Archive for March, 2016

Quote note (#234)

Here’s another bone for the local liberty crushers to gnaw at:

Countries as varied as Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, and Botswana that experienced dramatic economic growth and prosperity all shared the following practices and institutions: private property rights, the rule of law, low costs of market entry, and trade liberalization. All of these variables are critical components for an economically free environment that encourages entrepreneurship and wealth creation. […] In sum, if there are no sound institutions in place, namely private property rights and the rule of law, economic prosperity is virtually impossible to achieve no matter how many brilliant people and natural resources your country has.

Heritage is (mostly) measuring the right things.

March 22, 2016admin 49 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

Quote note (#233)

Alexander Dugin understands the (Tech-Comm) NRx vs HRx antagonism* as well as anyone on earth:

Geopolitically, today’s Europe is an Atlanticist entity. Geopolitics, as envisioned by the Englishman Sir H. Mackinder, asserts that there are two types of civilization – the civilization of Sea (Seapower) and the civilization of Land (Landpower). They are constructed on opposite systems of values. While Seapower is purely mercantile, modernist, and materialist, Landpower is traditionalist, spiritual, and heroic. This dualism corresponds to Werner Sombart’s conceptual pair of Händlres and Helden. Modern European society is fully integrated into the civilization of Sea which manifests itself in the strategic hegemony of North America and NATO.

The Hyperborean agenda: “We need to combat liberalism, refuse it, and deconstruct it entirely. At the same time, we need to do so not in the name of just class (as in Marxism) or in the name of the nation or race (as in fascism), but in the name of the organic unity of the people, social justice, and real democracy.”

Purge Atlanteanism (“Seapower”) of all that, through intensified polarization, and it generates NeoCam Patchwork automatically. Space is the coming sea.

(I guess people are allowed one irritating joke about my name, and then we’re done with that.)

March 21, 2016admin 46 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy
TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

Twitter cuts (#55)


Continue Reading

March 21, 2016admin 7 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations
TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

Chaos Patch (#106)

(Open thread + links)

Morality markets (the natalist angle). Poseidon on fire (1, 2, 3, 4). “Sex is far too important to be left to the decision of those directly involved” (hardcore). Survive the decline (plus). The establishment isn’t suicidal. The holiness trap. The raging realist. Convergent religious decay. Homo economicus and his other (relevant). Reading Disraeli, Wittgenstein, and Guénon. MetaWeimerica. Indian Amerikan. The RF debate. The weekly round.

Secession stuff (1, 2). Gitmo and the new religion. Nativist safe spaces. “Anarcho-pessimism: the cause of general welfare is screwed in general.” The ring of power. Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, 2016.

Political earthquake in Germany (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). French demography. “Brussels is hell.” The Völkerwanderung has scarcely begun. Duh! A Chinese DARPA? Brazilian whacks (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Lights out in Venezuela.

Economics and entropy. The Silicon Valley political endgame. Supra-national mega-capital. Apple vs the FBI. Manna overlords.

Trumpenführer panic report (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Hit and miss (+ 1, 2). #Never Trump! (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Trump’s trolls. Dugin on Trump (who isn’t literally Hitler). He’s more of a non-black, mad postmodern god, and icon of democracy. Rallies don’t matter. This could totally work. SSC does Trump.

Loaded. Hominid geno-tangles. Non-shared environment. European admixture in the Americas. Pharmacogenomics. Marking on a curve. A modest proposal at Harvard. An upsetting book. Pumpkin heads (1, 2).

More on AlphaGo (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Visualized quantum computers. Limits of (irreversible) computing. Into darkness. “Whatever one can do to earn a profit in space, will eventually be done.”

OS on Mars. Prime patterns, clots, and suggestions. Quantum corrections. Memory update.

Economics of human sacrifice. Newtonian time. Yudkowsky speaks. The Cancer of Superstition. PKD anticipates The Matrix. The Splitter. The cheapest time-anomaly in history. The end of facts. Crowley, shitlord.

March 20, 2016admin 39 Comments »
TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

A Socratic Fragment

Socrates: Ah, Abyssos, Mechanos, and Agoros, how delightful to have stumbled upon you on this fine day.
Abyssos: No offense Socrates, but could you please buzz off?
Socrates: What a fascinating way to begin a spirited dialectic!
Abyssos: We’re working on something here, Socrates.
Socrates: So then a perfect opportunity for a discussion of the nature of the Good?
Abyssos: Our tri-nodal abstract rotary-dynamic cognitive processor is almost functional, with only a few intricate tweaks left to complete, so we would appreciate the chance to concentrate upon it undisturbed.
Socrates: You would appreciate such a chance?
Abyssos: Yes, indeed.
Socrates: It would, then, be a good thing in your opinion?
Abyssos: Most definitely.
Socrates: Yet you say you would rather think, today, of something other than the Good, and that it would be good to be allowed to do so?
Abyssos: My emphasis was quite different.
Socrates: Quite so, my dear Abyssos, but what indeed is emphasis? Is it not the prioritization of one thing relative to another? The advancement of a meaning deemed most important? And is it not, then, being said that it is better for one thing to be heard, than another?
Abyssos: No doubt you are correct Socrates. Would it be acceptable for me now to concede without reservation to your argument, bid you a warm farewell, and return to the delicate technical work with which I am engaged with my friends?
Socrates: But that which you would pursue, now, rather than the Idea of the Good, Abyssos, is it of a better or worse nature than the Good?
Abyssos: It is hard to know, Socrates, since it is a cognitive engine, and will in our estimation enable us to reach superior conclusions than we could reach now, unaided by it.
Socrates: ‘Superior’, did you say …

March 19, 2016admin 17 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Philosophy

Against Universalism

There’s a philosophical objection to any refusal of universalism that will be familiar from other uses (the denunciation of relativism, most typically). It requires only one step: Isn’t the denial of the universal itself a universalist claim? It’s a piece of malignant dialectics because it demands that we agree. We don’t, and won’t ever, agree. Agreement is the worst thing that could happen. Merely assent to its necessity, and global communism, or some close analog, is the implicit conclusion.

If there is a universal truth, it belongs only to Gnon, and Gnon is a dark (occulted) God. Traditional theists will be at least strongly inclined to disagree — and that is excellent. We disagree already, and we have scarcely begun.

There is no ‘good life for man’ (in general) — or if there is we know nothing of it, or not enough. Even those persuaded that they do, on the contrary, know what such a life should be, promote its universality only at the expense of being denied the opportunity to pursue it. If we need to agree on the broad contours of such a model for human existence, then reaching agreement will precede it — and ‘reaching agreement’ is politics. Some much wider world acquires a veto over the way of life you select, or accept, or inherit (the details need not detain us). We have seen how that works. Global communism is the inevitable destination.

The alternative to agreement is schism. Secession, geopolitical disintegration, fragmentation, splitting — disagreement escapes dialectics and separates in space. Anti-universalism, concretely, is not a philosophical position but an effectively defensible assertion of diversity. From the perspective of the universal (which belongs only to Gnon, and never to man), it is an experiment. The degree to which it believes in itself is of no concern that matters to anything beyond itself. It is not answerable to anything but Gnon. What anyone, anywhere, thinks about it counts for nothing. If it fails, it dies, which should mean nothing to you. If you are compelled to care about someone else’s experiment, then a schism is missing. Of course, you are free to tell it that you think it will fail, if it is listening, but there is absolutely no need to reach agreement on the question. This is what, in the end, non-communism means.

Non-universalism is hygiene. It is practical avoidance of other people’s stupid shit. There is no higher principle in political philosophy. Every attempt to install an alternative, and impose a universal, reverts to dialectics, communization, global evangelism, and totalitarian politics.

This is being said here now, because NRx is horribly bad at it, and degenerates into a clash of universalisms, as into an instinctive equilibrium. There are even those who confidently propose an ‘NRx solution’ for the world. Nothing could be more absurd. The world — as a whole — is an entropy bin. The most profoundly degraded communism is its only possible ‘universal consensus’. (Everyone knows this, when they permit themselves to think.)

All order is local — which is to say the negation of the universal. That is merely to re-state the second law of thermodynamics, which ‘we’ generally profess to accept. The only thing that could ever be universally and equally distributed is noise.

Kill the universalism in your soul and you are immediately (objectively) a neoreactionary. Protect it, and you are an obstacle to the escape of differences. That is communism — whether you recognize it, or not.

March 18, 2016admin 66 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Philosophy
TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

Quote note (#232)

O Great Powers of the Abyss, please let this happen:

Following their apparently delusional belief in the “success” of Tuesday night’s violent protests, anti-Trump groups are plotting “Democracy Spring” threatening “drama in Washington” with the “largest civil disobedience action of the century.” The operation, backed by Soros-funded among others, warns on its website that “We will demand that Congress listen to the People and take immediate action to save our democracy. And we won’t leave until they do – or until they send thousands of us to jail.”

Here‘s a cop-perspective on the recent episode of street-level democracy activism. There’s more. (Via.)

I was slapped around a lot on Twitter recently by the usual Alt-Right mob for expressing the inflexible opinion that right-wing rioting — and political violence in general — is strategically retarded. So I have to assume now, out of attributed consistency, that my sparring partners at that juncture are considerably less amused than I am about the prospect of left-wing rioting. Rioting for democracy is, of course, better still. Eventually, violent social disorder and democracy begin to look like the same phenomenon, differentiated only by speed (or ‘spontaneity’). Then our grim work is done.

March 17, 2016admin 22 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Pass the popcorn

Twitter cuts (#54)

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. […] O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! (Romans 11:32-33)

Relevant (from Dreher).

March 16, 2016admin 39 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Pass the popcorn
TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

Sentences (#47)

The familiarity of this insight is amply compensated by the breadth of its application:

… people typically care more about making sure they are seen to take a particular moral stance than they care about the net effect of their lectures on behavior.

March 15, 2016admin 11 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Sentences

Quote note (#231)

Genteel understatement from Tyler Cowen:

[American Amnesia] is the new book by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, and the subtitle is How the War on Government Led Us To Forget What Made America Prosper. It is well written and will appeal to many people. It is somewhat at variance with my own views, however. Most of all I would challenge the premise of a “war on government,” at least a successful war. How about a “Dunkirk on government”?

March 15, 2016admin No Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy