Fernandez on the subsidence of security into the occult:
If America still mounts guard on the Wall, it must do so in secret. Recent events show that only acceptable way to provide the guard is with Special Forces and drones and spooks and PMCs. In a word, the West must be defended by things that are deniable and disposable.
Democracy ensures that grown-up government can only happen in secret.
(This was prompted by Fernandez, too, on basically the same topic.)
Broken Internet here (which is driving me mildly insane). This is tapped out on my crappy tablet. If passing through the Great Gates of Kek starts like this, my enthusiasm is waning already.
Feel free to treat this as an open thread. Lots of interesting discussion on the Alt-Right / NRx gulf in the previous comment threads IMHO, so carry on …
(From the Occult NRx perspective, the Alt-Right can have the presidency, but it can’t have Kek — without a scrap … It’s, of course, a Brahmin thing …)
Sometimes shouting is necessary (or, at least, understandable).
James Kirkpatrick defending the Alt-Right at Unz:
All politics in the Information Age is a media war.
There’s almost certainly massive consensus on this point, although it’s not in the interests of installed power to emphasize the fact.
Policy objective: Close down US support for the South Vietnamese regime.
Policy debate: Who cares?
Decisive mind-control tool:
(The little girl in the center is Kim Phuc Phan Thi if you need a Google-key.)
It’s too early to give up on libertarians.
Embedded citation: “I don’t have any interest in turning back the clock because I don’t believe it can be done. You can only observe and describe.” — Houellebecq
Anything not dealing with ratchets is wishing modernity away, rather than engaging it.
Fernandez on the escalation of irreversibility:
In Orwell’s view the mutability of the past was the foundation of tyranny. “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” To ensure this the Ministry of Truth was honeycombed with Memory Holes into which any inconvenient fact could be dropped and be disappeared. […] But just to illustrate how things have changed for the State we now know that Orwell was wrong. The mathematically dominant method for recording transactions, whether they involve the transfer of financial assets, intellectual property, health records or any type of information is probably going to be the blockchain. It has three important properties. First the entire record can be reproduced by anyone from a Genesis cryptographic starting such that all records will have the same signature if and only if they are the same. Second, no part of the record can be altered without regenerating the entire block chain from the beginning. Third, it is impossible to rewrite the block chain without incurring enormous real costs in electricity and computing power, as guaranteed by the laws of thermodynamics. […] The first property means that blockchain by nature it is a public ledger. The second ensures the database can only be falsified in its entirety. The third makes it prohibitively expensive to do so. …
There are still countless fools advising Cnut the Great to defy the waves, but time is not on their side.
‘Absolutist neoreaction’ seems to think its techno-commercialist enemies (and I think it’s fair to say, XS in particular) will have some kind of fundamental problem with this:
The history of ideas is the history of the resources behind them (which has some overlap with the base superstructure of Marxism) but that this is augmented and overridden by the action of Power, and power centres in both unified, and un-unified political structures.
If there is some determined attempt to separate Power™ from techno-economic capability, then incomprehension is probable. (But no one could possibly be suggesting anything that preposterous, surely?)
To ignore the historical association of power disintegration with the emergence of self-propelling techonomic competences also looks like a serious blindness. Capitalism hatched in Europe because Europe was broken. Keeping the world broken seems similarly indissociable from the survival of capitalistic historical momentum, and breaking it more profoundly is the route to capital intensification. Perhaps that’s the argument we’re having (not that such arguments matter much).
The Idea that unified power is the reliable principle of social competence is ethno-historically French. That is where it has worked its magic since the epoch of the Sun King. Under sufficiently dismal circumstances, the RF analysis might catch on there.
(Image source: Amy Ireland.)
Paul A. David provides the theoretical backstory, in his essay ‘Clio and the Economics of QWERTY’:
A path-dependent sequence of economic changes is one of which important influences upon the eventual outcome can be exerted by temporally remote events, including happenings dominated by chance elements rather than systematic forces. Stochastic processes like that do not converge automatically to a fixed-point distribution of outcomes, and are called non-ergodic. 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. […] Touch typing gave rise to three features of the evolving production system which were crucially important in causing QWERTY to become ‘locked in’ as the dominant keyboard arrangement. These features were technical interrelatedness, economies of scale, and quasi-irreversibility of investment. They constitute the basic ingredients of what might be called QWERTYnomics.
The format of the Qwerty keyboard illustrates the production of a destiny. Even in the epoch succeeding the mechanical type-writer, and its specific design imperatives, the legacy layout of alphanumeric keys settled during the 1890s has remained frozen into place without significant revision. In the language of complex systems analysis, this is a special example of path-dependency, or irreducible historicity, characterized by irreversibility. Qwerty persists – arguably, as a suboptimal keyboard solution – due to identifiable ratchet-effects. Based upon this privileged model, the historical, technological, and economic process of ‘lock in’ through positive feedback is called QWERTY-nomics (and — going forward — simply ‘Qwernomics’).