Ascending The Tower

Ascending The Tower – “A Very Special Episode”

Written by Anthony DeMarco and Nick B. Steves Posted in Ascending the Tower

Subscribe: iTunes | RSS

This week, we’re joined by Warg Franklin and Anton Silensky for a discussion on the Hestia Society, passivism, and a whole lot more.

Brought to you by Surviving Babel and Nick B. Steves, Ascending the Tower is a podcast distributed by Social Matter and run by the Hestia Society. Please leave feedback in the comments, and if you’d like to get in touch with Surviving Babel, you can find him at: survivingbabel@gmail.com

Notes:
1:47 – Introducing Warg and Anton
4:25 – Events preceding Hestia announcement
9:30 – The “do-ocracy” model of NRx
15:33 – Engaging with the wider Alt-Right
21:30 – Culture shock from Alt-Right ideas
25:47 – The new blog The Future Primaeval
33:32 – Social Engineering and Chesterton’s Fence
41:20 – Everyone’s a little bit pozzed
47:42 – Mutual support, not signalling games
53:43 – Monetization strategies
59:19 – The demand for young male brotherhood

Related Show Links:

Music: “94” by Realistic Nightmare
https://www.jamendo.com/en/track/1224283/94

The Future Primaeval
http://thefutureprimaeval.net/

Hestia Society
http://www.hestiasociety.org/

Neocolonial’s Blog
https://neocolonial.wordpress.com/

Juan Carlos I, Progressive
http://www.biography.com/people/juan-carlos-i-9358722

Master Jim wields his stick:
http://blog.jim.com/war/the-vast-majority-of-rape-accusations-are-false/

Sponsorship:

If you are interested in sponsoring Ascending the Tower, e-mail me at Surviving Babel at gmail dot com. Sponsorships start at $10 an episode, and all proceeds will either go back into the podcast or provide some compensation for your most grateful host. You can purchase a mention or short message, or you can choose to sponsor the Out of Left Field question or even an entire episode.

« Ways Forward

Moving The Muhammad Window »

9 Comments

Peter Blood

May 28, 2015 - 13:34:46

Can I make a simple request? Every single one of us commit to a SCORCHED EARTH TOTALEN KRIEG against the word “like”. Please, for my sanity.

MagnanimousGenius

May 28, 2015 - 22:42:10

Seconded. It’s painful and butchers the, like, English language to, like, say it over and over again.

Otherwise highly enjoyable listening.

Reply

Mark Citadel

May 28, 2015 - 18:29:43

Great podcast, guys. Glad to see you back doing these. The two new names brought into a leadership roll for NeoReaction sound highly intelligent and competent, as such it appears your movement is in very safe hands. Best of luck going forward!

Nick B. Steves

May 29, 2015 - 18:11:30

So… How special was it?

Very special.

AntiDem

May 29, 2015 - 22:43:22

Okay, now that I’ve actually had time to listen to the show, I can make some more serious commentary on it. Please keep in mind that this is constructive criticism coming from someone who’s on your team.

I think the “for-profit” model is a terrible idea, for multiple reasons.

First, my reaction to it is that it genuinely comes off as kind of sleazy. The question isn’t whether we’re a movement or a brotherhood, but whether we’re a movement or a business. Turning this into a business opens us up to charges, which frankly would not be without merit, that everything we’re doing is just a cynical money-making scheme. We’ll come across as the philosophical equivalent to Scientology, which will offer you salvation, but only for the right price. That would be a disaster for our credibility.

Next, I’m unsure why having a day job and making a lot of money is something that should be a measure of personal worth to us. Full disclosure: I only have a part-time job, and I’m poor as a church mouse. That said, using that as a measure sounds pretty Whig to me. “Making money makes you a more worthwhile person” is a message I could get from Sean Hannity – which is one reason why I don’t listen to Sean Hannity anymore.

Then there is the fact that once you’re a business, it’s “Take the king’s penny, play the king’s tune”. That’s just how business works. Whoever is paying you has power over you. Also, once NRx is a business, business concerns simply will start to lean on philosophical concerns. That’s an awful risk to take.

Last and perhaps most important – the number one thing we should be thinking about now is ways to avoid Imperial entanglements. Going into business – filing all the necessary paperwork, getting a Tax ID number and so on – gives the government tremendous power over you. Seriously, if the IRS audited the relatively-milquetoast Tea Party, what do you think they’re going to do to you? And get ready for some serious forced entryism – if some government bureaucrat decides your company doesn’t “look like America” enough, get ready for a heap of EEOC lawsuits. Or what happens when the Human Rights Campaign decides to hire your consulting firm to work for gay rights, and you say no? Don’t think something like that will happen? Many of these cases we hear about of some bakery or florist getting sued for turning down a gay wedding were hit jobs in which some gay activist targeted a local business known for their traditional Christian beliefs. If it can happen to them, it can happen to you.

And of course, business documents do – and must – have real names on them, meaning anyone involved will be instantly doxxed. Which means that this business had better damn well take off, because a lot of the people you want to attract will, once doxxed, be completely unemployable in their chosen fields. Which leads back to business concerns starting to lean on philosophical concerns. If someone is unemployable out side this business, then if they want to keep their family fed, they’re going to have to do anything they can to keep it going. So if the EEOC says you have to hire a black Jewish transgender otherkin or that you have to work for the Human Rights Campaign, that’s what you’re going to end up doing.

Yes, build institutions, but keep them strictly informal from a government perspective. Institutions are as real as the people involved in them believe that they are. We should see them as real – but keep them as far away from the government’s grasp as we can.

Nick B. Steves

May 30, 2015 - 15:38:11

For-profit must be understood in contradistinction from non-profit and not-for-profit. It does not mean you’d actually expect to ever return a taxable profit. For-profit is actually easier to incorporate (and less regulated). It actually makes you LESS beholden to political pressures (what the IRS deems charitable or educational work). For-profit (AFAIK) can be setup via an attorney and keep the officers COMPLETELY dark. Does that sound sleazy? It sounds dangerous. I don’t see that as a bad thing, TBH.

I don’t recall exactly anyone saying that earnings were tantamount to worth. I think the point, or at least a point I’d make is that in a given population, earnings are going to be correlated with competency (industriousness, intelligence, commitment, ect.). There are of course exceptions.

Reply
- AntiDem
  
  May 30, 2015 - 21:26:28
  
  Any time you incorporate anything with the government, you give them power over you. The Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS were all 501(c)(3)s, but that didn’t stop the government from going after them. I’m strongly of the opinion that avoiding any government entanglements is a good thing, for reasons both practical and philosophical.
  
  And I still think that turning our philosophical movement into a business seems sleazy. As does charging people an entrance fee in order to be a part of it. Again, it smacks of Scientology… or simony.
  
  I retain my belief that the only thing more subversive than secret societies is open source. Perhaps our inner workings should be secret, but our products should, as much as possible, be free and open source. That is, if our goal is to accomplish something good on a societal scale, and not just to find a way to earn a paycheck. And don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against earning a paycheck, (I’d be happy to take some Thiel/Koch Brothers money if they ever offered me some. Anybody? Please?), it’s just that that’s not what I got into this to do.
  
  I could have taken it the wrong way, but the idea that earnings are tantamount to worth is kind of how the conversation came across to me. I remind everyone that it seems to be true that a lot of very high IQ people are not very employable. There seems to be an unusually high number of such people in the reactosphere. Bryce is a good example, and MillennialWoes, and You-Know-Who up in Berkeley, I guess even me, too. Such people may be exceptions, but this movement seems to be made up of a lot of exceptional people. I’m not sure that having money is the right measure of worth to apply to people like that.
  
  Again, I hope everybody takes these as the constructive criticisms they are meant to be.
  
  Reply

Fish

May 30, 2015 - 02:03:56

I just wanted to say that this is how you share audio right. The file is provided as a simple mp3 with a download link and no or optional flash widget; included a way to subscribe to it via feed; you’ve listed all the participants; and timestamped discussion topics. The filenames are not just a bare number. File has proper metadata.

I could suggest some things but you’re in the 99th percentile already so it would feel petty.

Nick B. Steves

May 30, 2015 - 15:39:05

That’s SB… doin’ that.

Reply

Peter Blood

May 28, 2015 - 13:34:46

Can I make a simple request? Every single one of us commit to a SCORCHED EARTH TOTALEN KRIEG against the word “like”. Please, for my sanity.

- MagnanimousGenius
  
  May 28, 2015 - 22:42:10
  
  Seconded. It’s painful and butchers the, like, English language to, like, say it over and over again.
  
  Otherwise highly enjoyable listening.
  
Mark Citadel

May 28, 2015 - 18:29:43

Great podcast, guys. Glad to see you back doing these. The two new names brought into a leadership roll for NeoReaction sound highly intelligent and competent, as such it appears your movement is in very safe hands. Best of luck going forward!

Nick B. Steves

May 29, 2015 - 18:11:30

So… How special was it?

Very special.

AntiDem

May 29, 2015 - 22:43:22

Okay, now that I’ve actually had time to listen to the show, I can make some more serious commentary on it. Please keep in mind that this is constructive criticism coming from someone who’s on your team.

I think the “for-profit” model is a terrible idea, for multiple reasons.

First, my reaction to it is that it genuinely comes off as kind of sleazy. The question isn’t whether we’re a movement or a brotherhood, but whether we’re a movement or a business. Turning this into a business opens us up to charges, which frankly would not be without merit, that everything we’re doing is just a cynical money-making scheme. We’ll come across as the philosophical equivalent to Scientology, which will offer you salvation, but only for the right price. That would be a disaster for our credibility.

Next, I’m unsure why having a day job and making a lot of money is something that should be a measure of personal worth to us. Full disclosure: I only have a part-time job, and I’m poor as a church mouse. That said, using that as a measure sounds pretty Whig to me. “Making money makes you a more worthwhile person” is a message I could get from Sean Hannity – which is one reason why I don’t listen to Sean Hannity anymore.

Then there is the fact that once you’re a business, it’s “Take the king’s penny, play the king’s tune”. That’s just how business works. Whoever is paying you has power over you. Also, once NRx is a business, business concerns simply will start to lean on philosophical concerns. That’s an awful risk to take.

Last and perhaps most important – the number one thing we should be thinking about now is ways to avoid Imperial entanglements. Going into business – filing all the necessary paperwork, getting a Tax ID number and so on – gives the government tremendous power over you. Seriously, if the IRS audited the relatively-milquetoast Tea Party, what do you think they’re going to do to you? And get ready for some serious forced entryism – if some government bureaucrat decides your company doesn’t “look like America” enough, get ready for a heap of EEOC lawsuits. Or what happens when the Human Rights Campaign decides to hire your consulting firm to work for gay rights, and you say no? Don’t think something like that will happen? Many of these cases we hear about of some bakery or florist getting sued for turning down a gay wedding were hit jobs in which some gay activist targeted a local business known for their traditional Christian beliefs. If it can happen to them, it can happen to you.

And of course, business documents do – and must – have real names on them, meaning anyone involved will be instantly doxxed. Which means that this business had better damn well take off, because a lot of the people you want to attract will, once doxxed, be completely unemployable in their chosen fields. Which leads back to business concerns starting to lean on philosophical concerns. If someone is unemployable out side this business, then if they want to keep their family fed, they’re going to have to do anything they can to keep it going. So if the EEOC says you have to hire a black Jewish transgender otherkin or that you have to work for the Human Rights Campaign, that’s what you’re going to end up doing.

Yes, build institutions, but keep them strictly informal from a government perspective. Institutions are as real as the people involved in them believe that they are. We should see them as real – but keep them as far away from the government’s grasp as we can.

- Nick B. Steves
  
  May 30, 2015 - 15:38:11
  
  For-profit must be understood in contradistinction from non-profit and not-for-profit. It does not mean you’d actually expect to ever return a taxable profit. For-profit is actually easier to incorporate (and less regulated). It actually makes you LESS beholden to political pressures (what the IRS deems charitable or educational work). For-profit (AFAIK) can be setup via an attorney and keep the officers COMPLETELY dark. Does that sound sleazy? It sounds dangerous. I don’t see that as a bad thing, TBH.
  
  I don’t recall exactly anyone saying that earnings were tantamount to worth. I think the point, or at least a point I’d make is that in a given population, earnings are going to be correlated with competency (industriousness, intelligence, commitment, ect.). There are of course exceptions.
  
  - AntiDem
    
    May 30, 2015 - 21:26:28
    
    Any time you incorporate anything with the government, you give them power over you. The Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS were all 501(c)(3)s, but that didn’t stop the government from going after them. I’m strongly of the opinion that avoiding any government entanglements is a good thing, for reasons both practical and philosophical.
    
    And I still think that turning our philosophical movement into a business seems sleazy. As does charging people an entrance fee in order to be a part of it. Again, it smacks of Scientology… or simony.
    
    I retain my belief that the only thing more subversive than secret societies is open source. Perhaps our inner workings should be secret, but our products should, as much as possible, be free and open source. That is, if our goal is to accomplish something good on a societal scale, and not just to find a way to earn a paycheck. And don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against earning a paycheck, (I’d be happy to take some Thiel/Koch Brothers money if they ever offered me some. Anybody? Please?), it’s just that that’s not what I got into this to do.
    
    I could have taken it the wrong way, but the idea that earnings are tantamount to worth is kind of how the conversation came across to me. I remind everyone that it seems to be true that a lot of very high IQ people are not very employable. There seems to be an unusually high number of such people in the reactosphere. Bryce is a good example, and MillennialWoes, and You-Know-Who up in Berkeley, I guess even me, too. Such people may be exceptions, but this movement seems to be made up of a lot of exceptional people. I’m not sure that having money is the right measure of worth to apply to people like that.
    
    Again, I hope everybody takes these as the constructive criticisms they are meant to be.
    
Fish

May 30, 2015 - 02:03:56

I just wanted to say that this is how you share audio right. The file is provided as a simple mp3 with a download link and no or optional flash widget; included a way to subscribe to it via feed; you’ve listed all the participants; and timestamped discussion topics. The filenames are not just a bare number. File has proper metadata.

I could suggest some things but you’re in the 99th percentile already so it would feel petty.

- Nick B. Steves
  
  May 30, 2015 - 15:39:05
  
  That’s SB… doin’ that.

Social Matter

28

9