Chaos Patch (#120)

(Open thread + links)

Yarvin on the DAO. No enemies to the right. “Don’t react moralistically to ideas about society.” The weekly round, plus outliers.

The US gun control conundrum. Thoughts on corruption. Academic Stalinism watch. White inertia and insubordination. The death of romance.

What is Xi doing? The Venezuelan apocalypse controversy.

Brexit panic report (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Brexit analysis (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). In crisis, opportunity (plus Becker reference), also. Contagion (plus), and its limits (note). Domestic political fallout. Jim comments (1, 2). Zizek and Walt comment. “A Brexit would deprive the Dutch of an important ally in their desire to reduce the European Union to a simple business venture. But this extremely narrow conception of the purpose of pan-European cooperation is exactly why the EU might, contrary to most popular opinion, benefit from a Brexit. The United Kingdom didn’t join and stay inside the EU to make something of it, but rather, to prevent others from making something of it.”

Trumpenführer panic report (1, 2, 3).

Thiel untoppled at Facebook.

Race and racism. Intelligence and childlessness. The world’s multicultural control group. Parental effects.

Climate contrarianism. The Gambler’s Fallacy. Six millennia of graphic urbanization (reference). Michael Herr on Stanley Kubrick. Hunting humans

June 28, 2016admin 81 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Chaos

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

81 Responses to this entry

  • Ahote Says:

    The Achievements of Guglielmo Ferrero great Italian historian, and an intellectual giant in overall. His observations were astounding, his predictions even more so.

    The French étatisme tradition, or the French Revolution represented not a triumph of the bourgeoisie, but metastasis of the centralized state.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2016 at 4:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The smell of fear is in the air.

    Interesting to watch how there was never a plan B for the Left.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Plan B is just rinse and repeat

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2016 at 4:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tentative Joiner Says:

    Calvinist samurai:

    Bushido: The Soul of Japan represents a synthesis of Japanese culture with Western ideology. Nitobe tames Japan’s samurai class by fusing it with European chivalry and Christian morality. “I wanted to show…” Nitobe admitted, “that the Japanese are not really so different (from people of the West)”.

    [Reply]

    scientism Reply:

    “Instead, the student of English literature relies on Western works and personalities to explain the bushido’s principals. Nitobe quotes the likes of Mencius … sources that that have no connection to Japan’s history or culture.”

    Hard to take this seriously.

    [Reply]

    Severian Reply:

    WE WUZ SAMURAI N SHIEEEET!

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Japanese emphasizing their similarities with the West (someone, unlike myself, who’s actually been to Japan might be able to better assess whether there are any) in order to differentiate themselves from their Chinese and Korean cousins, a shared heritage they are hypersensitive about.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2016 at 4:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Apatheos Says:

    How to apply a frame for dialogue on independence, where survival competency is social Darwinian, where invisible hands collapse consensus, and our Tradition’s military operability secures a position?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2016 at 9:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lucian Says:

    Stanley Kubrick was right about almost everything.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    “Son all Ive ever asked of my men is that they obey my orders as if they were the word of God. We are here helping the Vietnamese because inside every Gook is an American trying to get out.”

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    I bet Musk decides to build fighter planes at space X

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2016 at 9:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Thanks for the Kubrick bio. I’d never read anything about him. Didn’t even know he was ((())).

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    [[[LOL}}}

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2016 at 10:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Marxist toady Says:

    I’d definitely be interested to hear any extended thoughts admin has about Kubrick.

    (Also still waiting for more on Milton…)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 12:33 am Reply | Quote
  • R. J. Moore II Says:

    I think that ‘right’ is a circumstance of popular government, and not a real ‘tendency’, since it’s positional. Also the ‘spectrum’ is bullshit, ideologies & values are a complex of interrelated propositions and attitudes, not data that can be computed as ‘more’ or ‘less’ rightist, leftist, etc. You can’t make any quantitative analysis of qualitative differences. Verstehen is the appropriate method for analyzing particular propositions. Look at hovv ill-suited ANY ‘compass’ vvould be for anyone on the NRx, b/c vve reject not only the goals but also the conceptual framevvork of the people that vvrote them.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Prohibition of qualitative judgements is autistic, but so is prohibition of quantitative ones.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Given everything the Donut theory of the political spectrum is probably the correct one.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    when identifiers are obscured, objectives complex and dynamic and only rational proposition – very couterintuitive one, method of analysis we prefer to use still matter. generalising imo would be definitely leftist one. journalists do it all the time.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 1:25 am Reply | Quote
  • wu-wei Says:

    That Scott Adams gun-control post is positively exquisite:

    So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats.

    This has the stylish and elegant death-punch of Moldbugs famous: “America is a communist country, for peasants and workers – meaning, blacks and hispanics”.

    Love it.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Yeah hes SWIFTLY becoming deadly

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 2:02 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    ROCHESTER, N.Y. – Students at one New York college are taking to social media to tackle terrorism.

    A team of Rochester Institute of Technology students came up with the winning idea for a U.S. State Department contest seeking ways to counter terrorist propaganda online.

    The RIT team developed a social media campaign called “It’s Time: ExOut Extremism.” Working with Rochester’s Muslim community, the students created a logo, website, social media and events to raise awareness on campus and in the community.

    see all you need is tech

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 5:34 am Reply | Quote
  • Ahote Says:

    Chris finally comes out of the closet as Fascist. Mussolini would be proud compagno. Compagno Chris doesn’t get that industrialization simply for the sake of industrialization isn’t only worth nothing, it has a negative value because it destroys the capital on massive scale, it’s just gross malinvestment (Stalin anyone?)

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think he’s actually advocating a top-down, centrally planned economy a la Stalin; rather, that if the power structure were properly formalized, policy could have been coherently shifted away from feudal-agrarianism, and towards modern (non-interventionist) industrialism; but without the needless friction and power struggles – violence, riots, and strikes – which accompanied it.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    No, he most certainly does NOT advocate *non-interventionist* industrialism. He seems pretty neutral on industrialism actually, but likes interventionism for its own sake, because muh Carlyle, to rule is to micromanage everything, not to let go, not being totalitarian is libruhliszm (though his mouth is full of de Tocqueville and de Jouvenel, liberals both, and not of the most conservative kind either).
    |sarcasm| Besides, what you say makes sense, so it’s clearly not what Chris claims. |/sarcasm|

    I’ll just go ahead and say it, [Classical] Liberalism >> [Romantic] Reaction, Thomas Carlyle has got nothing on Gugliermo Ferrero, Joseph de Maistre has nothing on Gustave de Molinari. Compared to the liberal ones, reactionary writings are like babblings of ignorant children, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding. Well, if you don’t understand the Dismal Science, guess what? You don’t get to comment on it.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    You should definitely read those two posts again, more slowly this time, so the point won’t fly twenty thousand leagues over your head. They weren’t even about economic matters per se (let alone an argument about interventionism vs non-interventionism), but the employment of economics as a tool for grabbing more power and changing the social milieu.

    Ahote Reply:

    @holipopiloh

    You should engage Chris B a little more. He’ll not be slow to reveal that sovereign ought to control not just economics, but everything else too. Dat writing style doe, his posts are so full of crap that you have to get neck-deep in shit in order to extract intended information.

    pedanticmoron Reply:

    One of my biggest pet peeves is when people involved with NRx/the Alt-Right/the dissident right in general talk about “social sciences” in general or economics in particular and wave it all off as a bunch of leftist propaganda. They generally do this while also using economic concepts (signalling, RatEx, etc) without knowing where they come from. Moldbug, as much as I prefer him to any other dissident right figure (admin included, sorry admin), is as guilty of this as anyone else. Yes there are plenty of Levitts and Duflos, but meaningless cuteonomics and dumb progressive propaganda are in the minority when looking at top journals.

    Also, I view RF as promoting Tory/German/Hamiltonian style paternalism/industrial policy rather than fascist style economic planning.

    admin Reply:

    NRx is Moldbuggianism. Apology is wholly superfluous.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    No, Ahote. The problem is your reading skills. Others (besides me) seem to have identified the topic just fine. Chris B even begins the post with “Is there such a thing as a deep state?”. How you arrived at the conclusion that he is discussing the economic merits of the whole hubbub then is beyond me.

    (And you complaining about the writing style here is way out of left field, given how Land is thrice as opaque.)

    @pedanticmoron

    I’ll let Nassim Taleb field that one.

    (As for what RF promotes, I don’t remember him ever discussing economics in and of itself, other than claiming that it’s not worth discussing, so I have no idea about that.)

    Ahote Reply:

    >even begins the post with “Is there such a thing as a deep state?”

    Yes well, that’s exactly the problem. He appears more interesting in deconstructing whatever he thinks ‘liberalism’ is than about actual analysis of power… or the merits of the produced outcomes.

    >How you arrived at the conclusion that he is discussing the economic merits of the whole hubbub then is beyond me.

    He and I have a history of tooth and nail on the topic. I know what he implies.

    >And you complaining about the writing style here is way out of left field, given how Land is thrice as opaque.

    Land is artistically opaque, Chris is retarded. He cannot for the life of him write a sentence that doesn’t somehow call for lynching of ‘liberals’ (whatever this phantom menace* of ‘liberalism’ may be).

    * no reactionary has been able, so far, to answer me when I asked for the definition of ‘liberalism’; it appears to serve the same purpose for reactionaries that the word ‘fascism’ serves for Communists.

    pedanticmoron Reply:

    @holipopiloh

    That’s a nice link, but it’s not addressing anything I’ve said. He says that a lot of economics is dumb, I’m also saying that a lot of economics is dumb (in fact him and I tend to agree on what’s dumb and why most of the time). Nobody with a lick of sense, not even Taleb, would go to the lengths that you see a lot of dissident right bloggers go when denouncing economics. What makes it even more ridiculous is writing the whole field off as useless propaganda or self-serving academic nonsense or whatever while using concepts developed by economists, it’s just absurd on face value.

    wu-wei Reply:

    @Ahote

    ReactionaryFuture seems to take a fundamentally Platonic view of state-and-society, so when he writes:

    “That the concept of free trade and lassiaz faire is credited with the fruits of industrialization, when it (industrialization) is clearly the result of governmental centralization and active policy (including active non-intervention) is curious.”

    I interpreted that to mean that if a Fnargl-like god-king opts for [classical-liberal, non-interventionist economic policy], the sovereign is still in fact imposing his rule, and is thus still imposing “active policy”. In other words, all economic decisions run through the state, in a philosophical sense. Whether the sovereign chooses to run state-and-society as a sort of Moldbuggian-Formalist real-estate company, opting for “rational” and (mostly) non-interventionist policy, and taxing at the Laffer-curve; or chooses to micro-manage everything into oblivion and ruin; he is still imposing his rule equivalently, either way (although certainly we would hope for the former!)

    However, you seem to have actually corresponded with him, and if he really is explicitly advocating absolute dirigism, then that is rather profoundly ironic, and certainly un-Moldbuggian. He does seem to praise Mussolini a bit much for my taste…

    wu-wei Reply:

    @pedanticmoron

    Ah, but you see, if we just ban maturity transformation upon threat of capital punishment, and then hold the monetary base constant forevermore, then…! /sarcasm

    Ahote Reply:

    >However, you seem to have actually corresponded with him, and if he really is explicitly advocating absolute dirigism, then that is rather profoundly ironic, and certainly un-Moldbuggian. He does seem to praise Mussolini a bit much for my taste…

    It seems he considers free market insecure because capital-owners can pursue their own interests, so the only way to get out of that “predicament” is to have state capitalism. Ironically, he seems to have become a hard determinist, despite denouncing determinism. But as Cathedral shows us, you don’t have to use ham-fisted brute force approach, just control religion and culture, and every business will prostrate before you (they’ll even honestly believe it).

    >To me, this seems a reasonable enough definition, and is certainly sufficiently Moldbuggian.

    But according to that definition, even reactionaries such as de Maistre are liberals. There’s two choices, either you can have a competition of states, and the ability to vote with your feet (hence Patchwork) or you have super states, which are, for all intents and purposes, monopoly service providers and thus need checks and restraints to prevent tyranny (Fnargl is just a though experiment, and BTW there’s no guarantee that he would run a libertarian government, though he would be inclined to).
    Second problem is that his absolute ownership over the state by a sovereign is anarcho-capitalism, even though he doesn’t recognize it. As any ancap will tell you, if someone were to own a huge chunk of land, because property is absolute, his word is the law of the land. Anarcho-capitalism is combination of the two above solutions to tyranny, it’s Patchwork and absolute sovereignty at the same time. Problem is how would it work? Why would your property be secure? Even if you ran your property as Fascist government, it would still be insecure, both from the inside and out. Another irony, in his running away from liberalism Chris has become an anarcho-capitalist.

    Religion, laws, customs, opinion, and class and corporate privileges restrain the sovereign and prevent him from abusing his power.
    – Joseph de Maistre

    admin Reply:

    Fnargl would be an entropy sink, so mad dysfunctional evil would be more probable. The lunatic idea that functional rationality can exist without a selection mechanism is an example of radical intellectual immaturity.

    wu-wei Reply:

    @Ahote,

    But as Cathedral shows us, you don’t have to use ham-fisted brute force approach, just control religion and culture, and every business will prostrate before you (they’ll even honestly believe it).

    The difference being, the Cathedral is a fundamentally incoherent power structure, with an incoherent decision making process – it is thus incapable of making coherent policy. When it does make rational policy, it should probably be ascribed to serendipity, if nothing else.

    But according to that definition, even reactionaries such as de Maistre are liberals.

    I’m obviously playing the intellectual-turing-test game with respect to ReactionaryFuture, so I don’t necessarily disagree with what you say here, particularly about the proximity to anarcho-capitalism. For whatever its worth, I seriously doubt Moldbug would have gone as far with the concept as RF does, even though he (Moldbug) clearly understood that imperium in imperio was the fundamental engineering obstacle (and he addressed it as such quite decisively).

    Problem is how would it work? Why would your property be secure? Even if you ran your property as Fascist government, it would still be insecure, both from the inside and out. Another irony, in his running away from liberalism Chris has become an anarcho-capitalist.

    This is why, in my opinion, praying for a king to ascend the throne and take charge is not practically different from misguided appeals toward checks-and-balances. I’ve said it before here: the answer must be in some as-yet undiscovered material technology. Moldbug once had a (purposefully extremely vague) metaphor for the concept: the “antiversity”. You can call it ridiculous, fantastical science-fiction if you want, but I really don’t see any alternative to inevitable, inexorable republicanism. And we already know with fairly good historical certainty what a king inevitably leads toward: revolution, and yet more republicanism. (At least, a king without the supporting power of an “antiversity”).

    Ahote Reply:

    >Anarcho-capitalism is combination of the two above solutions to tyranny, it’s Patchwork and absolute sovereignty at the same time.

    Please pardon me, a mistake. While anarcho-capitalism is a combination of Patchwork and absolute sovereignty, it’s the original, Molbuggian, Patchwork that’s the combination of two solutions to tyranny, checks-and-balances of SovCorp with the competition of states / voting with feet. So, early Moldbug was more liberal than Rothbard…

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    The “checks-and-balances” of Moldbug’s original formulation were physical though, tied to cryptographic technologies. In other words, they were hypothetical physical restraints on a hypothetical real-world power structure, acknowledging that political power flows from the barrel of a gun. That is a fundamentally different from the sort of vague “checks-and-balances” derived from constitutionalism and republicanism, which are really nothing more than an implicit (and fundamentally unenforceable) social contract.

    wu-wei Reply:

    @Ahote:

    * no reactionary has been able, so far, to answer me when I asked for the definition of ‘liberalism’; it appears to serve the same purpose for reactionaries that the word ‘fascism’ serves for Communists.

    ReactionaryFuture appears to use liberalism/communism/republicanism all as essentially synonyms for one another, defining them as a belief in a political power structure which can be systemically constrained through constitutionalism or checks-and-balances or other legal formalities etc., which he regards as a simple solecism; a fundamental and fallacious rejection of Moldbug’s “sovereignty is conserved”.

    To me, this seems a reasonable enough definition, and is certainly sufficiently Moldbuggian. I suppose one could criticize it for being too absurdly broad, as to make the distinction between communism and classical liberalism a moot point; but then, that sort of fits with the whole shtick of ReactionaryFuture’s blogging “style” :^)

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    ” I suppose one could criticize it for being too absurdly broad, as to make the distinction between communism and classical liberalism a moot point;” not sure there is much real difference. Both whine about free trade, “muh oppression” of the workers and class warfare. Researching the anti-corn law movement is giving me an appreciation for the origins of communism, modern “anti-communism” is a joke. Classical Liberalism is pretty rank. They were basically the BLM of the day. If that is the solid ground to reason from, then you are screwed.

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    @admin,

    Fnargl would be an entropy sink, so mad dysfunctional evil would be more probable. The lunatic idea that functional rationality can exist without a selection mechanism is an example of radical intellectual immaturity.

    Perhaps, but I always interpreted Moldbug as writing extensively from the inverse point of view: that is, finding an engineering solution toward mitigating our current selection mechanism, which seemingly selects for irrational and morbid policy (and appears to metastasize across the entire planet, to even worse effect).

    Much of the 20th century was spent taking mediocre dictatorships and monarchies, with crappy selection-mechanisms, and replacing them with horrific third-world-democracies attached to ruinous selection-mechanisms.

    It’s not absolute power that corrupts; it’s the power vacuum that does it.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Absence of competition corrupts. Eras of fragmentation (early Renaissance in Europe, Warring States period in China) are Golden Ages of cultural advance.

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    Isn’t unrestrained democracy the ultimate form of competition in this sense? Well, one can’t deny that there has been a bountiful and diverse panoply of art, science, and literature which coincided with the Renaissance and post-Enlightenment…

    Take the concept too far however, and perhaps find that you have… taken too great of a leap forward…?

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Political fragmentation in Europe (mainly in Spain, northern Italy and the HRE) precedes the Renaissance by centuries. During the same period, the French and Austrians were consolidating their power.

    The trend you purport doesn’t exist.

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Dividualist Says:

    What makes Yarvin’s writing always a bit strange is that he does not use the connotations of words the usual way. When he writes forking is illegitimate and miners don’t have a right to it, it sounds like saying it is bad, it is wrong, don’t do it. So it is a surprise that then he says it is OK as long as it is an act of war against a pirate, not an act of law. For him illegitimate and “no right to it” does not mean wrong – it seems he accepts that extralegal, illegitimate action can be “okay”. But it is really strange, because usually “illegitimate” means “not okay”. Did the legal scholars of the past really contrast acts of war against acts of law, did they consider wars illegitimate and yet “okay”? I thought there was such a thing as legitimate, lawful, just war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory illegitimate wars, *war crimes*, breaking the Laws of War was a specific subset of war, not all war was considered illegitimate?

    Schmitt wrote not only that the sovereign decides the exception but also that the sovereign defines who is the enemy i.e. the sovereign decides on war. Does that mean that the sovereign, who is per definition above law – because he decides the exception to law – by committing the sovereign action of deciding on war, does he automatically act extralegal, illegitimately, and thus war is automatically so?

    I feel like there is a theory behind all this, and not Yarvin’s but older, but this theory is not widely known. Ask 100 oldschool conservatives and 99 will say illegitimate means “not okay”…

    I mean, calling a king illegitimate – an usurper who did not inherit he throne lawfully – did not imply that he shoul d not be obeyed and ideally toppled? And how does even monarchist legitimist theory even work, if the king as sovereign per definition can act illegitimately, why does he have to inherit he throne legitimately?

    Somehow this all does not come together in my head.

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    Moldbug also suggested that people should vote in the direction most likely to win – meaning, whatever lefty/universalist/establishment-globalist was currently running for POTUS, for example.

    It seems like a confusing entanglement of contradictions, until you accept that ultimately, Might really does make Right. If Might can overcome your constitution (or whatever other legal formalities), too bad for your constitution – it is illegitimate with respect to nature.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    exactly Moldbug is always pointing out right is subjective power is absolute

    [Reply]

    Nathan Cook Reply:

    You are etymologically correct; I checked “illegitimate” in the OED and it has never had a positive nor even a neutral connotation. The word I’d have used would have been “extralegal”.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:06 am Reply | Quote
  • Dividualist Says:

    @Ahote Ctrl+F “fronde” nothing found… how comes people try to interpret the French Rev without looking at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fronde ?

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Why would they? The article was about mercantilist mismanagement of economy that was only exacerbated by the revolutionaries. Besides, the LaWik article says it in opening, in the semi-final sentence “The long-term result was to strengthen Royal authority, but to weaken the economy.”

    As for the Fronde, it was quite obvious that the establishment of absolutism will eventually lead to the Revolution (revolutions happened in absolutist countries, France and Russia, where the throne lost support of the nobility). Monarchs were too greedy and power-hungry for their own good.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:08 am Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    from Jim’s blog:

    “Supposedly, if the British voted for exit, the government would immediately invoke article 50 – would give notice that Britain was resigning from the EU. That is what the prime Minister told them.

    Well, the British voted for exit, and surprise, surprise, the government is not invoking article 50. The prime minister lied.”

    It looks like the stock market agrees with him…

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Pray tell, how? It’s much more likely that the post-referendum drop was due to pre-vote speculation.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Its worse its looking like the brexit will be in name only the EU is going to insist if they want trade they must have open borders.

    Sailor has a piece on the Disney Zootopia scandal. The movie apparently started out as a clockwork orange animation [speaking of Kubrick]. But then massive changes [leaked] changed it to a more disney like movie. Elements cut were of predator animals submitting to wearing emotion triggered shock collars as a condition of citizenship.
    Its telling that Disney could have begun such a movie and the scandal will certainly get around the right places to make elites confront reality a bit.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 9:15 am Reply | Quote
  • Aristocles Invictvs Says:

    Satoshi Kanazawa – Intelligence and childlesness, full PDF: https://ln.steamy.moe/cumkgm.pdf

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 11:04 am Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    @holipopiloh

    Hope you’re right, and that’s all it is.

    I thought Brexit might be the pin that would burst the stock market bubble.

    But I have to stop reading ZeroHedge…

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    As long as they are kicking the can via monetary policy it shouldn’t burst.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 12:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Cryptogenic Says:

    “Ranking groups is a pointless and meaningless exercise, and we concur that it can produce tremendous harm.”

    Because recognizing patterns in the world around you leads directly to concentration camps as everybody knows.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 2:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • cyborg_nomade Says:

    in his lair in California, Yarvin lies dreaming

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/28/its-time-for-the-elites-to-rise-up-against-ignorant-masses-trump-2016-brexit/

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 3:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    LONDON (Reuters) – Britain’s FTSE 100 erased all its post-Brexit losses on Wednesday fuelled by a late afternoon surge led by energy and financials shares.

    “Disintegration – I’m taking it in stride.” (American Psycho)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    Istanbul Airport bombing steals headline from Benghazi / CIA commission report

    Yawn.

    You can always count on “ISIS” to strike at the most opportune moment for Western interests. This is a pattern that has been well established in recent “ISIS” history.

    When the US started losing control of its puppet regime in war-torn Libya and the people started rising up to kick corrupt cronies out, “ISIS” suddenly showed up and provided all the justification that was needed to start bombing again.

    Coincidence?

    When globalist interests wanted Japan to tear-up their peace constitution making way for Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, “ISIS” decided to make a ridiculous beheading video featuring Hapless Haruna which was so badly Photoshoped, not only did Fox News have to admit it was a fake, but the Japanese people started up a bad Photoshop contest making fun of the “news’ story.

    And so on…

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    Read the Kubrick essay, and it’s kind of interesting.

    But spending all day on the phone like that? Three to Seven hour phone conversations? Talk talk talk talk….And sending people 800 page books to read…didja read it yet? didja, didja… so we can talk about it on the phone for seven hours, well didja?

    Jesus H. Christ, how about shut the fuck up for a change and let’s have some peace and quiet around here!

    “I once traveled with a guide who was taking me to Faya. He didn’t speak for nine hours. At the end of it he pointed to the horizon and said, Faya!

    That was a good day…”

    – Count Laszlo de Almásy

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 9:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    Sidenote: Concerning the attack in Istanbul

    Immediately after the attack, the internet was flooded with quite a few witness videos, including a direct shot of the first blast, a direct shot of a terrorist being shot by an officer who blows himself up while on the ground, armed men with no bullet proof vests and no masks running around shooting people, and dozens of witnesses retelling their stories, some of them live while the attack was taking place, etc.

    I mention this because it brings up the question of why we never have ANY similar footage showing total chaos from the public following attacks in the West….

    The scene in Istanbul, at the time of the attack and in its aftermath is total chaos where people are running for their lives, the wounded are throwing themselves and being thrown into cabs towards the hospitals, ambulances rushing in and out, and an inescapable sense of urgency in everyone seen in the videos, etc…

    As opposed to our extremely orderly massacres here in the West where no one, absolutely no one runs, bleeds, or escapes the building they are in.

    Also noteworthy is the fact that, within hours, upon seeing the quick spread of the videos, the turkish government completely blocked youtube, twitter and Facebook. Something seems to have been in need of controlling.

    Another stark difference one notices is that, in a situation like this, reaction of the average victim’s or victim’s close ones is not the fake sadness we observe in the US videos, but more anger and frustration. Which made me realize that, from Boston bombing to Orlando, we NEVER seem to see anyone expressing anger…

    A fundamental human reaction to being wronged, being hurt, being attacked… If any of you have experienced a burglary, or have been a victim of any kind of random crime, I think you’d understand… One feels violated… One feels wronged… And one certainly feels angry!!!

    But the witnesses as well as victims in the US videos ALWAYS come out in front of cameras and give some sappy stories, with a lot of secret or open smiles, express forgiveness at times, for fuck’s sake, comment on the gun control legislation within hours from the traumatic event… etc… etc…almost like they’ve been programmed by TV and brainwashing to react in this way…

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @ahote out of curiosity, have you read any source material from the Italian fascists? Not second hand Marxist/liberal takes, but direct from the horses mouth?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I don’t get your branding strategy at all. If you think classic fascism got it right, why don’t you just call yourself a classical fascist, and save everyone the senseless drama?

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Can’t say that I have. But I plan to, when I have time. However I feel shivers of horror when I hear “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” To me it seems like it leads to bureaucratization of everything, but reactionaries (as well liberals of the good kind) prefer spontaneity, organic order, not bureaucratic hell. Fascism seems to me like the ultimate victory of Radicalism, of John Stuart Mill and Napoléon, of exactly the bad kind of… wait for it… liberalism.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @ahote I keep recomending Gregor’s ‘Mussolini`s intellectuals’ from there you can get a grip on the intellectuals to read into such as Pannunzio and costamanga. Gregors liberal, and he presents a fair case. You will be suprised at the high octane intellectualism.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    I plan on seeing to that. I think Gregor’s approach is better than Paul Gottfried’s because Gottfried ignores the ideology of Fascism, and calls conservative dictatorships fascism and bands them together with Mussolini, which I think isn’t helpful at all, and is misleading (even in the case of Austrofascism which is distinct from actual, Italian Fascism; Vaterländische Front was right-populist movement, not fascist one, but they had Ludwig von Mises himself for economic adviser, despite being anti-capitalist movement). Franco, Salazar and Pinochet were not fascists.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Italian Fascist were not even really linked to the nazis except by expedience. Hitler seems to have taken cues from Mussolini’s Jeff and Mutley act, but beyond that, it seems the main intellectuals looked down on nazism. Gregor makes it seem as if Mussolini only began letting nazi thinkers have influence as the Italian dependence on German assistance deepened – which is another example of power over culture. Gregors coverage of Evola is humorous as well, as it is clear he wasn’t a fascist, they called him the “mad baron”, and “hyper fascist” (in scare quotes) and the only times Mussolini let him off the leash was when he wanted to use him as a threat against Catholic Chruch intransigence in negotiations, and when he wanted to signal adherence to nazi anti-semitism. Anti-semitism seems to have caused embarrassment, as Jews were over represented in the Nazi party compared to the greater society in Italy, and there attendance in German-Italian conferences caused issues.
    For an example of how high level their theory was, consider this quote from Ugo Spirito :”As the ultimate repository of collective sovereignty, it is the historic state that fashions the moral and intellectual environment in which each of us achieves reality as a self conscious individual. It is the state – whatever its institutional permutations-that supplies the formal and informal educations that shapes individual consciousness. All the agencies that are seen as contributing to the process-the family, religion, the schools- all exist as a consequence of the sufferance and guidance of the sovereign state. In the modern world, what is permitted and what is proscribed is defined in law, and supplemented by custom and usage- all of which, in the final analysis is controlled, directly or indirectly, by the sovereign state.” – in what way is he wrong here?

    Ahote Reply:

    >Jews were over represented in the Nazi party

    Accidental slip, but yes Jews were over-represented in the Fascist party.

    >in what way is he wrong here?

    He isn’t wrong. Goal is to make him wrong, to break the modern Leviathan. Another implication of high-low that you often overlook is the growth of state. The growth of the state necessarily destroys all non-state structures – markets, families, religion, etc. Fascism doesn’t provide exit from high-low, but rather it is the conclusion of high-low, thing which it ultimately leads to. It’s “bake the cake or else”. It’s “be a good boy and report your parents to the commissars”. How can you consider that a good thing is beyond me.

    admin Reply:

    “in what way is he wrong here?” — Cnut the Great could have told him. The axiom of administrative divinity is the psychosis proper to the state (and to its toe-nail polishers).

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 5:41 am Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    The Background of ISIS / DAESH

    In April and May of 2013, bodies of the victims of Nouri al-Maliki were piling up by the hundreds and yet nothing was said by about any of it by US leaders Not a word.

    Ultimately, people like Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri and other leaders of various factions came together and formed the General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries and the new revolution for Iraq was on.

    By mid-2014 the mostly Sunni revolutionaries were making advances deep into Iraq and were practically on the border of the Green Zone in Baghdad so something had to be done.

    All the advances for US and British corporations stood to fall apart if Iraq was delivered back into the socialist hands of the Baath Party, whom most of the revolutionaries belonged.

    But the problem was, President Peace Prize had already stated Iraq was the wrong war and his followers took pride in the fact that it was the only promise he actually kept, getting US troops out of the wrong war.

    How could Obama justify returning US soldiers to fight legitimate Iraqi civilians who only wanted their country back after having it decimated?

    This was a problem.

    Then…

    The group has referred to itself as the Islamic State proclaimed a worldwide caliphate in June 2014 and named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as its caliph.

    Right on time to help justify a return to Iraq, “ISIS” pops up in the country with their fake beheading videos and a professional propaganda campaign to rival any marketing strategy Coke or Pepsi could ever come up with.

    Though the public would never accept Obama sending troops back to Iraq to squash a popular uprising against Cheney’s hand-picked brutal dictator, they certainly couldn’t say no to his bombing the monsters of “ISIS” and that was the whole point.

    al-Baghdadi had been in US custody several times during the Iraq occupation and released so he was probably working for Special Ops very early on. He was later photographed having a little chat with John McCain when he went to Syria to rally his mercenary terrorists in their campaign against Assad, which “ISIS” conveniently helps the US with as well.

    Wonder why they do that? I can’t imagine? Hmmm…

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 7:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    Nietzsche:

    “Philosophers (1) have had from the first a wonderful capacity for the contradictio in adjecto; (2) they have trusted in concepts as completely as they have mistrusted the senses: they have not stopped to consider that concepts and words are our inheritance from ages in which thinking was very modest and unclear.

    What dawns on philosophers last of all: they must no longer accept concepts as a gift, nor merely purify and polish them, but first make and create them, present them and make them convincing. Hitherto one has generally trusted one’s concepts as if they were a wonderful dowry from some sort of wonderland: but they are, after all, the inheritance from our most remote, most foolish as well as most intelligent ancestors.

    This piety toward what we find in us is perhaps part of the moral element in knowledge. What is needed above all is an absolute skepticism toward all inherited concepts.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 7:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lucian Says:

    https://fanghornforest.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/canon-wars/

    ‘VI. Confronting Modernity (These thinkers should be juxtaposed to the “reactionaries” in that they sought to think through the full implications of modernity and attempted to overcome it—push through it to the other side—as opposed to return to the past.)

    Schopenhauer
    Nietzsche
    Heidegger
    Spengler
    Julius Evola’

    The “confronting modernity” thinkers aren’t reactionaries, so is there a name for them? I haven’t seen one.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    How about transmodernist?

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Not bad, counter-modernist also seems viable.

    Just throwing it out there because I would have anticipated there’d be an already-existing term for it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 10:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • James G Says:

    Y Combinator has begun a research project into “building new, better cities”. Nothing explicit about inter-jurisdictional competition (cf. also, “given the constraints of existing laws”), but interesting nonetheless given where it’s coming from:

    https://blog.ycombinator.com/new-cities

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes, I saw that. Impressed by its remarkable vacuousness, but I guess it’s only an invitation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 1st, 2016 at 12:08 am Reply | Quote
  • Tentative Joiner Says:

    Is Ning Ken’s “ultra-unreal” in any way representative of the literary trends in China?

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    It can be a trend, I never been in China, but I think China, Russia and India share many mental deviations and getting increasingly paranoyal and neurotic, exit oriented too. I heard they are discussing Karl Schmitt a lot in China, next perhaps going to be Lacan. Same happens in Russia, after finishing with Schmitt, they become quite Lacanians now. in India everything much more simplier, everybody who has some brain already left.

    unlikely this trend in China will be going in direction of ‘Machinist’, but rather formalise as ‘Memento’ kind.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 3rd, 2016 at 10:04 am Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    Artaud

    Artaud had no need to identify with anyone. Either he found himself from the start in total alterity (not alienation, but alterity from his own body) or he participated in a chain of beings and not necessarily human beings, but those who inhabit language or situations.

    Talking about Artaud is nearly impossible, as even his words can’t be taken literally in terms of their meaning and signification.

    The way Artaud proceeded was akin to the symbolic strategies of primitive societies. He never needed to identify with his own culture in order to go beyond a nostalgic culture devoid of depth or meaning.

    He was already standing in the filter of the void.

    (Deleuze’s favorite sentence in Anti-Oedipus is: “No, we’ve never seen a schizophrenic.”)

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 11th, 2016 at 11:48 am Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    Guy Debord becomes Darkly Enlightened

    When we saw our defenses being overwhelmed and some of our comrades beginning to falter, a few of us felt that we should take the offensive: that instead of entrenching ourselves in the thrilling fortress of a moment, we should break out into the open, make a sortie, then hold our ground and devote ourselves quite simply to totally destroying the Cathedral — in order to rebuild it, if possible, on other bases.

    There had been precedents to this, but they had been forgotten.

    If you don’t fall in line with the deceptive clarity of this upside-down SJW world, you are seen, at least by those who believe in that world, as a controversial legend, an invisible and malevolent ghost, a perverse Prince of Darkness.

    We did not seek the formula for overturning the Cathedral in books, but in wandering. Ceaselessly drifting for days on end, none resembling the one before. Astonishing encounters, remarkable obstacles, grandiose betrayals, perilous enchantments — nothing was lacking in this quest for a different, more sinister Dark Enlightenment, which no one else had ever sought.

    And then one ill-fated day the finest player of us all got lost in the forests of madness. —

    But there is no greater madness than the present organization of life.

    Sentimental objections are as vain as pseudo-strategical quibbles. “Yet your bones will waste away, buried in the fields of Troy, your mission unfulfilled.”

    On a battlefield King Frederick II of Prussia rebuked a hesitant young officer: “Dog! Were you hoping to live forever?” And Sarpedon says to Glaukos in the Twelfth Book of The Iliad: “My friend, if you and I could escape this battle and live forever, ageless and immortal, I myself would never fight again… But a thousand deaths surround us and no man can escape them. So let us move in for the attack.”

    When the smoke clears, many things appear changed. The Cathedral lies in ruins. An age has passed.

    Don’t ask now what good our weapons were: they remain in the throat of the reigning system of lies. Its air of innocence will never return.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 11th, 2016 at 1:16 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment