Chaos Patch (#35)

(Open thread, plus links.)

Yuray the task-master. A sustained meditation on capital teleology. Another argument for teleology. Multicultural madness. Who the hell are these people? Brett Stevens lays it all out. Metaroundup.

Elections can be confusing: “In Georgia, retiree Joyce Burns said Obama was risking a biblical apocalypse by criticizing Israel. The life-long Democrat said she voted Republican this time. ‘I believe we’re in the Latter Times,’ said Burns, 61. ‘When everyone goes against Israel, that’s when I believe Jesus will come back.'” Not that it matters: “… both Republicans and Democrats should face up to a much bigger truth: Neither party as currently constituted has a real future.” Dampier has a plan. Racing it up. Some additional sound coverage.

Best of the Schadenfreude (that last one is from Morford, the gift who keeps on giving). … and one more. There’s a superficial win, and a deep win.

A few Ebola science links.

Tentacular epic now hyper-epic.

SST re-visits motte-and-bailey doctrines (patching us through to the source).

The culture and politics of Silicon Valley is absorbing ever more (highly diverse) media fascination. Company lifespans. US$22,000,000,000,000 poorer.

Evolution of anti-racism. Kicking the stone of gloom. The single most important point anyone can make about immigration: “As a rule immigration from the first world brings overwhelming economic and social benefits, while immigration from the developing world does the opposite; migration from eastern Europe is somewhere in-between. That’s a very rough rule of thumb but it is at least clearer and more rational than simply identifying oneself as either ‘pro’ or ‘anti-immigration’.” Race-rotted brain-spasm of the week.

Strange dates. Even the most hideous garbage can generate brilliant illumination.

Christians under attack (or not (or?)).

Hanson (doubly indirectly) on esoteric writing. (Bonald objects.)

UFAI is insoluble.

Hey, let’s institutionalize confirmation bias.

A fight worth following.

The multiverse is everywhere at the moment (so probably for a while).

Research time-deepening through technology.

NRx anthem? (Blame Nydwracu.)

Simply, no.

November 9, 2014admin 17 Comments »

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

17 Responses to this entry

  • Michael Says:

    Guerilla ontology Baby or as you kids would have it 4G warfare Blowing your mind since 1963 man. The way back is the way forward.


    Posted on November 9th, 2014 at 2:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    I think this deserves to be mentioned in this Chaos Patch

    Alan Greenspan: “Gold is still by all evidence the premier currency, where no fiat currency, even the dollar, can match it.”


    Posted on November 9th, 2014 at 4:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Henry Dampier Says:


    A redux of the 1966 classic:


    Posted on November 9th, 2014 at 5:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#35) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 9th, 2014 at 6:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    Glad that Radish article finally got finished. A wonderful read — and “Doctor Professor” Okorafor thoroughly deserved the treatment she received there.

    It should be surprising what “literature” wins awards these days. The past few years have been particularly bad, with hacks like Okorafor, China Mieville, and Paolo Bacigalupi of “The Windup Girl” and young-adult fiction fame, among others, taking “prestigious” awards. (The link’s good for a laugh.) My own opinion is that these mediocrities despise our literary tradition, so they should be despised in turn by those who honour it.

    Ah, well… at least William Gibson’s latest was good. For that reason, among others, I don’t think it’ll win any awards.

    On another note related to Lovecraft and literature: I was gifted an advance copy of Stephen King’s new novel, and it’s pure, unmitigated, undisguised Arthur Machen and H.P. Lovecraft worship — right down to The Great Old Ones, the mad-scientist electrical experiments, and the delirious visions of Cyclopean cities under howling stars. In fact, thematically if not stylistically, it resembles Lovecraft and Machen much more than it resembles King’s older work.


    Posted on November 9th, 2014 at 8:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • secede Says:

    urbit makes an appearance at hacker news. amusingly the comments quickly veer off to moldbug’s “icky” politics. triggers are triggered. microagressions are aggressed. why, somebody in the valley is not of the body! destroy!


    Posted on November 9th, 2014 at 10:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    I have an idea ripe for entryists running away with a pile of cash. We make our own financial portfolio. There are many ways we could go about this. Our homegrown financial analysts could generously manage the money at a discount of the usual fees. To encourage outcomes we could also require them to either invest a minimum amount or a high percentage of their assets (not sure how comfortable people here would be to exchanging tax info). Plebes of the outer right like myself would be encouraged to invest 10-20% of their savings in the fund. If we really want the entryists to come out, we could even have the fees put towards special projects rather than the brokers, decided by some kind of upper hierarchy (we could call it something sinister to make progs scared). Lots that can go wrong, but if people like us guided by our ideas can’t even manage a portfolio, what hope is there of our ideas being uses to manage a sovereign state?


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    aka the ‘how we lose in 5 minutes plan’

    a) revealing every one
    b) giving the media something to rally around for destruction
    c-z) everything else

    this is not effective risk management


    Aeroguy Reply:

    The many things that can go horribly wrong with the idea is part of why its fun to think about. The challenge of overcoming those types of problems could be a good test for the new tech admin mentioned.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    I was just against this particular example, but yeah I agree & plan to do a write up and such of potential avenues we all could take and have every one tear it down. However making a financial account could easily let the left’s political friends declare us as a ‘hate group’ and point to it.

    But how to make this robust to it seems smart, a starting point I would say would be grugq’s work.


    Posted on November 9th, 2014 at 10:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    OK, now that Nick Land is linking to Hanatarash, he might have just outdone everyone on the dissident right.



    Go’mint sound!!!

    You can’t go wrong with the first Hanatarash album, because the word ‘cock’ is in every song!!

    And let’s also not forget the Incapacitants, who were making economics cool for the kids LONG before NRx:


    Posted on November 10th, 2014 at 1:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    The Left is consciously evil.


    Posted on November 10th, 2014 at 3:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @Admin, @Spandrell:

    This is a follow-up to some comments on the Morality post regarding Confucianism.

    I’m confused by an early Research on Religion podcast (confirmed by the Wikipedia page on “Religion in China”) that China has five officially recognized religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Protestantism, and Catholicism.

    What’s up with that? Why doesn’t Confucianism make the cut? Is it considered a “philosophy” rather than a “religion”? Or is it too tainted by association with Chiang Kai-shek?


    spandrell Reply:

    It can get very complicated (Chinese culture can be very weird), but to put it in simple terms:

    Confucianism is obviously not a religion; in its most basic form it’s a theory of government, and it became the basic ethos of government in China. Making it into a religion would be quite fallacious; and it would mean the Chinese government is choosing sides when it gets around to promote it officially.

    Mandarins had this ritual about visiting the Confucius temple every year; but it’s not like people prayed to the guy or did miracles in his name. There’s nothing supernatural or mystical about Confucian ideas.

    Of course his ideas used to be taken with as much faith as the Bible in Europe; but that doesn’t mean it’s equivalent. People didn’t obey their parents *because* Confucius said so; they praised Confucius for making such a good point.

    Also people tend to confuse Taoism the religion with Taoism the teachings of Laozi. Those are separate words in Chinese; the original philosophical school of Laozi-Zhuangzi, centuries later sorta evolved into a countryside animistic religion, with plenty of gods, alchemy, ghosts, and strange rituals with had little to do with the original Laozi. But they claim to be Taoists, and have been doing their thing to this day, although it’s much weaker than Buddhism or the other foreign imports.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Thanks. It’s interesting that they have separate words for the two Taoisms. Makes sense.

    I associate Confucianism with ancestor worship, which I find attractive, and which I think makes sense in terms of Jungian psychology. Is there also a separate term in Chinese for mystical stuff that has grown up in loose association with Confucianism?


    spandrell Reply:

    Ancestor worship precedes Confucius by millennia.

    The earliest writings in China are the Shang Dynasty oracle bones, where the kings of then asked his ancestors (presumably in heaven) whether rain would fall, or how the harvest was gonna turn out, or whether it was advisable to go to war.
    Lavish tombs also go back to the neolithic; so it’s not like people starting worshipping the ancestors because Confucius said so. If anything Confucius just said that it was a nice thing to do, and kids these days don’t respect their ancestors like we used to.

    There’s also an interesting side in how southern China’s society evolved through colonization by northerners, who organized themselves in patriarchal clans which formed larger “surname associations” as a sort of fictitious kin groups who cultivated their cohesiveness by joint ancestor worship (although they had no actual ancestors in common for the most part).

    At any rate this is all the realm of folk religion, and it’s usually just called that. It is not an outgrowth of Confucianism which was explicitly the state philosophy for the bureaucracy; not a bottom-up movement like Taoism or Buddhism was.

    Posted on November 11th, 2014 at 12:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    [Fixed glitch] My brain’s autocomplete is worse than some smartphones.


    Posted on November 12th, 2014 at 5:40 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment