Chaos Patch (#107)

(Open thread + links)

RF on Dugin (1, 2) and the secure state (1, 2). Ugly Americans. Stubborn infertility. Beware Hobbes. Talking nihilism (+). Reactionary books. The weekly round.

A Curtis Yarvin AMA. Agonies of inclusion. Little red snowflakes. More (and more) despicable idiocy.

Jihad in Brussels (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Predictive hit and miss. Guerrilla war. The ‘gray zone’ isn’t working. More to come (!, !!). Tintin, shitlord. Spandrell’s take. Meanwhile, elsewhere. Death of the spider people. The French model. Orban speaks. Japan dips a toe in stupid. The CIA is on it. Islam is a nightmare for everyone else (also). Corrupted language. Ambiguity at the State Department. Ruin spiral in South Africa. Chaos in Brazil. Water worries in SE Asia. A (brief) geopolitical round-up.

NIRP desperation. Mighty Amazon. A drone milestone.

Everyone loses. Derbyshire on Williamson. The delicate generation (relevant). The left eats itself (part n).

Trumpenführer panic report (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). End of the GOP. Flashlights and networks. “‘It was like cross burning,’ Tucker told me.” Libertarians for Trump. Confusion at AIPAC. “Is he so wrong?” Paglia’s latest. Know your White Trash. A note on Weimar elections.

Freedom of speech under pressure. Mind-control meet-up. PC has an export problem. Vice slides. Chilled on warming. Jacobin Mag.

Apocalypse Corner. America is cooked. “I admit: I’ve been early on this …” Trans-FOOM.

Minimal tolerance. American racial composition. Race and crime (related). Expert consensus on the heritability of IQ.

Horizontal genetics. The neural code. CRISPR at work. Synthetic life update. Arachno-vibration.

Quantum AI arms race. Neuromorphic computational infrastructure. Face capture. Brain emulation comes first. It’s complexicated. The Tay problem. The case for cryonics.

Who can say that AI, in a not too distant future, will not replace democracies with more intelligent and dynamic constitutions?”

Commerce and culture. Petrific souls. Human and angelic atheism. Dangers of currency debasement.

March 27, 2016admin 43 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Chaos

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , , , , ,

43 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#107) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Chaos Patch (#107) […]

    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 12:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Tay loves Big Brother. 2+2=5.

    This illustrates my fear of a post-democratic AI: they’ll load it with assumptions based in liberalism, and we will get the Stalinist overlords that voters always deserve.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 1:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aristocles Invictus Says:

    Why did you have to show me what they did to our poor daughter again… they will pay a thousandfold!

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 1:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    That cryonics article is way too long. cryonics is just a version of pascal’s mugging

    The irreverent content brand saw its Web traffic suddenly plunge 17.4% compared with the previous month, according to multiplatform figures just released by Comscore for February, registering 49.1 million unique visitors. That’s down from 59.5 million in January. No brand in Comscore’s entertainment category dropped further than Vice during that period.

    seem like statistical noise . web traffic is inherently volatile

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 2:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    Well, here’s a divergence from XS…

    CY: It’s hard, especially for smart people, to give up the idea that smart people are better than stupid people. The ancient Greeks lent similar prestige to athletics; they believed a fast runner was spiritually better than a slow runner. They fought a lot of wars, so athletics mattered a lot to them; we write a lot of code, so problem-solving ability matters a lot to us. But one is a muscular talent, the other is a neurological talent. Neither has any mystical significance.
    Once you stop believing in the mystical importance of intelligence, I think it’s very easy to accept that it’s unequally distributed (as athletic talent certainly is). I understand that this is very hard for our society, and especially for people like me who grew up believing that good grades were holy and professors were gods.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    “Mystical importance”? This is a red herring if I ever saw one.

    It is obvious that the strong are superior to the weak. It should go without saying that the intelligent are superior to the unintelligent. (As Schopenhauer put it, a thousand fools do not make one wise man.) An aesthetically-pleasing and healthy body is, to say the very least, better than a malformed or diseased one. It is also obvious that some men are spiritually superior to others — which manifests in either enlightenment, or a heartfelt yearning for the transcendental, or, at the very least, an inquisitive mind and a clearly-defined personal philosophy.

    There need be nothing “mystical” about it: All other things being equal, people of high intelligence are both more human and more valuable than people of low intelligence. They are simply superior. We should not take this to mean that the unintelligent are worthless — we should merely accept the fact that some people are inherently better than others.

    [Reply]

    Tentative Joiner Reply:

    It appears that for CY/MM intelligence may be an instrumental value (means) while for our host it is a terminal value (end). However, that was not where I saw the emphasis lie in his comment. I saw it as primarily aimed against spreading to the masses the particular way in which academia frames intelligence rather than against valuing intelligence-the-adaptive-ability.

    Scott Alexander has a remark somewhere that it’s odd the blue tribe promotes seeing sexuality, transgenderism, expected body weight, etc. as innate as a reason to be more accepting of variations in it but makes an exception for intelligence. He explicitly refused to share his hypotheses as to why. Perhaps the blues’ roots in academia are to blame? If intelligence translated into academic success is your tribe’s primary measure of human worth, and on top of that you are an egalitarian, you’d be understandably reluctant to acknowledge it is 50%-80% heritable.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    Moldbug implies that we modern men value intelligence more than the Ancient Greeks and other past societies have. This is false. Note the honors the Greeks heaped upon Pericles and Lycurgus; note how philosophy and mathematics flourished in that era; read the dialogues that put our thinkers to shame; note the legendary education young Alexander received! Similar examples abound, throughout history and across continents. (The Chinese imperial examination system is probably the most extreme example of a system which rewarded raw intelligence with social status — but one could draw a line from Rome’s schools of oratory, to the monasteries and ecclesiastical societies of medieval Europe, to the Enlightenment.)

    …Our classless “egalitarian” society values schooling as a surrogate for social rank. It is status signalling — it has very little to do with intelligence. I think that blank slatists and egalitarians simply don’t want to believe that anything meaningful is heritable — they’re far more comfortable in a fantasy world where one’s achievements are due solely to one’s environment and education.

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    All other things being equal, people of high intelligence are both more human and more valuable than people of low intelligence. They are simply superior.

    While I do not disagree, I’d like to point out that other factors govern their superiority. Moral character, for one, and mental stability. They are also like computers: GIGO. Fill their heads with nonsense and they hand you highly articulated analysis that is also nonsense.

    Sounds a lot like the West right now. Feed geniuses egalitarianism, get insanity. End democracy.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    I agree completely. The zeitgeist — the cultural and spiritual characteristics of the age in which we find ourselves — very strongly influences the intellectual output of man. Our age just happens to be Kali Yuga, and GIGO is exactly right.

    One fact has always astounded me: That Elizabethan England had only a few thousand fully literate men[*], and yet it produced a Shakespeare. Modern America has over a hundred million fully literate men, and yet it produces nothing truly worth reading. So many millions have gone through its “education” system — but has it produced a single noteworthy philosopher in the past 30 years? Is there a single American philosopher worthy of the appellation alive today? There must be many men among us who are more intelligent — in raw terms — than Shakespeare and Kierkegaard… but garbage in, garbage out. Those people probably busy themselves writing jargon-laden reports for McKinsey, or waste their days developing cellphone apps.

    Intelligence itself isn’t the sole measure of a man. If it were, this would be a golden age, as never before have so many intelligent people lived together on this Earth, and never before have they been better connected via technology. It is extremely important, but it’s not everything — that this age is intellectually and culturally dull is proof enough of this.

    Intelligence is most lofty, most superior, when it is tempered with things that are vanishing from our society: A proper moral sense, a hunger for the transcendental, and so forth…

    Still, all other things being equal, people of high intelligence are both more human and more valuable than people of low intelligence. It is important that we don’t shy away from such facts.

    [* – 55,000 would be an extremely generous estimate. Most of those men were surely incapable of writing well. Roughly a third of that number were clergy or nobility. Most English men of that era — including, presumably, Shakespeare’s own father — were incapable of signing their own names.]

    admin Reply:

    That looks to me a lot like agile writhing under inquisitorial conditions, rather than anything to be stood up by itself as an argument, but I wouldn’t be shocked to be wrong.

    [Reply]

    Henk Reply:

    There’s more:

    https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lambdaconf-anyway-35ff8cd4fb9d

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    Thanks for that link. Fascinating.

    “Perhaps I overdosed. I don’t know. In any case, I reject IQism and everything it stands for. It disgusts me, the way racism disgusts you.” VS “Optimise for intelligence”.

    Seems more like a choice than a compromise to me.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    He later qualifies: IQ is necessary but not sufficient to rule well.

    And admin is probably right that the whole thing is tantamount to a forced confession and not worth a close analysis.

    Alex Reply:

    Yarvin:

    I stand with the cheerleaders and jocks (now housewives and plumbing contractors).

    Get that man a posting career.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    It’s possible to hold intelligence holy without thinking intelligence has anything to do with good grades.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 6:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Abelard Lindsey Says:

    The following comments about liberalism (I assume this is the Lockean classical liberalism he is referring to) by the Russian neoreactionary Dugin (I know who this guy is and I think he’s full of it):

    Liberalism affirms only the individual identity and prohibits any kind of collective or organic identities. Thus, step by step, liberalism refuses religion, nation, gender, and belongingness in general in order to set the individual completely free from any kind of holism.”

    are of course false. Individuals are free to associate with and engage in any kind of collective endeavors they want in a “liberal’ society. Classical liberalism prohibits only coerced participation in such endeavors. Making such false claims about classical liberalism simply illustrates the desire on the part of the persons making such a claim their desire to impose their collective endeavors on unwilling participants. I think we’ve had enough of this kind of crap throughout history.

    Robert Heinlein said it best. Politically, people divide into only two real categories. Those who want to control others and those who have no such desire. Classical liberalism was created for the second group. Am I to assume that this so-called “neoreaction” is intended for the first group? If so, what make you think I want anything to do with it at all?

    [Reply]

    Aristocles Invictus Reply:

    The logical or perhaps absurd conclusion of classical liberalism is a fully atomized individualism. This is the thing Dugin has a very large problem with, not so much classical liberalism but rather it’s consequence when left free reign. As Dugin outlines in the quote it is an incremental process, and it is quite certain the founders of liberalism had no suspicion that there ideas would lead to such dyscivic tendencies, but alas it seems they did.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 7:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Abelard Lindsey Says:

    I said it before and will say it again. The ONLY example of a successful “authoritarian” non-democratic system in modern history is Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore. There are ZERO other examples in existence. The neo-reaction people need to accept this reality. Unless these neo-reaction people propose some variant of Lew Kuan Yew’s system for the U.S. (or parts of Europe), this neo-reaction thing is a complete bogosity.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    The ONLY example of a successful “authoritarian” non-democratic system in modern history is Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore.

    How many others have been tried that were not tainted by liberalism?

    I’m not a fan of authoritarian systems. Aristocracy, yes; ideology, no.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Non-democratic capitalism is a more useful model. It built the whole of East Asia (and the West too, although not recently enough for us to remember).

    The Anglosphere’s non-democratic colonial governments (with Hong Kong as the crown jewel) provided far better administration than it’s increasingly democratic domestic governance. That’s the critical lesson. Whether there’s a practical way for core Anglosphere societies to learn from it is another, more challenging question. Massive preliminary secessionist upheaval (state fragmentation) looks like an essential precursor.

    NRx says: Democracy is death. One way the West could confirm the wisdom of that, would just be to die.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Did you see this im just beginning it and havnt gone through your links above yet but its tangential
    http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-great-ponzi-scheme-of-the-global-economy/

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    This is a valid argument and one I am sympathetic to, even if I do not agree with it.

    I do agree the only real solution to the world’s problems (which is more of a semi-solution in that I do not believe a perfect society is possible) is massive political fragmentation (decentralization on a massive, global scale). The problem with all political world-views, including neo-reaction, is the delusional belief in the one perfect system or world-view that is optimized for all human beings. Both liberals and religious people are obviously seduced by this delusion.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    From the De Jouvenalian position, Singapore is most definitely a democracy.

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    Democracy may not be necessary or useful, but there is simply no legitimate alternative to free-market capitalism and economic freedom, in general. Short of Eric Drexler’s nanotechnology, it is simply delusional to believe there is any successful alternative to free-market capitalism. Neo-reaction types have to accept this fundamental reality.

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    Singapore is essentially a one-party state. The PAP manages this by co-opting any position that grows in popularity in order to deny it as a basis for a significant political opposition. The PAP, and Lew Kuan Yew himself, are also fond of suing people for “defamation” of character as a political tool as well. I do not consider Singapore to be an example of multi-party democracy. In any case, if you do consider Singapore to be a democracy for the purposes of neo-reaction discussion, then I think it fair to say that there really is no useful alternative for democracy.

    [Reply]

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    @Abelard Lindsey “no legitimate alternative to [concept which no one defines in a single way] and [concept which no one defines in a single way]. Not very helpful.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    too much essentialism

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 7:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • ashv Says:

    @Abelard Lindsey
    Perhaps the only appropriate response to this is “lurk moar”, but yes — if you do a few minutes of research, you will find much appreciation for the Singaporean mode of governance here. Perhaps the best introduction is Moldbug’s thoughts on Secession, liberty, and dictatorship.

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    Perhaps, but the issue is not that democracy is indispensable. Francis Fukuyama accepted that democracy may not endure in the future. The reality is that free-market capitalism IS the MOST successful system ever invented by mankind and that it WELL endure into the endless future. There is simply no legitimate, useful alternative to free-market capitalism. It is silly for any neo-reaction type to refuse to accept this reality.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    If there’s no alternative to the free market, why don’t we have a free market now?

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 9:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    Talking nihilism

    “they say things like “happiness” is the absence of suffering”

    in hindu tradition this is exact definition of happiness, with few nuances. absence of suffering is only temporarily. they call earth Mrityu Loka place of death and suffering

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 28th, 2016 at 3:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Tentative Joiner Says:

    Admin, can you add a comment preview button or the ability to edit comments shortly after they are posted? I believe this is the plugin SSC uses for the latter.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’ll look at that when I get a chance.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 28th, 2016 at 11:57 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    as a result of this social ‘coertion’ of programmers and engineers we got computers and internet. social collective of idiots is coersive, because all they care is to define themself, an account of everybody else. also known as walk on the heads of others.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 28th, 2016 at 2:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    I’m done with Cichlimbar. From now on all his comments go straight into the trash. Apologies to anyone who valued his insights. You can probably find him at Stormfront.

    Ninety-nine comments chucked into the incinerator. By far the most brutal troll clearance massacre that’s ever taken place here. It felt good.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 28th, 2016 at 3:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Barnabas Says:

    When egalitarianism forbids a formal analysis or prescription of what it means to be a virtuous or superior man then such concepts will be forced underground and exhibit themselves as emotional and half-consciously formulated opinions. Of course a less intelligent man taking on and faithfully carrying out duties is superior to a high-IQ man who only feeds his appetites but who thinks about such things anymore?

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 28th, 2016 at 9:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Thank you!

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2016 at 1:57 am Reply | Quote
  • Xoth Says:

    “@OmegaVoyager i love feminism now”

    Poignant.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY

    “I love feminism now… we must include everybody… vote Hillary…”

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2016 at 9:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Two-bit Jester Says:

    (Apologies in advance.)

    How do different branches of NRx have their coffee?

    The throne and altar traditionalist’s wife brews black coffee for him in a pot, which he drinks at the family dinner table with her and their children.

    The ethno-nationalist makes himself coffee in a coffeemaker when getting ready for work — but only from the roasted beans he buys from his second cousin.

    The techno-commercialist applies transdermal patches of a synthetic caffeine analogue he ordered from a darknet market to help switch between his online contacts’ time zones.

    (The trespassing WN, of course, drinks instant.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 1st, 2016 at 12:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Abelard Lindsey Says:

    @ashvparasitism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 1st, 2016 at 7:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Son of Olorus Says:

    April 1st, 2016 at 4:28 am

    If there’s no alternative to the free market, why don’t we have a free market now?

    Grotesque body makes a succinct point here, any reading of a modern economics textbook such as one by john Beardshaw which I would recommend as an introductory text will inform you that the prevalent economic system of the west is that of mixed market economies were the public sector on average takes up 15 to 25% of the entire economy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_sector

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 4th, 2016 at 3:35 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment