impoverishment of culture. In other words, the expansion of state power and bureaucracy is the expansion of gessellschaft and its attendant ills. An impoverished and bare life, despite our abundance of material goods. In the words of William Morris, an age of shoddy things.

Positively: I want a return to what Benjamin Constant called ''Ancient politics'', or a return to Aristotelian body politic. A return to gemeinschaft. All modernist political movement are repeating the same mistakes. We need a complete re-framing of the conversation. We need a new political and moral theory if we are to actually get ourselves out of this.

So let's be clear here: I'm just another disgruntled modern subject suffering from a certain malaise. The only difference between me and the next poor schmuck, however, is that I have been trying to 1) conceptualize and articulate the problems and 2) actually come up with solutions, proposals, and plans.

I hope I addressed your questions without shifting goal posts too much.

Is there an ebook of this: https://www.amazon.com/Originary-Hypothesis-Minimal-Proposal-Humanistic/dp/1888570369 ?

https://www.amazon.com/Does-Writing-Future-Electronic-Mediations/dp/0816670234

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Technical-Images-Electronic-Mediations/dp/0816670218/

For these kinds of questions I work with the originary hypothesis of Eric Gans, and in particular his The End of Culture:

https://www.amazon.com/End-Culture-Toward-Generative-Anthropology/dp/0520051815/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1493413507&sr=8-9&keywords=eric+gans

Very interesting.

"With the exception of Neom, however, the trend amongst the pragmatic group has been away from political entrepreneurs and towards regular entrepreneurs. There are dozens of new city projects around the world. They are typically led by real estate companies seeking a profit. While most of these projects are focused on the physical infrastructure, a few are beginning to explore how innovative governance could improve outcomes."

"To me, the State is simply a real-estate business on a very large scale."

...

"if a country was run entirely for profit, and didn't have to worry about securing itself from its enemies internal or external, what would it do?"

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/good-government-as-good-customer.html

"IF.....AND.....securing itself from its enemies internal or external..."

Perhaps, regarding theory - reactionary theory of history - the difference between RF and ourselves is that while we both agree on the role of H&LvM (Patron Theory), there is still some disagreement about the role that war "external enemies" plays in political and cultural evolution.

Solving the engineering problem of Imperium in Imperio is necessary, but not sufficient.

What would it take?

Has anyone here played or is familiar with the Fallout series?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault

https://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/the-14-craziest-vault-experiments-from-fallout?utm_term=.hal5Ykajj#.wrZ0L7bRR

With Vault 101, it was a "normal" vault and it existed for over two-hundred years while maintaining normal life for its inhabitants.

What did it have?

No divided power and no external enemies. It also did not "open up" and start conquering the "wasteland". It kept itself "sealed off" from the outside world. It only started to fail when the paradigm was broken (the main character rebelled and left in search of his father).

Nevertheless, due to the "globalized" nature of the world today, hermetically sealing oneself of does not seem like a prudent strategy.

A period of anarchy and sustained conflict seems all but certain now:

https://www.cfr.org/article/liberal-world-order-rip

Has anyone here read the following:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anti-Tech-Revolution-Theodore-John-Kaczynski/dp/1944228004

It is shockingly well written and cogently argued. Perhaps, too cogently argued.

Its central claim is that "rational" and "long-term" governance is all but a practical impossibility. To support this claim, the man launches a smorgasbord of arguments and marshals a massive amount of evidence from different fields (mathematics, physics, economics, history and political science).

Yet, the positive proposal is self-contradictory or paradoxical in a similar way that Moldbug's strategy is. That is, it assumes, for its success, the very thing it denies.

Recommended reading in any case, even for reactionaries. The man deserves a counter-argument regarding the impossibility of rational governance.