Chaos Patch (#43)

(Open thread.)

Still link-deprived, so here’s a puzzle (strictly optional):
(1) Every Roman Numeral has an Alphanomic value (corresponding to contemporary alphanumeric position, or to alphabetical position +9).
(2) Are there any consistent Roman-Alphanomic numbers?
(3) The Roman-Alphanomic difference can be conceived as a disequilibrium, and the puzzle is an attempt to restore a zero-divergence through a syntactically well-constructed Roman number. Key, to this method: I (+17), V (+26), X (+23), L (-29), C (-88). Values above C are surely unusable: D (-487), M (-978).
(4) My preliminary conclusion, based on a weakly formalized application of the method above, is that there is no correct solution. The only candidate I could find is the badly constructed CLXVIIII (= 169), which — of course — syntactically collapses to CLXIX (= 117 in alphanomics).
(5) This is a specimen being collected for my qabbalistic quagmires compilation.

ADDED: On an even more incidental note (at this stage), the Time Spiral Press site is a malnourished formless mess at this stage, but it’s finally on a track to become something.

ADDED: So the solution is X-Civ (XCIV, 94, multiple interpretations available, among which various lurid options). You can’t make this stuff up.

ADDED: More productive work. (No idea how I missed CXXIX (it’s a thing of simple beauty)).

January 4, 2015admin 49 Comments »


49 Responses to this entry

  • sviga lae Says:

    I’d love to brute-force this. The set used in the divergence method needs to be extended to cover all maximal well-formed non-additive subsequences (eg. XIX) before the combinatoric logic can be applied.

    (also, sviga lae 666 = hail satan)


    Posted on January 4th, 2015 at 11:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Steve Johnson Says:

    Brute force on this seems like the simplest solution.

    I’ll tackle it tomorrow if I’ve got time.


    Posted on January 4th, 2015 at 11:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    XCIV works. 94 and 94.
    …I am not aware of any others. There is no possible solution for any number over CC. The initial -166 deficit is too large for any properly-formatted number beyond that point. CCXXXVIII comes closest, registering at 208.


    admin Reply:

    Excellent work!


    Steve Johnson Reply:

    XCIV (94) is 58 (24+3+9+22) not 94.

    The solutions I found were these:

    63 / LXIII

    Depending on which form of roman numerals you use one of:

    69 / LXIX
    140 / CXXXXVIII

    69 if you’re using representing IX for 9 rather than XVIIII – 140 if you’re not.


    Erebus Reply:

    “Corresponding to contemporary alphanumeric position, or to alphabetical position +9
    See the generator:

    Good finds, in any case!

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    Using the +9 here are the results:

    94 / XCIV
    129 / CXXIX

    169 / CLXVIIII

    Depending on how you write your numerals you get the first two or the second one.

    Posted on January 4th, 2015 at 11:41 am Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#43) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 4th, 2015 at 1:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    I am listening to a great Teaching Company lecture series on the 3rd Reich. The defining moment for Hitler’s ascension was 1932, when the austerity policies of the Weimar period had led to economic freefall. It was almost exactly like Greece today or Argentina in the late 90s. The Germans gave up on democracy because democratic leaders were coming up with failed austerity policies — layoffs, budget cuts and tax hikes — that only made matters worse. Hitler came to power in 1933 — and the nazis expected civil war with the German communists would start right away. Between the two parties they had gotten 52% of the vote in 1932. It was against this backdrop that FDR devalued later in ’33. I hadn’t made that connection before.

    In 1928 the nazis were polling 3 percent. By 1932, at their peak in the summer, they were around 44 percent. FDR may have avoided much worse outcomes than what we got in the US by devaluing in ’33.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Huh? I thought it was hyperinflation that did in the Weimar Republic. Surely “hyperinflation” is not a synonym for “austerity”?!


    Kgaard Reply:

    The hyperinflation lasted from 1921 to 1924. The period from 1924 to 1928 was fairly good in Germany. Hitler got into power in 1933 — nine years after the hyperinflation. It was austerity that set the stage for his ascent.


    soapjackal Reply:

    ‘austerity policies’ sounds sorta detached if there’s no reference whatsoever to the treaty of Versailles. Sure we can directly compare the greeks and 1932 germans off just that….


    Kgaard Reply:

    Yes Versailles was bad news, no doubt. And yes a lot of factors went into Hitler getting into power in ’33. But he was considered lunatic fringe as late as 1928. It was the exhaustion … the fed-up-ness … of the German people with the “respectable” options that opened the door to Hitler getting into power. The respectable parties couldn’t solve the depression.

    In this sense Hitler’s ascent is sort of like Chavez’s in Venezuela. The two respectable parties there were both run by dolts of varying degrees of corruptness. They failed so spectacularly to manage the economy that the door was opened for a Chavez to appear.


    Hurlock Reply:

    Dude, give it a rest.

    You’ve gone well beyond full retard at this point.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Then bet me something Hurlock. Propose a market based bet. If you won’t do it you’ve got nothing. The ECB is going to do QE on January 22. What do you think that will do to CPI in the Eurozone?


    dantealiegri Reply:


    questions for you before I bet you:

    what do you think the use of CPI is?
    what is the scientific basis for the inclusion of an object in the basket?
    why is inflation good?

    Kgaard Reply:

    Dante … I would just say that if you dislike using CPI that’s fine, we can use gold (or oil or copper). My point here is very narrow: The generally-accepted neoreactionary view that QE is bad and leads to hyperinflation is flat-out wrong. It looks to me like nobody is actually willing to put themselves on the line and defend the accepted NRx position here. That means that, on this issue at least, NRx has morphed into the thing it despises most: a theology.

    Question 2 I’m afraid I don’t understand. Sorry. Question 3 we’ve tackled in previous debates and I’m hesitant to open that can of worms. In short, it’s not that inflation is good, it’s that deflation is generally more dangerous — especially in the aftermath of a credit-driven collapse such as 2008 or 1929-32 …

    vimothy Reply:

    A good question for neoreactionaries might be: the EU’s monetary policy is in some sense an effective gold standard, so how should we think about the still unfolding disaster there?

    Kgaard Reply:

    Exactly. It works almost exactly as a gold standard for all the non-Germanic countries (i.e. all the southern countries). The one difference is that everyone knows QE is a possibility, and thus the assumption is built in that if things get bad enough the Germans will cave (or the non-Germans will override them) and QE will be done. Without this “Draghi put” the PIIGS already would have broken the gold link and devalued + defaulted.

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    It is very difficult to demonstrate ‘interest rates up’ ‘economy up’. Mere correlations do not work in extreme systems when the only metric of comparison is up or down.

    I do not think the Monetarists are worth while economists.


    blogospheroid Reply:

    If you knew what you were talking about, you’d know that Milton Friedman was the one who made the statement that interest rates are not a good indicator of monetary policy. But of course, no one here looks to be interested in the knowledge gained by 80 years of macroeconomics.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    I was responding to a person not Milton Friedman. I still think Milton Friedman is irrelevant and I’d be more than willing to have the discussion with you.

    Posted on January 4th, 2015 at 8:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    @Land Remember that piece you wrote on Ayache’s work? It is impossible to maintain ‘subjective bayesianism’ is the best without specifying which one since there are thousands. Also the point of the book was that ontology or ‘event’ was more fundamental and probability is by definition not ‘event’. So it doesn’t make sense to maintain bayesianism when that is talking about the wrong field entirely.


    Posted on January 4th, 2015 at 8:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • numerological nonsense Says:

    DCLXVI = 666. roman numeral of the beast!
    also, the first six roman numerals in order.


    Posted on January 4th, 2015 at 9:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Harold Says:

    I once read that the common Roman man on the street would just write IIII for four and not IV, VIIII instead of IX, etc., eschewing the highfaluting subtractive convention. I read this in the context of the superiority of the Indian numerals in facilitating calculation, it being claimed to be not as great as often alleged. I am not saying I believe this to be true, just that I remember reading it somewhere, a long time ago.


    Erebus Reply:

    I believe you’ve heard correct. Interesting notes from this book:

    (It wouldn’t surprise me if this is where you picked up that fact. It was a popular book. Anyway, the segment on Roman numerals starts on page 448 of the book, 467 of the PDF.)

    -The Romans often wrote four as IIII, and less often as IV, that is, I from V.
    -9 was written IX (that is, I from X) but until the beginning of printing it appeared quite as often in the form VIIII.
    -19 was written XIX, but it also appeared as IXX (that is, 1 from 20).
    -18 commonly appears as XVIII, but IIXX was also used.
    -cIↄ was a favorite way of writing 1000, but was later changed to M, the initial of mille, 1000. Half of this symbol, either c or ↄ, led to the use of D for 500.

    The book contains further notes on arithmetic using Roman numerals. It seems as though the Roman system is extremely well suited for addition and subtraction — though, granted, it’s terrible for multiplication, division, and more advanced mathematics…


    Harold Reply:

    Thanks Erebus.


    Posted on January 5th, 2015 at 2:24 am Reply | Quote
  • sviga lae Says:

    Shameful python follows:

    import roman as rmn

    def romanToAlphanomic(str):
    sum = 0
    for c in str:
    sum += ord(c) – 55
    return sum

    magic_nums = [x for x in range(1, 3000) if romanToAlphanomic(rmn.toRoman(x)) == x]

    print magic_nums
    print [rmn.toRoman(x) for x in magic_nums]


    [94, 129]
    [‘XCIV’, ‘CXXIX’]



    admin Reply:



    Mechanomica Reply:

    129 = ancient
    129 = immune
    129 = magician
    129 = time egg

    On an obliquely related note, I’d like formally to recommend Ernst Schertel’s Magic: History / Theory / Practice, perhaps the best book on the subject that I’ve yet come across. The only English language version of the book also contains annotations by a certain unsavory historical figure. Hitler’s favorite passages are probably not of too much interest to the Natsoc crew (beans to me, either way). My aim here is to put the book in the hands of that small subset of outer NRxers who enjoy hunting down the traces of particular streams of magickal thought & influence over time.

    Michael A. Aquino (former high priest of the Temple of Set, former US PSYOP officer) published a very perceptive Amazon review of the book in 2010. Since someone around here saw fit to save Aquino’s name to the gematrix glossolalary at some point, this seems extra worth mentioning. He’s a good one to watch in any context.

    From a forum post of his:

    “In the field of PSYOP such things are not analyzed or judged morally, just cause-and-effectly. Once of the consequences of being a PSYOP officer is that you wind up seeing the whole damn world this way, with all of the moral, patriotic, religious, etc. overlays (fetishes, sacred cows, taboos) as ‘just part of the show’. It doesn’t even make you cynical, because cynicism requires something to be outraged against. Instead you become numb. That’s the real, the serious danger, because the thing that is divine in the human soul is the ability to apprehend, and to desire, and to affirm, the Good. If we lose this, we are nothing.”

    Also: while I’m no numerologist, 255 has been tugging at me on the intuitive level for the past few days, specifically as a portent of some type of impending doom or crash (more in an exhilarating sense than anything horror-filled—though admittedly this would depend on one’s disposition toward such things). As a member of the die-hard skeptics club, I wouldn’t care to put too much stock in this feeling having any prophetic relevance in 2015 beyond the realm of my own personal mythos, but it’s a fun number in other ways. In the spirit of mischief—and simple ignorance of what the hell else to do with the nagging impulse—I’m planting it here. FWIW, AQ 255 = “special number”


    Posted on January 5th, 2015 at 4:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    And then there’s this:

    European bond yields fall to lowest level since the Black Death:

    “Nothing like this has been seen since the 14th Century,” writes Ambrose Evans Pritchard.

    Doesn’t sound like hyperinflation is in the cards.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Your epistemology is off. You’re trying to assign causes irrationality. Go through the “Standard” works on causality ie Judea Pearl or was it Reichenbach’s and then attempt it. It doesn’t work like that.


    Posted on January 5th, 2015 at 5:22 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    A few things I remembered, I think I’ll post a real comment next chaos patch.

    From John Gray via ‘Grays Anatomy’ chapter 23 pg 292 is titled ‘Evangelical atheism, secular Christianity’ from what I understand these have been his views for a while. I own almost all of his books except 1 or 2 and will complete my collection in like 2 days.

    I’d like to position Mencius off of any claims his followers have made and strictly onto accute perceptions such as his criticism of haskell, his views on the church numerals and the obsession with it. I’d also like to point out his suspicion of Bayesianism not necessarily in an against fashion just his stupefied reaction to over-focusing on it, which seems to me _almost all_ bayesians do.

    The reason to position him off this is so the ‘enemy’ cannot merely do ‘Gotcha!’ rebuttals. From my understanding NRx has not received substantial rebuttals or criticisms. When people proudly wave the flag of futarchy on what is considered the “Definitive take-down” we are not there yet.

    John Gray’s work demands serious consideration, he is elite and competent and it would be foolish to ignore the guy who has been this anti-enlightenment thing for awhile, and it’s strange I haven’t seen him talked about more. I cannot compliment his work with enough superlatives.

    I also do not know the obsession with position NRx as merely a negative thesis, which is disgusting to me. I agree with Thiel that competition is distracting and prefer the alternative to producing an alternate bloc. Furthermore the idea that NRx is merely negative is suffocating. I can follow this line of thought more, but roughly speaking it’s why I fail to see any one producing alternate bodies of thought. Except for the best of course.

    @Anissimov on ‘Monarchies are Robust’ this is irrelevant because the superior alternative is to make no human have that much power and to prevent it altogether ie city states not monarchies. If there is a monarchy I need to see a substantial fleshing out of the counter-balance of an Aristocracy that is similar to Maistre’s, or the Molbug’s reciever stuff.

    Also very important I found this from “The More Moderate Side of Joseph Maistre” – Camcastle recommendation via Taleb

    “In 1822 , one year after Maistre’s death, a manuscript was published entitled lettres a un gentilhomme Russe sur L’Inquisition Expagmole [Letters to a Russian gentleman on the Spanish Inquistion only the sixth letter(the last) is signed and the signature is Philomathe de Civarron, Moscow 15/Civarron was a Pen Name of Joseph De Maistre. This has not be authenticated and no one knows who Philomathe de Civarron was but Maistre has subsequently been criticized for what the book contains. Maistre was in St Petersburg, not in Moscow, when the book is supposed to have been written. Maistre’s name does not appear anywhere in the book. This book on the inquisition and the name Philomathe de Civarron has not been mentioned by Maistre anywhere in his other writings, nor is there any reference to them in his notebooks and correspondence.”

    Sorry copied this via the book I have in front of me.

    Essential link: Epistemological causes of the soviet union’s collapse – John gray

    the joke at the end was cute


    Posted on January 5th, 2015 at 6:15 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Lars Christensen on Greek exit from the Eurozone.

    I know I am beating this to death. Sorry for that. What I am wrestling with is this: What would neoreaction be if it gave up the notion that fiat money necessarily leads the world into a hyperinflationary meltdown? What would happen to the other pillars of neoreaction if that one were tossed out? If it were accepted that the existing central banks are plenty capable of running non-inflationary monetary policy for the next 100 years (and the problem is much more likely to be deflation) what does that do to the rest of the body of neoreactionary thought?

    I think a lot of the “horror” scenarios just don’t come to pass, for starters. If good monetary policy is the basis for stable civil society, and if a growing number of central bankers have figured out how to run good monetary policy, more or less, then the glide path for human civilization becomes a lot mellower, all else held equal. The US gets trashier but nothing more. Pakistan and Sri Lanka get better. India gets better, Peru gets better etc etc.

    All those guys stockpiling ammo will have a lot of ammo stockpiled and nothing more …


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    I’m actually willing to have the extended discussion with you in a productive fashion I just don’t have time as of right now but I’ll have it as long as you’d like. So give me a minute here.


    scientism Reply:

    Can central bankers fix demographics?


    Hurlock Reply:

    They can fix everything, don’t you know?


    Kgaard Reply:

    Scientism — No, central bankers basically can’t fix demographics. They can help pump out a few babies at the margins, but overall the drivers are elsewhere.

    How should central bankers respond when populations are flat or declining? This will be a big challenge. Actually it already is. Falling populations usually mean flat or declining prices (all else held equal) because the “stuff to people” ratio goes up, meaning each unit of stuff is worth less, again all else held equal. We can see this most clearly in the real estate prices of dying towns. Entirely livable houses in central Pennsylvania often go for $20,000.

    Should central bankers print to keep prices stable overall when populations fall, or just let prices fall over time? I suspect both paths will be tried. Upon saying this, it’s important to distinguish between the demographic driver for price declines and the credit-collapse driver, which more urgently demands a central bank response.


    Izak Reply:

    The more that I think about it, the biggest reason I don’t actually put much stock in WN, Dugin 4pt, NRx, or libertarianism is probably that they all contain a wrongheaded sort of eschatology.

    They all sit around waiting for some big apocalyptic moment to come where they can finally say, “Now is our chance!” The libertarians apparently think the big hyper-inflationary doomsday will come, so they can say, “Ha ha! We were right all along!” and then everyone says, “You did it! We will listen to you now!” The WNs are all holding out for some big race war where they can say, “Now you’ve done it White America! You listened to liberalism! But now you can listen to us!” The masses obviously respond with, “Of course! Now let’s all make The Turner Diaries come true!” Alexander Dugin apparently thinks that all of logocentrism will shatter in some grandiose moment of liberal dissolution. The NRx guys include a bunch of singularity people who think that robots will do something interesting. They’re interested in “horror,” which would make them look like a bunch of easily frightened sissies if not for the fact that they obviously find robots more exciting than scary. Of course I’m caricaturizing all of these positions — and in fact I’ve read decent arguments to the contrary within each of these discourses — but in all four of them, there exists a very irritating streak of apocalypticism, which would likely be unproductive even were it true. Yet this sort of apocalypticism also provides the source from which each group derives its energy.

    If I were to lead some sort of (meta-)political movement, my very first incontrovertible principle would be this: the structures of governance are more or less stable and that all of the deeper problems we identify now will probably be the same 100 years from now, regardless of who nominally holds political power — and that’s the most upsetting thing of all. If the West loses power, its big mission will be to get back the power it had….. well, now. All of this complaining on the internet will have been meaningless. The masses will say, “How do I get it back so that I can post a youtube video of my adorable kittens trying to open a door?!” Everyone will be nostalgic for now, and no one will want anything to do with the people who felt that now is a very empty or absurd or structurally unsound place to be.

    So what I’m saying, in a roundabout way, is that if we can push back against the narrative of dollar doom or peak oil or whatever other major concern, we (whoever ‘we’ is) will probably be better off in the long run, and the ideas we produce will probably be more robust.


    Izak Reply:

    Addendum: when I say “masses,” I don’t just mean plebs or peasants. I’m talking about everyone in the mainstream from the lowest dregs to the loftiest crest — this including the nice professors and politicians whom we like to think so much about.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Doom porn as energy source shouldn’t be underestimated but you do have a point about fully matured members needing to focus on the here and now rather than on a speculative future. That doesn’t mean that the goal isn’t to push against the structure of government. I see organizing competing institutions with the end goal is displacing existing corrupted institutions as immediately actionable and doesn’t require a doomsday scenario to work though it would make a good catalyst.

    Finding ways of protecting your hide and those you love is all well and good, but I don’t think simple opportunism is what brings us here, it’s love of civilization and the dream of a better civilization. Without that there’s just old fashioned petty politicking. This is an exercise in escapism, but so long as it’s built in reality the escapist aspect can only be criticized to the extent that it interferes with building the reality. If you could establish that it’s pure delusion, yours would be a far darker position than anything Admin has suggested. Perhaps I’m projecting, but at the very least, buried in our deepest heart of hearts hiding away remains the tiniest spark of an idealist. Even admin’s darkest stuff still allows that spark, yours does not.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Izak and Aeroguy … I largely agree with what you both are saying here. My mind has been going down the same path the last few days. Much of neoreaction’s worldview is correct (ex monetary policy) but the conclusions drawn are often not so good. As an example, it’s quite clear the center of the US is in a Christian revival of historic proportions. It’s everywhere. Turn on the radio in Tennessee and you will get FIVE Christian radio stations. (And three more talking college football.) So that’s one area where the Cathedral is being pushed back against, sort of.

    If we look at other areas of Cathedral control, we see them under attack: universities and newspapers most obviously. I still contend that the Republican takeover of statehouses and congress could have SOME real-world implications. I mean, the Republicans have only had control of congress for two days (literally). Let’s see if they try to roll some things back.

    Pat Buchanan has a good piece on the civil war in the Democratic Party, likening it (correctly) to 1968. So that’s worth thinking about too.

    Izak Reply:


    Your comment are absolutely correct, and I think the starting position I advocate *is* darker — much, much darker. When admin talks about “horror,” I think we all realize that “horror” isn’t exactly the right word for it, at least according to conventional semantics.

    I think my problem with doom porn is that it’s frequently a way of rationalizing one’s personal dissatisfaction with the system.

    When you think about what we do here on the outer-right, we complain about a society that most people are basically OK with all things considered, and we try to entertain the possibility of replacing it with a highly experimental one with an unreliable (or nonexistent) history. Our self-appointed job is partly to convince people that their happy lives are actually terrible or dissatisfying or whatever, so that they can think more critically about power structures or the media or political theory or aesthetics. At some point, the whole thing feels like an exercise in needless cynicism or even sadism, especially when one’s concerns aren’t guided by a higher principle. So we’re bound to find a bunch of people in these circles who make up rationalizing lies or half-truths about how their problems with the system are actually of paramount importance due to existential reasons. I’m not completely against the people who do these things, since I’m guilty of having done it myself, even somewhat recently. And, furthermore, such arguments about the end of society-as-we-know-it could be totally justified or rooted in an honest attempt at rational calculation. But for me, the possibility of phoniness and excuse-making is becoming too bothersome. At least, cataclysm prophecy should be a secondary position, not a primary one.

    As a thought experiment, let’s just assume that everything is completely stable. Sure China could overpower The West, but they’d slowly start to resemble The West, and The West would collectively say, “We want to go back to how things were in the year 2014, when marriage rates were slowly declining, the White race was slowly declining, and everyone was staring at a computer screen all day long!” — the only question for most people being “how does one go back and arrest gradual decline” rather than “how does one fight for something new.” The structures themselves are fine — the only struggles are over political fine-tuning within a given structural framework of sufficient utility. Regardless of who wins or loses in the grim struggle for power, nothing “new” is really needed, and nothing is very urgent. So, what now? What’s the reason for not just being a bland conservative (and make no mistake: I would never become one)? What happens when all of the zany outside-the-box solutions cease to be necessary? Sure, they could create welcome improvements, but unnecessary ones.

    We can find a similar problem in a lot of American eschatology-driven protestants like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or 7th Day Adventists. It’s impossible to tell those who love Christ because of Christ’s splendor and innate Good versus those who love Christ because they’re petrified about the end of times. (This is one of those problems that rebellious teenagers think about a lot before they grow up and decide that the question is too cliched or immature to discuss any further)

    My guess is that by starting out with the assumption of radical stability and cutting out all thoughts of possible earth-shattering events, you’d quickly start to see lines drawn between people who actually have a serious vision for which they’d fight tooth and nail and those who have petty, self-interested hobby horses to which they always needed to assign some weight. And that’s valuable in itself.

    Aeroguy Reply:


    What your describing would be as much a shock to my system as when I became an apostate from Christianity (I ended up crying on top of a roof, though alcohol was involved but imbibed before the change, I’m not sure what I would do in this case). At first it sounds like complete inescapable nihilism, but really it’s just nihilism about the world while meaning from personal aspirations remain fair game. Making self improvement and playing the game better ends rather than means for something greater. I’m not sure if I would end up pro or anti natalist. Similar to how I don’t go around encouraging Christians to become apostate, I don’t see myself spreading these ideas to outsiders. I’d probably become even more narcissistic than I already am (and probably learn to hide it better too). There are the people and things I love and I’d throw myself at them harder than before, though something would be lost along the way. I’d gladly give up myself and more reluctantly the people I love to help realize something that transcends humans, the idea of that, I love that more than anything. Without it, it would be like living in black and white without color. I’m sure as hell not giving up on that idea without a fight.

    Posted on January 5th, 2015 at 2:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:

    What’s interesting to me about this is that the revival of Maoist rhetoric has not been accompanied by a revival of Maoist economics. In Xi’s China, rhetoric drifts to the left, but the government’s practical program of political economy continues it’s rightward march (the most prominent economic reforms of Xi’s tenure still being the opening of the Free Trade Zones and the Hong Kong-Shanghai link).

    A contradiction that China will choke on? Or are foreigners misunderstanding the nature of Maoism? (As they frequently do with Marxism…)


    Posted on January 5th, 2015 at 3:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Nick, have you heard of Ex-Machina?

    I have a press pass for it on Monday! Will have a review up on it soon after.


    Posted on January 5th, 2015 at 4:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    “If you are going to a gunfight bring a gun; if you are going to a religious war, bring a religion.”
    — Tom Kratman

    Hat tip: John Cunningham at Rand Simberg’s blog


    Posted on January 6th, 2015 at 3:00 am Reply | Quote
  • nydwracu Says:

    When we … speak of a belief in God, by God we do not understand, as do naive Christians and their clerical beneficiaries, a manlike being who is sitting around in some corner of the sphere… the force which moves all these bodies in the universe, in accordance with natural law, is what we call the Almighty or God… The more thoroughly we know and attend to the laws of nature and life, the more we adhere to them, the more do we correspond to the will of the Almighty. The deeper our insight into the will of the Almighty, the greater will be our success.




    Posted on January 6th, 2015 at 7:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    theres nothing more tiresome then half-educated progs selectively employing enlightenment ‘epistemology’ (scare quotes necessary) to disqualify the validity of stuff they dont like. this thread is a perfect case study

    nowhere else have i seen this as common than in topics of race, but its a theme that runs through academic leftism all over the place, post-modernists presuming they repudiate the enlightenment, while retaining enlightenment standards, ethics and conceits as givens.

    a spot dedicated to a reactionary epistemology would be nice if for no other reason than to provide a single reference point to look for whenever the same old canards get trotted out.


    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 7:14 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment