Chaos Patch (#41)

(Open thread, stuff, links …)

The Operation is being relocated to New Zealand for a couple of weeks, beginning tomorrow, so there is almost certain to be some disruption in the days ahead. I’m definitely aiming to keep some flow going, with year round-up posts a feature, but chaotic meandering is likely to reach unprecedented levels.

As for the week behind us, NBS’s esential reacto-round-up now has a This Week in Dampier sub-section. Among those highlights, hard and soft money posts, some Gruber contrarianism, and a valuable note on the Bezos effect. Anarcho-papist is another production maelstrom, who requires statistical sampling, in this case substantial input into the left (or ‘demotist‘) singularity and deep state discussions. Scharlach reflects on the state’s monopoly of violence. Nyan recommends escape from local noise. Ash Milton provides a useful introduction to the ENR. Anti-Dem discusses tolerance. SoBL suggests a deal (background). Some posts stretch glib summarization. “Everything is broken” (back-story). Was enlightened.

There’s clearly a stimulating engagement with propertarianism to be had (and this post is especially helpful for orientation). NIO recommendations on game theory and spontaneous order (1, 2). Soapjackal wants us all to spend more time here.

Gallic ‘neo-reactionnaires’ (who aren’t, of course, us) have also been making waves. Has Putin failed? (Venezuela certainly has.) Sony hack weirdness. Deep State ‘action’.

Troll hunters.

Hanson on the deep ideo-politics of plasticity. Defending Leo Strauss (in the lamest possible way). In praise of monarchy. Rage (and hate). TAC on neoconservative and bleeding-heart liberal suckage.

Gates and Shockley (Dampier comments). “Mr. Gates may see Shockley’s experience as a warning: If he cares about his reputation he better keep his mouth shut.” White worries. Eco-miscegeny. Anatoly Karlin reminds us of his fascinating Indian IQ posts (1, 2, 3).

December 21, 2014admin 36 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

36 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#41) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on December 21st, 2014 at 7:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    Nick, will you be in Sydney at all? Any chance of a meet-up?


    admin Reply:

    Just NZ this time — definitely looking forward getting to Oz down the road, though. My daughter’s best friend lives in your neck of the woods, which adds to the sense of destiny.


    Posted on December 21st, 2014 at 8:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    One of the big Austrian myths is that the 1921 recession spontaneously healed itself with no intervention. Turns out that is pure theology. Check out this chart of the discount rate (the main policy tool at the time). The Fed jammed it up from 4.5% to 7% in early 1920, and then cut it from 7% back down to 4% from mid 1921 into 1922. In other words, like most recessions, the 1921 downturn was caused by the Fed and fixed by the Fed. Fiscal policy was a non-factor on both sides of the event.


    Chris B Reply:

    trying to boil complex systems such as the economy down to simplistic systems which can either be juiced with low interest rates and fiscal stimulus, or dampened down with high interest rates and reduced stimulus is so stupid I refuse to engage in discussion.


    Kgaard Reply:

    It’s not stupid — the Fed chair is the most powerful man in the world precisely because Fed policy DOES create booms and contractions. To the current point … 1921 recovery was not a spontaneous healing. The recession was generated by the Fed and ended by the Fed. At the least, Austrians should note the behavior of the discount rate when making the spontaneous healing claim about 1921.


    peter connor Reply:

    Harding cut government spending and salaries, and cancelled many of Wilson’s programs. Business confidence and fiscal rectitude were enhanced….

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    People’s epistemology has to be up to snuff to argue with them. The argument against stimulus doesn’t make you austrian.

    question Kgaard: Do you prefer ‘Keynesian’ stimulus? I will respond in a fashion that you probably do not expect. Or describe your belief set.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Well, briefly: I’m for low taxes, stable money and good banking regulation to prevent booms and busts. But in a democracy you end up with high taxes, poorly-capitalized banks and volatile money. So, you have to make do. In crashes such as 1931 and 2008, you’ve gotta do QE to prevent vorticies in the banking system. Ultimately I have been convinced by the market monetarists. Target 5% nominal GDP growth each year. If fiscal policy sucks it will be all inflation. If fiscal policy is good it will be all real growth.

    In a monarchy (a seastead for instance) you could certainly set up an alternative currency but you’re still gonna need a central bank, I think, unless you want to have a gold standard, which then STILL ties you to the Fed, actually. Bitcoin doesn’t work because it doesn’t have somebody adjusting the supply to keep the price stable.

    I’m open to better ideas than what we have … I just haven’t seen it yet.

    Posted on December 21st, 2014 at 10:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Zemmour: The New Yorker doesn’t even TRY to judge the guy negatively! They don’t call him a Nazi, a racist … they don’t even directly call him a misogynist. What’s wrong with this publication? It’s going to the dogs!

    On Strauss: I like Strauss myself, but to argue that Perle, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith and their ilk weren’t running a Straussian noble lie type operation to get America to do the neocons’ bidding in the Middle East is just a flat-out lie. The giveaway is Ahmad Chalabi. The neocons’ handpicked guy to become savior of Iraq was … another University of Chicago guy, a tool and a plant of the neocons. They really take the American people for retards.

    By the way, I recommend Shadia Drury’s book on the neocons and Strauss, referenced in the piece.

    The author does make a fair point that there are various non-evil Straussians, such as Mansfield and Fukuyama. I was surprised to read that Allan Bloom was a big neocon. That doesn’t fitt with my memory of the guy.


    Amon Khan Reply:

    ‘Cuz Zemmour’s a Jew. A Jew reactionary is so novel and absurd that it isn’t very threatening. Whereas, if an Aryan gentleman espoused exactly the same ideas as Mr. Zemmour, you can be sure that he would never get a hearing in the Jew Yorker, or would be cast as some sort of villainous far rightist with possible neo-Nazi connections.


    Kgaard Reply:

    That kinda fits actually. There has been a profound shift on immigration within the Jewish community, chiefly because multiculturalism has now led to a surfeit of Arabs moving into western countries and becoming hostile to Jews. This has created a split within Judaism: Some are of the view that “yes multiculturalism is great but just not Arabs because they are bad,” and “We’ve got to stop immigration generally.” That latter view will logically be more in evidence in countries where the vast majority of immigration is Arabian … i.e. France.


    Y.Ilan Reply:

    The Jews of France are either turning to the right, moving to Israel, or both. I say, they’re all welcome to move to their actual home; like a lot of new Jewish immigrants to Israel, they’re very eager to enlist into combat positions.


    Posted on December 21st, 2014 at 10:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Going back to the nomenclature questions that were brought up “How Dawkins got pwned”:

    Would it make sense to refer to Progressivism (crypto-Calvinism) as “trans-Christian”? I don’t want to call it “Christian” because it tends too strongly to be atheistic and outright hostile to traditional Christianity. I also don’t want to call it “post-Christian”, because that implies more difference than is real. There is too much overlap (e.g. Ananias and Sophira, social gospel, being made equal by the Creator) between Progressivism and much of Christianity. Does “trans-Christian” make sense?


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    This is pretty good. I don’t see why not. Also I think we need to reposition ourselves off of ‘memes’. I do not believe memes exist or are an accurate representation of culture. I believe the alternative is represented by Dan Sperber’s epidemiology of representations.


    Posted on December 22nd, 2014 at 12:22 am Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    This is only half a thought but relevant to recent musings here: Henry Dampier’s posts on money had me picturing “the market” as a lake with the state spewing toxic credit into it; the further you get away from the spout, the clearer the water gets. Corps closest to the spout are more closely allied with (or perhaps more likely to be partly constitutive of) the Cathedral.

    The “deep state” is the functional kernel of the state that’s shielded from demotic pressures. So… doesn’t that mean it has to sip from the clear side of the lake in order to remain shielded? Is this what drives occult government into the “hard money future”? Then isn’t the acausal trade here just “build it and they will come”?

    If the USG wanted to shutdown bitcoin, presumably the intelligence agencies would be involved, but that hasn’t happened. So maybe we’re already on the other side of this occult invocation? The blockchain was deemed too useful?


    Kgaard Reply:

    Maybe they haven’t shut down bitcoing because a) they’re damn curious how it works out, b) it’s not overtly illegal and c) they still don’t see how it can be a legitimate threat because its value is too volatile, you can’t pay taxes with it and alternative currencies themselves are, taken as a group, a fiat class. Somebody can start ditcoin, fitcoin, gitcoin and hitcoin tomorrow, thereby expanding the pool of virtual currencies. The winning virtual currency will need some kind of mechanism whereby its value remains stable relative to world currencies. So then you’ve got … uh … something like an anonymous encrypted Paypal, maybe?


    Posted on December 22nd, 2014 at 3:15 am Reply | Quote
  • j. ont. Says:

    Some time ago there was a post and discussion regarding areas that Neoreaction—as a community and/or movement and/or political project—needed to focus on going forward. I can’t find the thread now, but some great suggestions were made, and many issues were brought up that seem to have been forgotten since. If admin would be so kind as to dig it up, perhaps a review of the final list would be cogent.


    nydwracu Reply:

    Probably one of mine from last year. Nothing much happened there. Herding cats.


    Rasputin Reply:

    Could be this one:


    j. ont. Reply:

    That’s the one. Some seriously good shit in that comment thread.

    Posted on December 22nd, 2014 at 4:20 am Reply | Quote
  • soapjackal Says:


    Strong Currency, low taxes, banking regulation.

    Sounds good.

    As far as the weaknesses of bitcoin go, which there are, I would recommend looking up Open-Transactions or Monetas as an improvement.


    Posted on December 22nd, 2014 at 7:18 am Reply | Quote
  • soapjackal Says:

    >soapjackal wants us to read :

    Damn Straight. 570 High Quality articles delving into all sorts of topic NRx loves to preen over. Really a solid example of a proto-Invisible College.

    I would recommend reading The Fortunes of Materialism as a jumping off point:


    Posted on December 22nd, 2014 at 7:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    I have some questions regarding some things that I’ve been struggling with (and which will probably divide and subdivide us).

    Thoughts on the inevitability of Martin Luther and in contrast the Anglican church. Can the political and spiritual be reconciled. Even if it can, given the utter failure of Christianity why should we be so patient in attempting necromancy on that faith (billions of sheep and blind shepherds does not a living faith make), even if all faiths like all empires are ultimately doomed, is Christianity really worth so much extra consideration?

    In the frictions of reality how far should freedom bend to order, just how far are those who bear the mark post-libertarian prepared to sacrifice freedom and independence. How should Socrates have been dealt with, how are deconstructionists rendered powerless? (My own hypocrisy for asking so many questions is not lost on me, but I figure now is the time) Should freedom be held in the same contempt as equality when used as a rallying cry? Are we prepared to fully submit before and acknowledge the superiority of a man based only on knowledge of their badge of office or rank alone? What method of racking and stacking men would enable us to do so (if done organically/informally at the tribal level or would some even acknowledge a more standardized quantitative method)? What of nobility, are it’s fruits unquestioned or must it be pruned. Is the absolute superiority of noble birth truth or a necessary lie? In an era of engineered life, how does one define nobility?

    Is the cryptic and shadow to be discarded eventually and complete formalism the goal or given the inevitability of inequities will some power always remain submerged? Can concrete immediately actionable efforts towards transparency be lit upon the Cathedral to their detriment? (I think it would slow them in the sort term but ultimately make them stronger and more vicious in the long term since the purest and most self righteous of true believers will remain). If we are in perpetual conflict with deconstructionists, does formalism work for us or against us?

    This is more of a historical question: If power is conserved, and we generally see violent power manifest in the state, financial power in the merchant class, and spiritual power within the priesthood. Can someone point me towards a breakdown of spiritual power within the Roman Empire and lessons that might be learned.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    It isn’t clear to me that Christianity is such an “utter failure”. It seems like the best template we have for building institutions that can transmit Deep Heritage. I want to figure out how it really works and what I can steal from it.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Epidemology of representations, Dan Sperber & Scot Atran will get you a decent amount of the way. See Taleb on transfer of inter-generational heuristics.


    Posted on December 22nd, 2014 at 10:13 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Shameless plug…. already getting censored for my hatred of the Spierig Bros. (Directed Day Breakers and the film I’ve just reviewed, Predestination -Robert Heinlein’s short on time paradox).


    Posted on December 22nd, 2014 at 12:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Daniel C Says:

    Will you be coming to Wellington Mr. Land?


    admin Reply:

    South Island this time, largely at brother’s farm for manure jousting and stuff. (Seriously — horses, chickens, dogs and cats everywhere — total feudal-core regression.)


    Posted on December 22nd, 2014 at 10:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    @Ex-pat in Oz

    Our humble guest room is yours whenever you are in the neighbourhood! We’re on the Northern Beaches, about 60 mins from CBD. You would be treated as the Ur Lord of NRx you are!


    Posted on December 23rd, 2014 at 8:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    I am now reading Extrastatecraft. THANKS for the recommendation. First useful book I’ve picked up in like 6 months. I love the section on special economic zones. They are a lot more insidious — and widespread — than I thought. The author says 66 million people now work in these things. That’s about the population of France.

    To a large degree these things are soul-less, extra-legal sweatshops. She brings up Foxxconn, the Asian plant from which workers were routinely leaping off the roof to their deaths in 2010. All the western branded products companies that outsourced to Foxxconn insisted it wasn’t a sweatshop, and technically they are probably right, in the sense that the infrastructure was modern. But damn … working 90 hours a week in a box putting widgets together, living in dorm conditions … if that’s not slavery what is?

    I’m reading a book about care and feeding for your slave (set in Roman times) and the author makes the point that you as a slave owner need to make sure you give your slave some reason to live, else he or she may kill himself out of despair. That’s what’s happening in some of these SPZs.

    So if 66 million people already live in these places, where exactly is the opening for a new neoreactionary city-state? Are they not going up already all over the world, funded by state money, and often mirroring existing cities?

    A month ago I was raving about the whole monarchic city-state to a friend of mine and she instantly dialed into the dark side: “They’re just gonna import workers, use them cheap, and shove them out the door at night to live in crummy conditions.” I countered that the workers could create their own free city states … but now I wonder. If these SPZs are really some sort of racket, why would the racketeers ever LET the worker drones create their own autonomous zone?


    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    The primary reason any sufficiently large conglomerate can afford to treat labor so cheaply is because it’s so cheap. On a planet of 7 billion+, of which perhaps half could die tomorrow without seriously affecting production [give or take some market corrections and restructuring], it shouldn’t be that surprising to find these edge cases. Every society in history, whether capitalist or communist, has tended to treat its excess population like shit. Just look at WW2 USSR, and the way it paid for its victory with overwhelming numbers of expendable lives.

    If you want to solve the problem of labor being so cheap, you must let many people die.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Sounds points. Can’t really argue with any of them. Still, it’s useful to know, as we think about SPZs and ZEDs and seasteads, how these things are being used now. And the answer is that they are being used as gigantic sweatshops where western companies can hide the horrendous conditions of their workers from their consumers.

    These are the sorts of arguments that are going to come up down the road as Peter Theil-types make their case for land carve-outs to set up monarchies etc. Really I couldn’t believe how much work has already been done on this topic. Or better put, how far down the road the process already is. Plenty of countries have already figured out that land carve-outs with non-democratic legal systems solve a lot of, um, problems.


    Posted on December 24th, 2014 at 2:38 am Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:


    A Jewish anarcho-syndicalist MIT professor of linguistics and opportunistic political activist was teaching a class on Rene Descartes, known rationalist.

    ”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Descartes and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than me!”

    At this moment, a brave, patriotic, humanitarian Harvard behavioural psychologist who had conditioned over 1000 pigeons to compete in ping pong championship tournaments and understood the necessity of reinforcement and punishment for the creation of a Walden-like utopia and fully supported all breaches of research ethics made by J.B. Watson in the name of science stood up and held up a chimpanzee.

    ”How many signs does this chimp use to communicate, pinhead?”

    The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “None, language is innate and uniquely possessed by the human species, you stupid empiricist”.

    ”Wrong. It’s been 58 years since you published Syntactic Structures and plunged us into the dark age of cognitivism. If it was language was not simply a semiotic system among many and Universal Grammar, as you say, is real… then we would be speaking Hebrew now”.

    The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and his favourite Bill Cosby sweater. He stormed out of the room crying those anarcho-syndicalist crocodile tears, the same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they publish tracts condemning right-wing dictators and ignoring the atrocities of left-wing rulers in Peru, Angola, Pakistan, and Equatorial Guinea. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Noam Chomsky, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist anarchist professor. He wished so much that he could blame his actions on the environmental influence of the academic ivory tower, but he himself had argued against it!

    The students all predictably applauded at this positive stimulus that day and accepted B. F. Skinner as their lord and savior. An eagle named “Radical Translation” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and Willard van Orman Quine himself showed up and abolished all cognitive psychology departments across the country.

    The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He was sent to Guantanamo Bay for political subversion and was forced to watch looped footage of Foucault laughing at him for all eternity.


    Posted on December 26th, 2014 at 2:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    I hope your Christmas was better than Whoville’s.

    Sadly, it’s only a single panel, but note the link at the bottom to The Call of Cthulhu (for beginning readers).


    Posted on December 26th, 2014 at 4:07 am Reply | Quote
  • Suburban Schizophrenia Says:

    If you ever come back to NZ please let me know. Posting on an old comment but if you are listening there is a NRx techno-commercialist who has been in obsessively studying the important works and would love to meet you. Alternatively, I have been offered a job in Beijing for next year so might be in your neck of the woods.


    Posted on February 14th, 2018 at 7:42 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment