Chaos Patch (#45)

(Open thread + links)

Some initial reacto-chatter — Sex and natural law (don’t miss the comment thread). Prepare for World War P. Inception politics. Battered West syndrome. The new alchemy. A new behaviorism. Exosemantics (are we going to get a Coles Notes for this?). A routine that’s still working well. Social Matter audio. “We shall never truly defeat socialism until we abolish private property” (apparently). Secular religion. Whose side is history on? Round-ups from FN and Steves, and continuous flow here.

The compression of ritual space (and a reading list from hell). Scale-free patterns.

Putin, international man of misery. A Pope beyond hope. Romney is perfect (for 1996). Awkward words in China (related). Unthinkable fears. Much of interest here (especially this).

Gibson’s ‘the Jackpot’ — or cross-lashed, polycausal catastrophe — makes a real contribution to contemporary apocalypticism (this article offers no more than a hazy clue).

More Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare reactionary succulence.

Much entertaining frivolity this week (unless it’s just me) — “quite possibly the most racist article you will ever read” (I doubt it, but still …). Racism. Racism and hate. More racism and hate. Not racist. (This is how it used to be done.)

January 18, 2015admin 36 Comments »

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

36 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#45) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 1:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    Damn it, sorry for being late with a day, but happy birthday, Nick!

    More on topic I am reading that Bonald post and I can feel the disgust slowly growing in my stomach:
    “The author of this heresy of private property was the Whig John Locke. The scholastics had maintained that government is natural–i.e. an integral part of the good life–while property is artificial. By natural law, the world and everything in it belongs to everyone, but the community divides the world into parcels of property for its own purposes. Locke reversed this, making government a pure artifice and property a dictate of nature. ”

    “By natural law, the world and everything in it belongs to everyone”

    I have to commend Bonald on his genius. He obviously intends to abolish socialism by appropriating it into catholicism. Brilliant! But I think Pope Francis might be already a few steps ahead of him on that front…

    By the way, this christian doctrine that the world naturally “belongs to everyone”, is one of the finest examples of the creeping leftism inherent in that religion.


    admin Reply:

    Thanks, but that ‘happy birthday’ is based on false information (Wikipedia?).

    Had you in mind when I pasted in the Bonald link …


    Hurlock Reply:

    Ok, now I just feel stupid. My apologies.

    Bonald’s post is standard stuff for him and Zippy so no real surprise there. They are not going to change, but I think their views on the subject of private property must be more carefully analyzed and payed attention to by neoreactionaries. They do raise some valuable questions about christianity in general.


    admin Reply:

    I still default to believing Wikipedia, too.

    Christian Reactionaries probably don’t care whether tech-comms trust them (but judging by this type of thinking, I don’t see how we possibly could).

    MLR Reply:

    Whenever I see “trust” my ears (eyes? … blog-reading ears?) perk up. Trust, and the role it plays in the (N)Rx is something I’d like to see further explored. While I’ll allow that (Western/Roman/Protestant) Christianity (as its identified here) has contributed to a creeping Marxism in Western civilization, I don’t think the TechComs of the Trike get off scott-free, either, in being … let’s say “vulnerable” to the same kind of thinking that got (Western!) Christianity to what you (rightly) see and criticize, now.

    I believe the kind of thinking that reduces the world to component parts to be manipulated in a Machiavellian kind of way explains a great deal about Progressivism in the West. It is that kind of thinking – that kind of attention – that characterizes how the left hemisphere of the brain looks at and interprets the world. It’s Machiavellian. It’s efficient. It categorizes. It creates a virtual version of world, in the form of words, not least. It de-contextualizes.

    Insofar as humans are social beings, we need the right hemisphere, and the attention it pays to the world – HOW (not what!) it sees the world – to make connections. To see people as living wholes, and not their component parts.

    I would put it to you that Christianity as it is practiced by Orthodoxy (notice “practice”: where the Western Church philosophizes and makes abstract and theoretical, Orthodoxy LIVES its faith) holds a way (a HOW, not a WHAT) that offers a way forward where it regards trust: one that the tech-com trike would lack on its own. This… lets call it “asymmetry” of ability within the trike reflects, too, a view of the world that favours the left hemisphere’s take on things, and the way it pays attention to the world. The NRx itself is a product of a civilization that has favoured the left’s view of things for a long, long while.

    Let’s get the rubber to meet the road: I would welcome a tech-com future that trusts its Orthodox Patriarchs in a custodianship of the community; I would expect the nature of the Orthodox faith to do what the Latin Church and its offspring have failed to do for over 1,000 years as it instead bread both heresy and Marxism itself.



    Iain McGilchrist:


    Alrenous Reply:

    Abolishing private property is socialism, or close enough.

    Half the point of philosophy is that right-brain thinking is made mainly of failure modes and dominated by the short term. Returning to it will give you, literally, Musrabia.

    However, the idea the wholistic thinking must be avoided during left-brain or reductionist thinking is anti-philosophical. The project is to master the details and re-build them into a whole; to understand wholes by going through the details, not sidestepping them. I blame the merchant infestation for the outgrouping of the rebuild step. A true scholar only outgroups falsehood.

    Trust is really cool.
    It is also incredibly expensive. Much of the time it isn’t worth the cost, and trustless networks are strictly superior, such as what Bitcoin tries to be.
    Given trustless technologies, trust becomes more of an end than a means. A trust-hungry society is an alternative to consumerism.
    Which raises the problem of giving societies and cultures a purpose. I believe the higher purpose most crave can be easily supplied, if done intentionally. Further, as long as it’s not actually illegal to fail to uphold the purpose, it’s a Pareto improvement to have a purpose, and having everyone compete to have the most trustworthy neighbours should be a good choice.

    Mark Yuray Reply:

    If theonomists have a particular predilection for falling into leftism via socialism, tech-coms have a particular predilection for falling into leftism via individualism. It’s not a theonomist problem and it’s not a Christian problem, it’s a leftism problem.


    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 1:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Richard Brookes Says:

    On the subject of the evolution of attitudes to sexual matters, there is considerable amusement to be had in researching the “cotton ceiling”. I honestly have to keep pinching myself to remember that these people are serious.


    admin Reply:

    “19,700,000 results …” — somehow I’d missed this crucial advance in terrestrial consciousness …


    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 2:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    That is, I think, a disingenuous reading of Bonald. Sure he walked into it with his shock line. Perhaps he should have announced, “We shall never truly defeat socialism until we abolish private property and public property“. What he clearly meant was “We shall never truly defeat socialism until we abolish the modern (and retarded) abstract wall between purely public purely private property“.

    I am, of course, quite allergic to “abolishing” anything (even when its pretty bad). But if human evolution prepared us poorly for pornography, HFC-infused carb chips, and mass plebiscite democracy, it is certainly not retarded to question whether it has prepared us well for an ideological distinction between purely private and purely public goods.


    admin Reply:

    “The rich should be given a choice of having their surplus property confiscated by the State or buying their way into an aristocracy, in which case they get to keep their fortunes, but these are transformed into a public trust, to be used to benefit the aristocrat’s locale.” — This type of recommendation incites less generosity in me than it clearly does in you.


    Hurlock Reply:

    Bonald is obviously unhappy about the elites being too irresponsible nowadays. This is a fact and it raises a legitimate concern, but he proposes to solve it via a very dangerous method.
    His proposal to make the elites more responsible by making the state stronger and then using the state to force the elites to do this or that betrays ignorance of the historic evolution of the state and the development of the relationship between the state and the upper classes. The elites nowadays are not irresponsible because the state is too weak, but because it is too strong. The elites can afford to be irresponsible in many areas because via sufficient lobbying of the state, whose powers are near-unlimited nowadays, they can get away with it by being protected by the benevolent bureaucrats of the Democratic Party.

    If Bonald knew his traditionalism and his history well, he should be proposing the elites to be made stronger, while the state weakened, until the internal balance of power between state (king and his court) and elites (regional nobles) of the early-high middle ages is restored. In those times the king’s power was incredibly miniscule compared to the power of the modern state, because the elites commanded a much greater authority than nowadays and could truly limit the power of the state (king). However, through centuries of reforms the kings progressively chipped away at the power of the aristocracy while elevating the plebeian population to higher positions in society. In this way they started increasing their own power and set in motion a process which eventually led to the development of the popular democratic movements of the 18th and 19th centuries.

    The State has no interest in a responsible elite class, because a responsible and capable elite class is respected by the lower classes. And an elite which is respected by the lower classes is a direct threat to the extent of the state’s power. Power is conserved in society – so if a king wants to increase his power he must always do so at the expense of the power of the aristocracy. The aristocracy will naturally attempt to resist this and it will be much more sucessful in its efforts to do so, if it has the respect of its subjects. Therefore, the state (or a king) does not want a responsible and capable aristocracy if he has any ambition to extend the reach of his power.
    To give more power to the state so that it can then make the elites more responsible is a dangerously naive idea. Althought this is not the first time such an idea has been proposed. Indeed in this suggestion, Bonald finds himself in the fine company of various 18th and 19th century revolutionaries and socialists.

    I wish people like him would leave the theory of political design and reform to tose who have actually studied political history.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    “The rich should be given a choice of having their surplus property confiscated by the State or buying their way into an aristocracy, in which case they get to keep their fortunes, but these are transformed into a public trust, to be used to benefit the aristocrat’s locale.”

    Bonald is applying leftist logic to a reactionary problem.

    A true aristocracy does not require a State to force them to be aristocratic.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Abolishing private property when most advanced definitions have its origins firmly rooted in biology is ignorant. This is what happens when you leave the floodgates open and let every blogger write garbage.

    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 5:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Was Enlightened Says:

    Oh yes,considerable amusement:

    “We’re all familiar with “The Cotton Ceiling” whereby heterosexual male transgenders advocate for the corrective rape of lesbians who “oppress” them by denying them sexual contact. ”

    … if you say so …


    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 5:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#45) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 6:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scott Alexander Says:

    I can’t find a good way to get in touch with Curia Regis directly, so let me just try asking here – can I request to be removed from the blog aggregator?


    Neoreactive Reply:

    Sure thing Scott, has been deleted.


    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 6:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    The Ara Maxima piece about being on the right side of history is, on the surface, quite compelling. He is arguing that the left ASSUMES it’s on the right side of history — but history itself shows the RIGHT to have been on the right side of history.

    But upon further reflection, I wonder if Ara Maxima is not considering the matter from too short a time scale. Pre-historic history was a combination of radical Darwinism AND radical socialism — i.e. communism at the tribal level combined with varying degrees of warfare at the meta-tribal level.

    This was the message of everyone’s favorite political philosophy treatise (or mine, anyway), Sex at Dawn. It was also the message of Rousseau’s excellent Discourse on the Origin of Human Inequality.

    To argue that the right has a moral hammerlock on the future would seem a flawed position. Within each of us lies some cellular memory of our socialist past. That manifests itself in policies time and again.


    Hurlock Reply:

    Time is cyclical.

    So no one can be on the right side of history. Or everyone is?
    Periods of traditionalism eventually decay into periods of progressivism after which a sort of collapse follows from which, in order to stabilize, what remains of society goes ultra-traditionalist and gradually decays into progressivism again.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    Describing tribal life as communist is like describing the family as communist. My friends and I are egalitarians amongst each other — are we communists? Are our friendships leftist? No, we are egalitarians because we are actually equal. Justified egalitarianism is not despicable leftism. I am not an expert on tribal life, but I am fairly certain that the egalitarianism practiced therein is justified, seeing as they are miniscule groups of people who speak the same language, share the same DNA, have the same history, etc. Sexual egalitarianism is a huge issue as far as civilization is concerned, but we’re not talking about civilizations, we’re talking about barbarians. I’m pretty sure there are no career gay activists in the pre-historic tribe.

    Also, as far as Sex at Dawn and whatnot is concerned, I have to say, as a reactionary, if there’s anything I will stand for, it is precisely the logic of life developed since the onset of human agriculture 10,000 years ago. I have zero sentimentality for kumbaya-singing egalitarian tribals “in touch with nature.”


    Kgaard Reply:

    Wait … there’s another element: There was no way to store up capital. In a hunter-gatherer society, nobody can get rich because there is no means of storing capital. So they were always reliant on their fellows for life and death. Anyone can stab anyone else in there sleep — and in fact that probably happened more than we’d think. The tribal way of getting rid of sociopaths and psychopaths was that all agreed that Grog would be having a hunting accident, and sure enough he did.

    The radical sharing of tribal life flowed from the economic circumstances in which they existed. They also shared women on the same basis: They generally were in need of more bodies. And the relationships between men were more crucial than the relationships between individual men and women. And, as you say, because everyone’s DNA was so similar people tended to get along with a lot of other people in the tribe. So polyamory probably came fairly naturally emotionally too.


    soapjackal Reply:

    >The tribal way of getting rid of sociopaths and psychopaths

    detrimental whackjobs are problematic anyway. As long as they dont turn on the tribe and can be used against another tribe they are assets.

    SVErshov Reply:

    “The tribal way of getting rid of sociopaths and psychopaths was that all agreed that Grog would be having a hunting accident, and sure enough he did.”

    Not only “sociopaths and psychopaths” but kings too, Diving Kings from Cambodia to Africa were not allowed to die by natural death.

    “Customs of the same sort appear to have prevailed in
    this part of Africa down to modern times. In some
    tribes of Fazoql the king had to administer justice daily
    under a certain tree. If from sickness or any other cause
    he was unable to discharge this duty for three whole
    days, he was hanged on the tree in a noose, which
    contained two razors so arranged that when the noose
    was drawn tight by the weight of the king’s body they
    cut his throat. ”

    THE GOLDEN BOUGH James Frazer

    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 9:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Y.Ilan Says:

    There is certainly a Putin obsession amongst the Alt Right/NRx, mostly a Putinphilic obsession. I can understand the draw on an emotional level; after all he seems like such a powerful autocrat, standing up against the despised “Cathedral,” etc. But Russia isn’t doing well and isn’t going to do well in the future. Demographically it is doomed, and it is still wholly reliant on its natural resources; and so it seems to me that the Putin-love is a bit pathetic and unwarranted. Putin is another Russian leader of the Tsarist mold, nothing else and nothing more, his chief motivation being his own vast bank account and the bank accounts of his friends. Such corrupt leadership is not worthy of praise nor emulation.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    I cannot really speak for the rest of the dissident Right, but my Putinophilia stems from a combination of my European elitism, anti-Americanism, and Slavic ethnocentrism.


    Y.Ilan Reply:

    Beggars can’t be choosers, I suppose; yet it is better to not bet on a lame horse, even if that horse was once healthy and strong. Maybe Putin’s support of the Far Right in Europe is a good thing, but we better not forget that these Rightists are just as sick with the democratic fever as anyone else.


    Hurlock Reply:

    Continental Europeans, especially eastern ones, should always be wary of Russia, unless they plan on becoming part of it.

    At best, from my point of view, Putin is just a temporary ally.


    SVErshov Reply:

    Russia has 400 billion usd in reserves and1500 billion usd debts by government corporations. They need war too. What else they can do when the whole world become insolvent.


    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 10:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • phi Says:

    Related to the Ara Maxima piece, “Francis Fukuyama and panelists debate alternatives to democracy” may be of some interest. John Mearsheimer also speaks and is on the panel.

    Introductions start at 8 minutes in, talks begin at 16:30.


    Kgaard Reply:

    I watched some of this. Thanks. I had never seen Fukuyama actually speak before and had been told he was sort of a monotone mumbler. He is pretty impressive here.


    Posted on January 18th, 2015 at 10:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    What’s Al-fin’s deal? He seems like he has a bit of an axe to grind, to put it mildly.

    Isn’t Russian misery a constant under every economic / political system?


    SVErshov Reply:

    Russians always been atavistic, in hard time and war up to level of self sacrifice. Naturally leaders like Putin, who demands loyalty will be loved, no matter what.


    Posted on January 19th, 2015 at 5:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Here we go, Nick. Not sure when it’s out in Shanghai/China, but see it when you can!


    Posted on January 21st, 2015 at 12:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Sorry for the gloom n’ doom but this is worth scanning…


    Posted on January 25th, 2015 at 12:06 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment