A post on Xenosystems linked back to the “HRx II” discussion on my HRx intro piece. The mention was to bring up the contradiction between HRx doctrine and Moldbug’s 2007 era Neocameralism. I will not deny that there are great discrepancies between mid-2016 Carlyleism and 2007 Moldbug propositions. To obfuscate to the conclusion that Moldbug is orthodox in his Reaction is the type of lie that would enrage Big Tom. I think Yarvin agrees that he drops a lot of Carlyle. But so does every reader, Carlyle writes mostly in sweeping proclamations, Jonathan Bowden mentions wanting to “throw the book across the room” at times. Moldbug arrives at the Far-Right from a (((libertarian-materialist))) starting point, radicalizing and hardening over the years. Due to his essential characteristics (programmer, Bay-Khazarian, grandson of commies, an atheist) it would be foolish of us to hope he could totally stop “smoking crack”,- as he would say.
Our techcom friends latched onto his yellow residues to craft an ideology incompatible with the supermajority of his work. This is entirely Curtis’s fault though, his proposed plans of action for future statecraft are designed to fulfill classical liberal ideas and demands. When I originally read him three years ago I was struck by the genius of his red pilling material but also the variation of it. Chris B. says it best:
“This hits the core of the problem. Don’t read UR as one long political exposition that is coherent from the start, it isn’t. Factor in time, and factor in intellectual growth. The early stuff (like this neocameralism stuff) is from 2007/2008, and it is what it looks like – incoherent hodgepodge because it is approaching conservation of sovereignty et al from liberal positions. This is not viable, but to expect the guy to understand this from the bat is absurd – no one else did, nor do many even get this even now. The post you linked is from 2013.
The game at present is to try and disregard all of the subsequent clearing of the ground intellectually which Moldbug did AFTER this 2007 stuff, to try and use this early stuff to reboot libertarianism + social darwinism.”
MM suffers a massive drop in clarity and quality in his economic and propositional writings. Awkward metaphor & shoddily-edited verbosity take the place of playful critique and majestic truth-speaking. That is not to say those such works aren’t required for a proper scholarship of him, or that they are without great moments. Our rivals dismiss far more of Unqualified Reservations than we do, but both are guilty of revision. Very few are capable of being a true Moldbuggian due to the disparate poles of the thought that were presented, moderate conserva-neoreactionaries such as Hestia have deliberately taken a middling stand that may straddle this distance. MM states during one of his worst moments that when Carlyle and Mises disagree one should go with the former; but he assures us they agree on most every issue. He knows he was lying there, ARE Rabbi is too high IQ to forget all the catalactic discussion in Chartism and Latter Day Pamphlets. Mises and Carlyle are at odds over the most base elements of human organization. One prescribes more freedom for every ill, the other more slavery. This is a water & oil dichotomy, not a wine & water one, there may be no honest fusion.
By 2014 Yarvin is much less libertarian than in 2007, one cannot be sure if his psuedo-whiggery was ‘ketman’ or positively sincere. What we do see is that his later works were much snappier, darker and more sarcastic. Even B. Steves notices this but sees the sage’s Rightward drift towards his favor rather than HRx’s. Either way, we see moments of doubt about the very validity and worth of political-economy, the only proper Rx pill on the subject.
“What does “growth” mean? It means: “spend more, comrades!” If growth is good by definition, spending is good by definition.”
Furthermore, there are times he wishes, only subtly veiled, to gas the Whigs.
De Jouvenalian Reaction is not compatible with patchwork or sovcorp stockholderism, there are checks and balances with it as well as a degree of shattered sovereignty. Reactionaryfuture errs branding De Jouvenalian Rx as true Moldbuggian, Mencius would not have gone to the lengths of illustrating his program if it was derived via the simple truth of imperium. City state models are a bourgeoisie irredentism to restore medieval privileges; fantasies that forget the post-15th century changes in power flow from the hinterland. Those little polities held up as 20th century prototypes only survived due to great power & institutional sponsorship. Stockholdsmanship lets sovereignty flow to whomever can cough up more dogecoin. This may be a formal arrangement but it can swiftly become unjust or plutocratic. Whenever the mercantile interest is placed in the foremost patriarchy weakens and demotic chaos creeps in. Whether Novgorodians, Athenians, or Dutchmen- the result is anarchy in the long run. Capitalism must give hospitality to chaos, the seeds that which inevitably bloom.
Quoting from Why I am not a Libertarian to prove that NRx is liberal is a correct move but it also marrs Menciianism as liberal in general. Regardless of the sincerity, the post surely recruited many libertarians, so we ought to see it as a positive contribution even if it hurts our claim to his legacy. This post among many contain explicit admissions by Moldbug that he has sympathies for the liberty-vision, even if those sympathies are mostly emotional, personal, or now gone all together.
Neocameralism is still mostly cameralism, the work of Fredrick der Groß. MM read the biography of that prince written by Carlyle. An extremely inaccessible work that I’ve only read a small portion of. Yet I imagine the liberty-set will never read it and reject it wholesale as “le feathery hat xD” or with some comparably nerdy epithet to express their resentment of the heroic. The neo prefix to cameralism seems to expunge the original of its Teutonism and martiality for a hyper whig pass(c)ifism. Libertypes probably have no interest in that multivolume historical masterpiece but the #1 1488er sure did. Seems to me National Socialism had a stronger affinity with Fredrickianism than any reconstituted liberal. I would be quite interested in reading Moldbug’s excuse for Hitler turning to Carlyle’s prose in his final hours.
The German Minister of Finance, Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk, recorded in his diary how in early April in the Führerbunker, Joseph Goebbels read out loud to Adolf Hitler Thomas Carlyle‘s biography of Frederick the Great,
One gets the feeling Moldbug is compelled to include anarchist political economy because he considers the works things of genius. Maybe he did not know the extent the ideology received institutional sponsorship. As a unique expression of civic wisdom, economics may have some value, but it has been perverted by obscurantism & sorcery. The very continued existence of financial chaos, in the light of 102+ years of doomsaging, indicates the universal supremacy of power over money. It is certainly true a materialist ought to be anti-democratic to meet his desires, therefore, we should expect to share the small anti-democratic community with them for a while longer.
Techcom neoreaction has applied their IQ fetish to the supposed economic ignorance of active Reactionaries, they seem to not realize that we are committed to interpreting their scrying as foolish, for essential reasons of causality and modality. Libertyfund pdfs will confirm our suspicion that praxis is unrealistic, non practicable & derived from presumptive models. Our measly 130 math g scores are apparently the reason we don’t kvetch over the prophecy of dogecoin. I would go as far to say that a disproportionately high math-over-verbal IQ is deleterious for the aspiring dark brahman, as an intense contemplation of dead forms logically ends with Planet of the Illithids. The best example is the spittle flicked invective of the paccifisists mourning the death of the eternally immolating Jo Cox. In almost every last concurring opinion was a mention of the loathsome dimness of the “monkey” savages. Apparently anti-humanism was taken to mean anti-man? Again, the worship of deadforms goes counter to the craft of the statesman. Technocratic governance can be found all over Asia & only has an use in transitioning out of bureaucratic democracy. Científicos have been mismanaging the whole twentieth century through! It is positivism stripped of its Gallic details. A master’s degree in chemical engineering has nearly zero relevance to governing. To imagine it is not a waste of a leader’s youth is pure Oriental nonsense, just like memorizing neo Confucian prose or the Shudras.
Moldbug is a greater scientistrist than most anyone in the movement but he would never agree to this profane determinism. Moldbug labeled the AI club “automatists” and firmly rejected all formulaic systems. HRx is a better type of elitism than cram-school supremacy. Carlyle as always:
True nevertheless it forever remains that intellect is the real object of human reverence, and of devout prayer, and zealous wish and pursuit, among the sons of men and even, well understood, the one object.
This post is not intended to be fratricidal but a clarification of claims. Carlyleian and De Jouvenalian Rx cannot pretend to be heirs of Moldbug, but neither can NRx. All of us actively dismiss some fraction of his doctrine in favor of a more consistent doctrine for ourselves. Yarvin brings together contradictory ideas that we must parse into something more useful. He is a crypto-whig but has repented by good works. Any divisions this post may cause is for the better, as Reactionaries have always fought one another, for far more trivial reasons. Let there be no enemies to the Right, but plenty of rivals, too.