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 : , , , , , ,

39 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#106) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Chaos Patch (#106) […]

    Posted on March 20th, 2016 at 3:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Great selection of links. Goes well with coffee and Presbyterian Mixture, in whose name is encoded a small joke.

    The outrage against Trump seems to me to be a furor over the end of the age of signaling. In the past, it was easy for large corporations and apartment-dwelling weenies alike to make a few gestures and be accepted, just like how in the USSR if one made a show of saying the right “good Communist” things, success came. Incompetents love this kind of pathway to success because all they must do is memorize stuff and have the right opinions. Competents hate it. With Trump, it has become clear that signaling is being seen as the mere manipulation it is, and that the world is moving on. All of the incompetents, neurotics, and other parasites see that their gravy train is running to a stop, and they’re in full panic mode.



    Posted on March 20th, 2016 at 4:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Son_of_Olorus Says:

    Democracy in the United States seems to have become positively schizophrenic like the strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde ;


    Posted on March 20th, 2016 at 4:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Son_of_Olorus Says:



    Posted on March 20th, 2016 at 4:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Zimriel Says:

    Captain Capitalism’s argument on how rallies don’t matter was retarded. Among the laughable comments in there was how musicians care more about CD sales than about concert-ticket sales. Where’s he been living since 1999, a cave?

    Oh, and when protesters shut down a Trump rally, especially protesters like that, the fact of there not being a rally is itself a rallying-point.


    Posted on March 20th, 2016 at 8:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tentative Joiner Says:

    I’ve been thinking, are there ways in which modern technology might fundamentally undermine stable, pleasant forms of not-democracy? I am not so sure. What is disconcerting is that a positive answer would mean a kind of doom that is profound, not merely incidental.

    Of course, maybe it’s just modern, say, late 1700s-early 2000s, technology that has this property and the technology of the late 2000s (not just the newly introduced technology but the sum total of it) will have the reverse. Doom would be profound but temporary.


    Posted on March 20th, 2016 at 9:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    Thanks a lot, Nick. Social Matter putting out so much good stuff recently.


    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 1:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    This book — All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation — is stupendous. Highly recommend. A well-researched history of feminism that actually makes some justifiable points. Her conclusions are nauseating but at least it gives you an insight into the modern high-IQ American female soul.

    One of the big takeaways is that men are not competing with other men for fertile women … they are competing with the city itself. NYC is a lot more fun for a 27 year old 6+ than being married to a beta schlub and raising two kids in Long Island or Westchester …

    Doom looms.

    Which reminds me, Curt Doolittle has an excellent interview at Red Ice this week.


    Irving Reply:

    >One of the big takeaways is that men are not competing with other men for fertile women … they are competing with the city itself. NYC is a lot more fun for a 27 year old 6+ than being married to a beta schlub and raising two kids in Long Island or Westchester

    In the end, this is the hard reality. An attractive young women is always going to prefer living and working in the city than being stuck with a guy that she isn’t attracted to, and whose kids she doesn’t even want, in some dreary suburb where she won’t want to be and where, if she has to work (and these days, it is impossible for the vast majority of people to raise a family on one income — so she’ll definitely have to work), she’ll have to work a job that offers less prestige and pay than she otherwise would have had to accept, had she remained single and in the city.

    Moreover, I don’t even think that a return to patriarchy, were it to happen, is possible at this point. Or, in any case, I’m very doubtful that it is. Birth control is here and it isn’t going away; nor, for that matter, is the ability to get cheap and safe abortions. This means that men have effectively and irreversibly lost the ability to control women’s reproductive choices. Also, so many men have been, and will continue to be, rendered unemployable, and therefore unmarriagable, in this new economy, and the jobs that are available, besides the IQ intensive ones, are more suitable for women than men, and employers are making their hiring choices in accordance with this new reality. So, men have also, by and large, lost their economic superiority over women. Male ability to control the reproductive choices of men, as well as male economic dominance over women, are the two indispensable pillars on which patriarchy are based, and they seem to be irretrievably gone at this point. And yet, a return to patriarchy would seem to be the only way to get women to have children again.

    Doom looms, indeed.


    michael Reply:

    expelling 150 million foreigners might help raise wages, lower taxes and inflation and return the dignity and security whites require for family formation.And things would be so much pleasanter too.Without those votes and power generally european culture could regain its confidence,standards could once again be enforced, things could again be discussed mens influence would amplified by an order of magnitude. And the non diversity dividend would be in the trillions annually


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    > everything collapses

    Irving Reply:

    >expelling 150 million foreigners might help raise wages, lower taxes and inflation and return the dignity and security whites require for family formation.

    Eastern Europe is racially homogeneous, and yet they’ve got some of the lowest birthrates in the world. There’s no evidence, at all, suggesting that diversity is the cause of low birthrates.

    >And the non diversity dividend would be in the trillions annually

    No, it wouldn’t. Getting rid of underclass blacks might be nice, but generally speaking, America is getting some high quality immigrants. They contribute more than they take.

    TheDividualist Reply:

    Eastern Europe managed to restore patriarchy after the Soviet FAIL, although not in ways that you would want to. Basically thing became chaotic, corrupted and even violent. Competitive, in a bad way. The way to make money was to steal it from government, bribe the city official if you want to build something etc. and thus risk going to prison or get shot by a competitor. And whole counties left without jobs because the 1-2 large factories that carried them got privatized, sold to a competitor then closed down, so a lot of people suddenly woke up and realized there is no job where they live. This basically meant a lot of girls figured out now the best way forward is find a wealthy man and thus they started focusing on the sunbed and the make-up, not the career.

    This is not a good way to do it, but may nevertheless happen. Isn’t it getting harder and harder to get an internship in NY that is not unpaid? The economic conditions will become worse and worse. Prices will go up and salaries not, meanwhile, a few men who are brave and alpha enough to flaunt the law and bribe left and right will be rich. The gap will grow and grow, more and more wealthy people will look like bad boy criminals. Al Capone style. Won’t many working women think a plan B of finding a rich man may just work better than all this slaving away for poor pay at a job that hardly pays rent anymore? Of course, they will still not want kids, suburbia, and probably they just become girlfriends of rich men who enjoy the city the same way they do, as they are unlikely to marry. But their whole mindset will become less feminist, more submissive, more willing to please. They will not become respectable mothers, but something like monogamous prostitutes, “lovers” – well, that is roughly what happened in EE and that is at least one of the traditional feminine roles.

    I remember once upon a time there we invited the hotel receptionist girl for drinks and after about five vodkas she broke down crying saying that her job only pays her a room and food and nothing more, she has to mooch her parents for buying clothes and such a life is terrible. That is how a womans job in hard economic situations looks like. And at that point if any guy who is wealthy and a bit alpha because in such situations it requires illegal risk-taking, would have invited her to be his live-in girlfriend, porn star with one client, she would have gladly accepted it and given up the job. Still no marriage or kids though, the man would not want that probably. He just wants a hot GF for 1-2 years. And it is from a civilizational viewpoint bad but still something markedly different from career feminism.

    This is mostly NY’s real future.


    Irving Reply:


    I know quite a few young women in the position of the hotel receptionist you’ve mentioned. There’s no doubt that the best thing women like that can do for themselves is to find a successful man to throw them a few dollars here and there every once in a while in exchange for kinky, dehumanizing sex. It’s really just sad.


    Kgaard Reply:

    I would move back to NYC but the TAXES are so high. Taxes are the price of admission to get into these doe-herd Nirvanas. You pay Big Daddy, who then redistributes the wealth to the 28-year-old women via public services and safety far in excess of what said women can pay for. To be a wealthy man and actively LIVING in NYC is a tremendous status signal. You are basically pissing money into the Hudson River every single day. It just kills me to do that. So I don’t. But I probably should.

    Perhaps the way to justify it, since we are clearly degenerating into a pre-agricultural mating market, is to view oneself in one’s peak years as being in the situation of an alpha horse at its prime. That horse pays a huge cost in boinking all those female horses AND fighting other male horses who want some of the action. It is expensive to lead — but that’s the price one has to pay to get access to fertile high-IQ 7+ women. Horses apparently only dominate the herd for like one season and then they are worn out.

    It is incredibly hard to kill the inner beta which wants to play fair … but that desire to play fair is being used against productive white men by virtually every other demographic group. To consciously shift one’s operating paradigm to specifically take advantage of the arbitrage opportunities that exist in the mating market feels like accepting and knuckling under to societal collapse.

    There’s a reason Game of Thrones is so popular. It’s a how-to guide for living a time of collapse, chaos and bare-knuckles conflict in all realms of life.



    michael Reply:

    born raised and still live part year in my nyc [brooklyn] townhouse Im guessing i could be your dads age. Im not sure i agree with your strategy, if you had what it takes to be here you already would be. What I mean is IQ isnt enough, the city and its women are tough and im not convinced worth it anymore. If you are alkpha ivy league goodlooking ambitious family help and still young maybe but as I say you would already be here. If you cant step into this place and keep ahead from the get go you will be pulled under never recover and wake one day old and defeated. And Im not convinced NYC is even worth it anymore. There are certain careers that require working here that are not master of the universe but its kind of like taking holy orders you are sacrificing yourself on some alter. NYC women are idiots the higher their IQ the stupider. CH has a good handle on how they end up. If you want one of them to supplement your income plan on getting fucked over eventually,if you dont command orders of magnitude more and have all of the above even then its a crap shoot.Why bother.If you want high IQ genes on both sides look in white areas that are less urban centric some of these have nice cities but not city worship, these places retain many of their talented young and their young retain much of their rural morality,places like vermont maine new hampshire, or idaho washington oregon montanna. You will find many of the young still have bumber stickers but its only skin deep and half of them are confident conservatives, cities are clean well run cheap and fun portland and seattle have excellent food, the outdoor activities in the mountain west are world class.But the women are humble feminine and gladly take the yoke the good lord has proscribed to them. Nothing gladdens the heart more than hearing some obviously highly intelligent woman declare her husband the decision maker. If you think you have what it takes to be remembered in 500 years go to new york if not enjoy your life

    Kgaard Reply:


    Good points Michael. If you are my Dad's age that makes you 77. I am older than you assume. I lived in Manhattan twice and dated well each time. But, as you say, it is hard on the body and brain. I am not originally from that area so it is foreign terrain. I prefer a more moderate pace.

    Your points on NYC women are well taken. I have experienced it first hand multiple times. There are many other options: The US options you describe, many places in Europe, or vacation spots in Asia and LatAm where the smarter and groovier single white women go to recharge …

    The only thing stopping me at the moment is making an actual decision. There are pluses and minuses to every location. When you add them up, quantitatively you end up with similar scores for Southern Spain, Estonia, Czech, Bali etc etc. Hard to pull the trigger …

    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 1:09 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    I decided i’m voting Trump over Hilary, he wanted Icahn as his Sec of Tres and this rubbed me the wrong way but now Icahn is out of the picture, i’ll be going his way. What are all your thoughts on the substance of Trump’s positions? Let’s take about what he will execute and not talk about his character this time. (from scotty’s thread)


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    let’s talk*, rather.


    Irving Reply:

    I place little hope in Trump.

    I think that all of his bluster about immigration is just that, bluster. He isn’t going to do anything to stop immigration. He’s already changed his position on high-skill immigration and, in my view, its only a matter of time before he says that America ought to “cut a deal” with Mexico over the issue of illegal immigration, which will likely include some combination of amnesty for most of the illegals, deportation of some of the criminals among them, and border enforcement. For better or for worse, I think that the illegal immigrants are here for good.

    I think everyone with a brain can tell that the jobs that have left America due to free trade aren’t going to come back, whatever Trump says or even tries to do about it. At any rate, if you believe him when he says that he’s going to start leveling tariffs, then, well, there’s no hope for you.

    I do however believe that he can play a positive role where foreign policy is concerned, given his non-interventionist stance, but even this needs qualification. People tend to forget this, but even Dubya, when running for his first-term in office, ran on a non-interventionist platform. Trump could similarly change his position on foreign policy in the very likely event of a 9/11-like attack. Also, he might even put NATO to good use for once, and use it to defend Europe from the migrant invasion. He’s mentioned his horror at the migrant crisis more than a few times in his speeches and it seems as if it is an issue that genuinely concerns him. I wouldn’t put it past him to try and do something about it if he gets into office.


    Erebus Reply:

    >”I think everyone with a brain can tell that the jobs that have left America due to free trade aren’t going to come back, whatever Trump says or even tries to do about it.”

    Free trade is only part of the equation, and I think that it’s a rather small part. The important thing is to reduce the tax and regulatory burden on US businesses.

    I own a metallurgy and ceramic engineering business. (We mostly make metal and ceramic matrix composites for technical applications.) There are only two reasons we don’t have a manufacturing facility in the USA:

    1. The onerous tax burden that US-based corporations are saddled with.

    2. The punitive-seeming regulatory burden that US-based corporations are forced to put up with.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with wages, healthcare, or tariffs. If Trump makes good on his word and reduces the corporate tax rate to a flat 15%, and if he can lower the regulatory burden associated with manufacturing in the USA, I’d rush to open a manufacturing facility in any red state with cheap energy. Right now, we handle our early stages of production at a facility we own in China, and the last stages are handled at a manufacturing partner’s location in Germany — and this is very far from ideal, particularly as the US Government is always a potential client, and as most sales are to the USA.

    If Trump reduces taxes and the regulatory burden and imposes tariffs on foreign goods, the list of companies that relocate their headquarters and manufacturing facilities to America is going to be a mile long. I can’t predict what might happen if he imposes tariffs without reducing the tax and regulatory burdens. (Presumably loophole-seeking and complicated subsidiary arrangements.)

    All that said, I have as little faith in Trump as you do. I’ll be downright astonished if he keeps his campaign promises.


    admin Reply:

    An even larger factor is international dollar hegemony. It is structurally necessary for the global reserve currency issuer to run trade deficits, since it has to export currency to the rest of the world. (See, the Triffin Dilemma.) Britain underwent relative de-industrialization for the same reason.

    Erebus Reply:

    Be that as it may, I view monetary policy as something akin to a force of nature: I can’t affect it in any way whatsoever, so it’s not worth fretting over. What’s more, I can’t find any reference to monetary policy on Trump’s website, nor can I recall hearing him say anything specific about it. Thus I don’t believe that Ending The Fed, or overhauling current monetary policies, is among his goals.

    …And I don’t know enough about monetary policy to speculate as to how Trump’s stated policies might affect the US dollar…

    But I do believe, wholeheartedly, that we’ll see a resurgence in US manufacturing if tax and regulatory policies are simplified and made more competitive and business-friendly. Besides myself, I know a lot of wealthy people who would love to open forges and foundries in the USA, but refuse to deal with hostile regulatory agencies and the rapacious IRS. (What sane person would? If you can run a manufacturing business from Hong Kong or California, it is utterly irrational to go with the latter, particularly when you’re working with dirty metals and minerals. It’s ironic that California’s early economy was based on mining.)

    If free trade is brought to an end and tariffs are imposed, I think that we might even see a resurgence in textile production, circuit board production, and similar ultra-low-skill/high-volume manufacturing jobs. A great deal of this would necessarily be automated, and the greatest beneficiaries would likely be companies that build automated production lines, but this should still benefit working-class Americans.

    On the other hand, the things that Clinton and Sanders are proposing are absolutely catastrophic for businesses of all sorts — and particularly for manufacturing concerns. The USA still has a very large chemical industry. It won’t be around for much longer, if things don’t change.

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Right now I honestly believe in him. I think he can really halt a lot of the damage that has been done.

    He will do some good at least. I’m interested. What worries me is he though Icahn was a good idea, and that’s a damn shame he thought so.

    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 1:44 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    <@Irving europe and america are different our peoples character is more self starting than still opposing monarchy, sure thats changed with the marxist propaganda but most of that propaganda was made possible by the poor minority meme, welfare alone in the US is a trillion granted it doesnt all go to blacks and hispanics but without them we could be much tougher about welfare. But the other trillions is the hidden costs of diversity. Think what it most cost for a huge portion of our best and brightest to dedicate their productive lives to diversity propaganda and support, arts sciences letters law etc etc etc all dedicated to being apologists for diversity. What is the cost of the criminal justice system the courts prisons police probation, what is the cost of having your nation run by low IQ civil servants everything from the post office to IRS is a make work program most of our skilled trades unions medical workers and hundreds of other occupations have been occupied through affirmative action by minorities, Many of our politicians and their staffs the political arm of most municipalities are minority run. The cost of insurance, all types of lawsuits, fraud. Where to even start on the education system. This list could go on and on someone should write a book, but none of it happens in a vacuum what is the cost of lost opportunity not investing those trillion in space AI genetics , what is the cost of not being able to have cultural confidence of needing a cultural ethic that offends no one and furthers the weakest links interests at the expense of the best, what is the cost to our environment and resource expense, what is the cost to the dignity and safety security and expense to family formation.

    You think europe is a fair comparison I disagree but dont think it irrelevant or has zero correlation causation , and certainly is of no less concern. Europe had a serf system while america had a slave system these types of systems are openings for leftism, but once capitalism brought the majority of whites to a reasonable living marxists found communism a hard sell to american proles and switched to minorities and made the wealth redistribution less obvious by making it also about status power jobs and giving the money less directly to community organizations, they expanded this successful idea by finding ever more minority victim groups and finally importing 100 million amerindian peasants and more blacks. and by getting the east and south asians to throw in foe a cut. This was not as important in europe since capitalism was resisted for longer since it threatened the aristocracy as well as the serfs the dividend was less and socialism made deeper inroads socialism probably also worked better for various reasons, eventually the marxists realized the minorities had to be brought in regardless it just works so well on so many levels for them least of all at the polls. so the meme od colonialism equals slavery and citizenship equals partial reparations began and as in the states was further developed.
    the US is at 60% whites from about 90% when I was a child, a tiny fraction of these are high IQ prizes but even if they were Einsteins their children and grandchildren are not, as obama so wisely pointed out if he had a son it might be trayvon martin.Im not a neo nazi i like a lot of minorities but the HBD has convinced me this multiculturalism is doom. We have in the US experimented with everything from outright slavery aparthied strict double standard paternalism slavering obeisance nothing works it gets worse, going back to jim crow will simply restart the civil rights movement, and by the way the minorities themselves would be so much better off for reasons i wont go in to.
    If you really think we need some of these outlier minorities im sure they will be happy to come on our terms of non citizenship,and non involvement in the affairs of our nations.Frankly I think their is more to a nations success than IQ id be willing to wager european countries could continue to succesfully compete against east asian countries if releived of the white mans burden, I also think their is more to life than any of it what is the point of all of this hard work and talent if life is insufferable. Im not sure these imporrts are not really sending out more of our intelligence than they are bringing in they will never have allegiance because un like us they are biological not propositional peoples.Admin like to bring up the hajinal line personally as i said im not a WN per se rather a reluctant accept er of the reality i see around me and now have data on.I certainly support in europe ethnic patches over "whiteness" Id support the basques and all the rest breaking off as well, when people are allowed to develop cultural solutions tailored to their individual genetics the choices are wider and more effective and give them greater chances. despite the US and anglosphere being mostly northern european whiteness is the closest rallying point , i dont recomend getting that specific or hate arguments but i recomend getting there by the least obnoxious but effective means. Jay man and HBD chick and other professionals work on the hajinal issues seem really small beer compared to the differences of the mega races,also the late marriages and out breeding was less common among the elites inside the hajinal lines they could afford and did marry younger and often to other elites, but all that aside the irish scottish italian etc problem were fleeting at best in the us and the intermarriage is proceeding apace. the JQ in my opinion is real and not a racist paranoia but i think they are worth trying to get on our side if we can be sure they will rreally stay there this time,but perhaps im sentimental.


    Irving Reply:


    Please learn to write coherently, and to use punctuation.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I’ve given up trying to domesticate him.


    Irving Reply:

    Also, I disagree that the intra racial differences within the white race are “small cheese”. IQs in parts of southern europe, in the Balkans, and in certain other eastern european countries are quite low, in the 86 to 91 range. It is an open question whether these groups are compatible with NW Europeans. WN types tend to forget that a major reason why the Serbs got so riled up against the Croats and Slovenes in the former Yugoslavia was out of economic envy. The Serbs, having an average IQ of ~87, found that they were being thoroughly outcompeted economically, and decided to go to war. To quote Milosovic:

    “Borders are always dictated by the strong, never by the weak.… We simply consider it as a legitimate right and interest of the Serb nation to live in one state. This is the beginning and the end.… If we have to fight, by God we are going to fight. I hope that they will not be so crazy as to fight against us. If we do not know how to work properly or run an economy, at least we know how to fight properly.”


    michael Reply:

    but as i said if a country is not already mixed european i am in favor of the smaller patch the better, and dont know it seems really weird you guys wanting to equate serbs to africans and such, maybe you cant tell the difference but I can. there are other traits besides IQ that are important. But the main point is multiculturalism doesnt and cant work, and skimming obamas from kenya yield obams then trayvons. BTW I happen to know a lot of serbs in NYC I havnt noticed them to be stupid at all but immigrants are not always representative i find them to be hard working, good mechanics and engineers, and while im almost 6-4 they are almost always taller than me very strong fierce manly id want them on my side in a fight for sure. the irish are also supposed to be sub par IQ and while i admit im irish i goitta say i find my race to be pretty damn smart and grecco roman accounts seem also to bear this out about celts so it could be something with the testing maybe its iodine who knows i know blacks and hispanics really well too and thats a whole other level.
    I guess my other problem is i find all the AI, outer space, gattaca, monarchy , collapse stuff too be faery tales and christianity hopelessly cucked so ethnicity seems a possibility that could actually work, and I like white people and culture i could never live in asia, i would rather live among 90 iq eastern europeans than 103 iq asians any day.


    Irving Reply:

    >and dont know it seems really weird you guys wanting to equate serbs to africans and such, maybe you cant tell the difference but I can

    Give me a break. I didn’t equate Serbs to Africans (although, now that you mention it, it does turn out that the Serb IQ is more or less equivalent to the African American one, which is interesting). I simply used the Serbs by way of pointing out that there’s actually a significant difference between NW Europeans and Southern/Eastern Europeans.

    >skimming obamas from kenya yield obams then trayvons

    Regression to the mean doesn’t work in the way that you seem to think it does.

    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 1:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Curt Doolittle on a roll:

    (criticism of psychology today)

    While men domesticated alphas in order to more evenly distribute reproduction, and while women learned to rally and shame to rally men to defend against alphas, Man had a very hard time domesticating women.

    Men treated women affectionately but much more like we treat our pets. Like chimps, brothers and cousins conducted war to obtain women and to protection their own from taking.

    Women evolved to care not about the tribe but about other women and her children, and their children.

    Men evolved to herd, and control the tribe.

    The problem was that women bear children at will and place the cost on the tribe. And women trade sexual favors and affection to obtain resource and in doing so create conflict. Then they create conflict intentionally as an extension of rallying and shaming.

    Man evolved property (ownership) in tandem with the sophistication of his means of production.

    Ownership of women limited conflict, controlled female reproduction, and limited the difficulty that women could create by the trading of sexual favors and affection.

    Romantic love is a relatively recent invention.

    With the end of the division of labor, and the advent of redistribution, the lower classes have increasingly abandoned marriage, and women have returned to owning their own children, bearing them at will and forcing the cost upon the tribe, forcing reproduction downward in the classes, and using sexual favors, affection, and even just attention, to obtain what they want from many different men.

    This has broken the limitations on women’s dysgenic reproduction and hyper-consumption, and disregard for the male members of the tribe.

    THat’s how it is.

    You need a superior solution to the obvious evolutionary origins rather than to beg pseudoscience to justify a prior.
    smile emoticon

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    I’m glad you like him. I worked my ass of defending him in these circles(had a few heated exchanges), lost my membership card, and now his community is building up!


    Kgaard Reply:

    Yeah? What’s to defend. He seems pretty straightforward neoreactionary to me. Solid thinker. I will say the stuff about getting 200 guys together and doing an overthrow seems a bit overheated but who knows … maybe he is right on that too.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    > Yeah? What’s to defend.

    Tell me about it.

    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 11:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tentative Joiner Says:

    In 2009 a very nerdy webcomic suddenly erupts with a picture in XS-vision.


    Posted on March 22nd, 2016 at 7:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tentative Joiner Says:

    Yeah one thing that’s been fascinatingly awful about the election cycle is how readily all engagement with Trump has, well, bought into his premises and even reinforced them. Trump says that America is in decline, and his enemies take his ascendancy as proof that, yes, America is in decline. Trump says that the elites hate the sort of people who vote for Trump, and the elites respond by saying “what kind of contemptible idiot votes for Trump!?” Trump says “I’m an outsider” and the insiders say “who the fuck is he how did he get in here”.

    It’s scary partially because I think it ends up helping him and partially because, to some degree, presidents have the power we think they have. “Trump will end democracy” is a narrative that sets us up for more genuine abuses of power than “Trump will try to do something unconstitutional and get slapped down, damaging America’s image in the process”. …

    … We have a system to prevent two-bit authoritarians from taking over. But the system works partially because of our confidence in it, so undermining that confidence in order to emphasize that yikes we actually do have a two-bit authoritarian running doesn’t protect us from him.



    SVErshov Reply:

    trump’s camping manager is devil himself, anything trump say, answer is the same, – so, why not vote for him, we already tried everything esle.


    Posted on March 23rd, 2016 at 11:53 am Reply | Quote
  • Tentative Joiner Says:

    Let the Right One In.

    The programming conference LambdaConf accepts Moldbug’s anonymized submission, goes through with inviting Moldbug. The statement is the closest I have seen an organization in the Silicon Valley gravity well come to an endorsement of tolerating intolerance. Geography has apparently played a role in this: the author himself hails from Boulder, CO rather than *, CA.


    admin Reply:

    “My immediate reaction could be described as a combination of shock and horror. …” — Christ, people are pathetic.


    Posted on March 24th, 2016 at 11:26 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment