Chaos Patch (#115)

(Open thread + links)

Property maps authority. Vampiric priors (and response). NRx will be eaten. Slippery slopes. Discretion. Only a new religion can save us (and ancient Chinese signaling spirals). The weekly round, plus outliers.

Atavistic illiberalism (cites). Generational war. Geek-nerd war. Resilient inequality. Militia make waves. Filter the electorate. Alt-Left back and forth. Christianity contra capitalism? Errors of the ENR. Marcuse and his backers.

Bubble skin.

Democracy in crisis (part n). Le Pen on the death of the EU. Israel heads right. A wide-angle view of Venezuela.

Trumpenführer panic report (0, 1). Red State hands over the keys. Statistical hits and misses.

Trouble in the Donkey camp (1, 2).

Twitter mayhem, left and right. Frog plague.

Uninformed economics. Recent natural selection in humans. A vanilla case for gene-editing (relevant). The deep roots of war. Humans aren’t cockroaches (when considered indiscriminately). The real demographic problem. How to avoid antibiotic apocalypse. Darwinian meta-ethics.

Cardwell’s Law. Google with chips. Persistent robot menace, but note: “I’m aware that these kinds of forecasts have been around for at least 200 years, from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and they never came true so far. It’s basically the boy who cried wolf … But in the original story of the boy who cried wolf, in the end, the wolf actually comes …” Pan-surveillance.

Thoughts on the Chinese typewriter.

World War Zero. Excavation of the unknown. A signal in the darkness?

May 22, 2016admin 33 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

33 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#115) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Chaos Patch (#115) […]

    Posted on May 22nd, 2016 at 3:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Filter the electorate? They keep trying to apply patches and hacks to democracy to make it work, but none of that matters because the nature of the method it uses to make decisions is guaranteed to produce insanity.

    Great list of links as usual. Time for a bit of afternoon tea, a fat cigar and perusal of this cornucopia of irritable atavism….


    wu-wei Reply:

    It’s the typical progressivist trap of being vaguely logically aware that democratic populism is inherently dangerous and unpredictable, while at the same time holding a near-religious devotion to that very same system.

    Note how the author implies his desired solution in expanding the indoctrination of civics classes in children’s public schools. Very typical. As if holding a greater understanding of the constitution (through which the original meaning has been thoroughly abrogated at this point anyway) will somehow lead to an improvement in democratic governance!


    michael Reply:

    The left isnt afraid of democracy because through the cathedral they control thought and so votes, they are afraid of losing control of the soapbox because people are not naturally leftists.Monkeys are highly attuned to lying cheating fairness etc.As long as the cathedral can distract them with other inbred instincts like status signalling, tribalism, theyre good to go.Democracy is not the problem not owning the cathedral is the problem.Feigning love of democracy is part of the show part of the brilliance of the cathedral system it lends plausible deniability after all whatever goes wrong you voted for it, If it goes right you brought home the bacon.If the vote occasionally goes wrong you can overturn it through a “democratically controlled process” so even though you voted against it you still voted for it, lets move on.The cathedral proves democracy is not the problem, if the mobs were naturally leftist they wouldnt need to control them cradle to grave. The cathedral is neutral but would work even more effectively for reaction because people lean that way,reality is that way and less control would be needed.
    Now the problem of democracy as bureaucracy is a different one. Owning the cathedral makes all things possible particularly good governance. Charter schools are essentially segregated diciplinary academies for niglets where govt union make work jobs for low IQ chimps are not allowed. But they line up to get a lottery ticket this could be done with almost all government until government almost ceases to exist. with no power and no money to be had in government monkey business will be productive private sector. Soon things like birth licences and crispr intervention, recolonization and population reduction of third world. will be needed the cathedral is indispensable for a smooth transition.


    Posted on May 22nd, 2016 at 7:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anon Says:

    McAfee: V -> E


    Posted on May 22nd, 2016 at 10:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    From the ( second ‘Donkey camp’ link:

    “…Hillary Clinton, although a prohibitive favorite…”

    Is Mr Wayne Allen Root illiterate or am I?


    Johan Schmidt Reply:

    Merriam-Webster reports the second definition of “prohibitive” as:

    “almost certain to perform, win, etc., in the expected way”

    which certainly tallies with what was in my head.


    Posted on May 22nd, 2016 at 11:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Carl Says:

    The Redstate article is just bizarre. The alt-right is simultaneously a tiny bunch of irrelevant troglodytes with no power whatsoever, writing at sites no one visits, a movement which not a single television, print, or radio pundit/personality identifies with……. and they’re also the new owners of the Republican party. This makes no sense. What the hell is the author talking about? WHO is he talking about? No names are mentioned. One day in 2016 the entire GOP is declared toast. The alt-right have pulled off a “hostile takeover.” The incredibly wealthy, historic, world-famous, established red half of the American duopoly, the party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Reagan, was taken over by some teenage shitlords posting dank memes at a National Review comment thread.

    Someone needs to be reminded that internet drama is not real life. OR IS IT?


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:



    Posted on May 23rd, 2016 at 1:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    “Mammon Ascendant”

    “To continue reading this article please subscribe for $19.95”



    Posted on May 23rd, 2016 at 4:38 am Reply | Quote
  • FOAM Says:

    er.. nothing about the largst crowdfund in history, an autonomous and decentralized venutre fund secured by code– the DAO on etheruem.. ?????

    Front page of the cathedral today. Shadow NrX to a T …

    Being ignored on XS on purpose or what?

    ‘A Venture Fund With Plenty of Virtual Capital, but No Capitalist’


    admin Reply:

    Apologies for the doziness.


    Posted on May 23rd, 2016 at 4:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    “All decisions will be made by votes of the people who buy in — using software — making it a sort of technology-enabled leaderless collective.”
    So it’s an investment fund in the style of twitch does pokemon in democracy mode. It’s automated democracy, hardly reactionary. In a democracy expert knowledge gets muffled by the mass, it’s decision making will exactly mirror the prevailing emotions of the market, rather than anticipate and exploit them. If the people heavily invested in such are on the whole better than average investors then it could work, but it would work even better in the traditional way of masses handing smart investors money to invest without telling them how to do their job.


    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    @aeroguy admin’s hawking of techno Whig democracy/republicanism off the back of Moldbug’s techno absolutism is quite interesting. Cries “no politics” whilst advocating pervasive technology augmented politics. Whigs never change.


    wu-wei Reply:

    Can I ask, how would you envision a regime administered through real secure power materializing itself in today’s world?


    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    I think it would be a lot simpler than is presumed. This goes back to Scientism’s normative/punitive/coercive regime analysis. Simple norms can secure leadership to a great degree, but modernity is based on a blindness to this. Everything must be a law or it simply isn’t “serious.” admin takes this further and claims it must be a self enforcing law or it simply isn’t “serious.” even though it is obvious in places like Venezuela that the law and the protocols (wider category in with law and code fall) are the problem.


    wu-wei Reply:

    As you’ve pointed out however, there are simply no secure power systems – or anything remotely approaching what might be considered a secure power system – which exists in the modern era. If it were still possible for secure power to exist, wouldn’t one imagine that through the arc of recent history, at least one such regime would remain? To me, this seems very suspicious.

    Isn’t it possible that technology has in some sense been the catalyst of this process? Yes, this is essentially historical materialism – running very close to an essentially Whig historical view. Or perhaps it’s not technology, but some other “hidden force”. But whatever this force is, if it didn’t exist, I think we would expect there to be at least one truly secure power center – one with no internal division or competition – which could be found existing in the world today.

    The fact that no such regime exists suggests to me that this “hidden force” does exist, and actively prevents secure power from materializing. I think it suggests that applying a “societal norms” strategy toward this end is very difficult at best, and simply not practical at worst. At least, it hasn’t been so far; if anything, virtually all regimes today have been moving in the opposite direction, toward social decadence (some faster than others).

    (Also, I’m not really sure how advocating for “societal norms” as a potential solution is much different from your castigation of various NRx blogs for “platform building”, as you once put it.)

    However, is it possible to imagine that some future technology could change the very nature of the analysis? There is no particular reason to assume that technology must only facilitate the centralization of insecure power centers. Perhaps it could alter the very paradigm altogether.

    For example, consider that the Jouvenel mechanism (high-low-middle) only makes sense in the context of appropriation of property (including one’s very life), or through the implied threat of appropriation of property. Property is power; without the advantage of being able to affect certain aspects of the world around you – therefore defined in some sense as your property – the very concept of power is meaningless.

    Supposing, hypothetically, there was some technology which tied ownership of property to the individual in such a way which rendered the “low” (the mob) obsolete. In other words, the “high” had no incentive to utilize the “low” against the “middle”, because there was nothing to gain, or perhaps the threat of retaliation made any such advance undesirable. Under this paradigm, the process of continual centralization of insecure power halts entirely, and perhaps even reverses.

    This would be true sovereign (primary) property, secured to the individual. Not as a matter of any nominal “law” or “code”, but in the very real physical sense of real-world power dynamics. Ultimately, this is the very plausible direction that cryptography and personal drone armies might take us.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Technology is our Faustian pact.

    michael Reply:

    its called the AR15

    wu-wei Reply:

    Unfortunately, the AR15 also assists the usage of power centers in utilizing the masses in its service. More or less, its called conscription, or patriotism. A mob with guns is a very useful mob indeed.

    Chris B Reply:

    @Aeroguy @ Wu wei
    Lots of questions. First point, businesses and any functioning organisation sub state is secure in the sense that authority rolls down, are they not? Also, there were prior examples, such as colonial administration and the like. As for what prevents this occurring on the state level, that is an interesting thing which me and scientism have been exploring. A good case example is British idealism. Around the end of the 19th C and shortly after, idealism was a thing in British philosophy, influenced interestingly enough by Carlyle. Idealism in rejection a division between observer and observed gives rise to political conception in which society is interconnected and the greater society in which men live is thing that is vital. The details I do not agree with, but you can see that such a thing would lead away from positivism, liberalism and empiricism. This is what happened with Gentile, and what looks to have been happening with British idealism. But then it was refuted completely by analytic philosophers such as Moore and Russel etc, and empiricism ruled the roost again….except it wasn’t. It wasn’t refuted. All that happened was empiricists took over key positions and then just…closed it down. As this review of a book notes of the decline of idealism: “A gradual ‘sociology of philosophy’ began to take effect in terms of appointments to key chairs in philosophy and a subtle gate-keeping exercise on teaching, journals and book publications.” (
    This same thing happened throughout all of society, and it derives directly from the anglo-american elite. You just have to read the stuff that came out of them, and which they still do. They are like liberal zombies that just converge on anything that smells of non-liberalism. They starve it, they hose empiricism and liberalism’s competitors with money, and they shut it down. Correctness is not the criteria for success – money is.
    As for technology and drastic individual sovereignty occasioned by widespread deterrence, I keep hearing this type of argument, and I keep wanting to just dismiss it as barking mad. Just like the entirety of liberalism, but I think that would be the easy option. I will try a different approach. Firstly, it is premised on liberal anthropology. Admin know this, hence his constant invocation of Hobbes. Hobbes is full of shit. The whole premise that the likes of Hobbes (and Descartes, and everyone else after him) work from is that man is not a social animal at all, but a rationalizing entity. As such, you have these outlandish theories, such as social contract theory, to try and explain how this rational being, who can be cut off from everything, would stay in society. It makes no sense. It is a premise which flies in the face of simple observation, which is interesting given the premises of the “empirical” philosophy which liberal adhere to. But again, coherence is not a driving forces with liberalism.
    It never has to face its flaws and silliness, because, as I have pointed out, it has been pumped out by power, for power needs.
    As for norms governance, norms are exceptionally powerful, and society can function on norms. In fact, even when law is pervasive, norms are still central. They are engaged to compensate for the chaos created by ‘rule by law/ protocol’ in perverse fashion, at which point they are blamed and “rule by law” is absolved. It is a neat mechanism. Just like with Venezuela. Law has created that mess, but does anyone pin the blame on it? But this can only be seen without the liberal anthropology, because then you can see that the vast majority of human interaction is unconscious and pre-rational. Liberalism can’t process this. It denies this. We all work from conscious rational action remember? hence the social contract.
    To make it worse, the ability of people to act in an autonomous fashion is subject to social and psychological constraints that are part of what we are. Why does a Dr with complete control over your life treat you and not kill you? Law? Rational calculation based on pay? Really? The same with soldiers. What stops them just shooting the sergeants etc.? So we get to distributed deterrence. You really think giving Peter Thiel a nuke would get him to set up a “Dr Gno” island? Please. Just look at that Macafree guy. What did he do when he exited to Belize? He started engaging with society, and that is what all those guys do, and they pump their money into stupid shit, just study them. They don’t go Ayn Rand. That is stupid. You only get to that conclusion by refusing to factor in observable behaviour, and instead sticking to building a conclusion on liberal anthropology.


    admin Reply:

    Universalizing illiberal anthropology is a trap. How many Dr Gnos do you think we need? A number well within the bounds of statistical anomaly.


    wu-wei Reply:

    I don’t actually deny that social norms can produce a system of secure, downward-flowing authority, I just observe that no such sovereign seems to exist today, and I doubt that this is a coincidence or fluke of history. I agree that without social norms – or something that could operate as a functional equivalent – law is meaningless; power cannot be constrained with ink on a piece of paper, even if you call it a constitution. However, I see technology as potentially being that functional equivalent; it may never completely replace social norms in the functional creation of secure power, but I believe that it can supplement it, and it may be a necessary prerequisite toward this end.

    Consider that today, for a secure power center which acts as a sovereign state, bounded together through societal norms, the nukes aren’t optional. In the modern world, a sovereign simply cannot be secure without a sufficient nuclear deterrent. So obviously at least in this sense, technology does matter.

    The thing about the trend of technology is that it’s largely unpredictable. I think it highly unlikely that the trend of technology will produce a true an-cap libertarian utopia, but it’s not unlikely that it could facilitate the creation of Moldbuggian Patchwork. If neither of these, then at least it seems intuitive to me that some future technology is a prerequisite for the creation of a secure state, given that none seem to exist today. Otherwise, as you point out, the Cathedral will strangle your hypothetical idealism while nascent. Again, such a state will (most likely) ultimately be held together by some sort of idealism as you describe; technology is the potential supplement to this end. Without this hypothetical future technology, I fear that “idealism” is just that; endless cycles Brezhnevization followed by anarchic collapse awaits us all.


    Posted on May 23rd, 2016 at 5:36 am Reply | Quote
  • wu-wei Says:

    I fail to see how the “alt-left”, as the author of that blog defines it, is any different from run-of-the-mill socialist-flavored white supremacy. You can call yourself part of the “left”, but if everyone else thinks of you as being right-wing, what’s the point?

    The NSDAP may have had the word “socialist” as well, but at least as far as I know the European fascist movements of the 1930s were never considered by anyone to be anything other than a deviant right-wing populist phenomenon. The alt-left seems to be in roughly the same category.


    Ahote Reply:

    >anything other than a deviant right-wing populist phenomenon

    Au contraire. Before WWII began everyone and their aunt around the world celebrated Hitler and Mussolini as Progressive heroes, many a Western left-wing intellectual of the day praised Fascism and Nazism. When Mussolini wrote of 20th century that “…it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism” he couldn’t have fathomed how true those words were.


    wu-wei Reply:

    Well, before Mussolini was a fascist, he had legitimate connections to international socialism, so it’s not surprising that some may have temporarily seen him as such. But of course in the end he abandoned the the latter for the former. That’s kind of the point though: Mussolini describing fascism as “leftist” is really no different than Hitler describing the Nazi party as “socialist”. Both are intuitively absurd with respect to the overton window, both then and now.

    Certainly very, very few saw fascism as left wing after 1938, and contra Jonah Goldberg, I’m skeptical that many saw it that way after about 1933 either. Perhaps I’m wrong about this, but either way, the fascist movements were shortly placed firmly on the left, and stayed there.


    wu-wei Reply:

    fascist movements were shortly placed firmly on the left, and stayed there.

    durrr, obviously I meant that “Fascist movements were shortly placed firmly on the right, and stayed there.

    Need my morning coffee.


    Posted on May 23rd, 2016 at 9:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Tentative Joiner Says:

    A recent chaos patch generated a lively discussion of cyberpunk — and, of course, XS-vision is always augmented with a lurking shadow of Lovecraft.

    I’d like to ask, then, what are XS readers’ favorite works of fiction?


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    The social contract.


    Tentative Joiner Reply:

    Good pick. Even though it was written in the mid-18th century, the prospective reader should not dismiss it as an “old book”. It has been an especially appropriate read for citizens of all ages since a fearless anthropologist cleared the author’s name of the accusation of inventing the “noble savage”, once again proving that the philosopher was ahead of his time.


    Posted on May 23rd, 2016 at 12:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    Google with chips.

    evolution of hardware used by AI goes the same way as it happed with bitcoin mining.

    1. CPU (central processing unit)
    2. GPU – video cards, speed avr 500 kh/s
    3. FPGA field-programmable gate array 400mgh/s
    4. ASIC Application-specific integrated circuit 4,860,000 mgh/s

    in FPGA software written directly into chip memory, shorter distance higher speed, in case of ASIC chip architecture of chip itself is software.

    till reently, only video cards have been used in AI. now Microsoft ‘deploys’ FPGA. And Google got ASIC. on photo we can see PCB (printed corcuit board) with alluminium heatsink, under tis sink ASIC chips, around 16, judging by size of the board.

    this comparission can lead to interesting conclusion: entry point into AI (asic based) business is very low. if Chinies student by using crowdfunding from bitcointalk used was able to put first asics into mining, then anybody with little more resources can do the same in AI. we can expect some seriouse proliferation of different AIs in service to humanity verra soon.


    Posted on May 23rd, 2016 at 1:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • jack arcalon Says:

    Given these world demographic trends, and in light of what happened in Rwanda/Burundi 22 years ago when the teeming hillside farmers ran out of hillside, I would except genocides and refugee flows in southern Africa and Nigeria that will make the current Immivasion seem like a Jeb Bush rally.


    Posted on May 24th, 2016 at 11:40 am Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    My immediate reaction to Darwinian meta-ethics is sourly noting that my precedent won’t be credited.
    Almost as immediate, they’re on the right track but haven’t quite got it right:

    To put this point another way, one could argue that I’ve arbitrarily chosen to believe that human survival is “good,” but such an argument has all the intellectual force of saying that I’ve arbitrarily declared that eating arsenic is poisonous to humans.

    Explaining why this is wrong is like having to explain algebra to someone who wants to take set theory courses.
    On the plus side, I’ve successfully anticipated all the issues they brought up. I would have had to go for re-writing if they had considered an issue I hadn’t.

    Ultimately, though, I wonder what the civilized response is, given the above facts. I fear that, in this case, it is to remain silent. The back of scholarship is broken already. Paralysis has set in, and nothing short of a miracle will revive it.


    Posted on May 24th, 2016 at 5:51 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment