Chaos Patch (#48)

(Open thread + links)

Absolutely right. Spandrell on babies. The price of wealth. NRx — and ethnonationalism, as heresy, excessively Nietzschean, needs to learn from Opus Dei, is too negative (for instance!), but it’s still interesting. A Frankensteined future. Compromise is surrender. Apology for collapse. A miscellany of Moldbug quotes. Fragged Friday. Meta (1, 2, 3, 4).

Clash of civilizations. The sneaky Chinese plan to avoid world war. Mining bitcoin in China (video). Don’t give up on America (it’s not Venezuela or Greece).

Two paths to civilization. Really, g is “substantially heritable”. What inclusive fitness means. Gene-culture coevolutionary theory. Collectivity and contagion. Some gentle transhumanist satire.

Cockroach personalities.

Emergent AI. (It needs to be saved.)

White flight in Cyberspace. Derb on white ID. Delights of diversity in France. Africa is the future.

Introducing Revolvr. Darkleaks.

A defense of hyperinflation phobia.

The coming crack down (bring it on).

Dugin and Heidegger.

Silicon Vally should listen to losers (and serve them). Queering agriculture: ” … the people running the humanities today are no longer the guardians of our culture, but its nemesis.”

February 8, 2015admin 39 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , , ,

39 Responses to this entry

  • VXXC Says:

    If you fled from Cyberspace please stop calling yourself White.

    I suggest Lily, but anything but White.

    I’m still not racist but you can’t escape your Skin….

    Seriously. If you can be driven in Flight from Cyberspace do NOT call yourself White.


    Posted on February 8th, 2015 at 5:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#48) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 8th, 2015 at 7:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    Re. the linked Tanya Cohen piece: it’s rather quaint how she tries to convince her readers—and perhaps herself—that she’s arguing from a non-biased, overarching, external reference frame. I’m with Dampier on this one—go ahead, let’s weld a big fat bead over the release valve of that pressure cooker and dial up the temperature. Things can only get more interesting, particularly in a sagging global economy. In the meantime, I’m gonna sit back, scratch my balls—while I contemplate cooking up a batch of popcorn.


    Posted on February 8th, 2015 at 7:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Chris B has been killing it lately. Izak should definitely get a blog. #Passivism is pretty funny. Found out anti-dem is from my area.

    A few resources:

    *)Cosma Shalizi’s notebooks:

    *)For the people who want some nice artisan notebooks the leuchtturm 1917 medium sized notebooks are great for those that prefer to write and not type.

    *) <— Off the record instant messaging. It's a lot better than sending plaintext and getting sucked into NSA dragnet. It isn't perfect, but it's a hell lot better than what people normally use. You're gonna need it eventually.

    *) <—– All in one linux live usb that's more than sufficient protection for people who participate in radical politics. Comes with tor out of the box. Remember to use obfs3 if you really need to be anonymous. You will definitely need this. Visiting the website increases your xkeyscore rating, but yours is already pretty high.

    *) Big white boards cost 10-13 dollars from lowes and are probably one of the best investments you can make. Also called 'white panels'.

    *) I've found that printing papers and putting them in a binder helps me read them much more.

    *) aka 'Hacker News' get your technology news from here and not journalists.

    *) Don't for a minute think that undercovers will not try to meet you. Ultra-leftists have had security culture for years. Consider getting a new phone for just NRx people.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply: cosma’s updated notebooks up to 2014


    Posted on February 8th, 2015 at 9:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    I read Anarcho Papist’s post “NRx is always to your right” and my first thought was: “And Anissimov is supposed to be the goofy one, eh?”

    I was thinking of writing a similar piece for my nonexistent blog called “NRx is always your buddy,” but, you know, whatever.

    Anyhow, Dugin’s Heidegger book was reviewed by Greg Johnson over at Counter Currents a couple months back. Johnson seems to have some ideology-based resentment and bias, but he did make the point that Dugin’s understanding of Heidegger is based on a misreading, one which most Heidegger scholars would consider outdated and replaced by a better one. Anyone know if there’s any truth to this? I’ve only read two (easier) Heidegger books and I haven’t yet bothered with Being and Time because I feel like I need to read Husserl first, so I’m basically clueless on this issue.

    Also, speaking of Dugin, Glen Beck ran some silly thing about him on his show. The link is here, and it contains a highly entertaining youtube video:


    Alrenous Reply:

    Everyone is goofy.
    Some just try to hide it. It doesn’t work.


    Posted on February 8th, 2015 at 9:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    Scott Alexander’s piece, the “A Flight Too Far” punchline at the end, awesome (but could be better, though in a slightly different direction, if instead it was a package that for example, enhanced in-group out-group awareness).
    Scott’s moral digestive issues with Gnon do show up though he doesn’t ignore Gnon.
    “50 (murders nationwide) in 2060′ ‘improved impulse-control and anger-management genes included in every modern super-enhancement designer baby gene therapy package”

    He wears rose tinted glasses of transhumanism in terms of optimizing arbitrary “goods” rather than relative fitness (it’s not about what you think is good, it’s what Gnon thinks is good). How does one optimize traits like drive and ambition? For starters if you have improved impulse control you can afford to heighten aggression proportionately. If you have improved ability to manage emotions then you would also want to heighten the intensity of those emotions particularly “negative” ones like anger that motivate people to action which is the very essence of drive and ambition.

    Scott likes to emphasis voluntary action (thus he likes to imagine worlds where our opinions matter) and though he sees the red queen’s race, he doesn’t acknowledge the full horror of it.


    Posted on February 8th, 2015 at 9:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Derbyshire: The Birth of Prudence looks solid.

    Zerohedge on hyperinflation and Hitler … TOTAL bogosity. They have to twist the words into a knot and then mis-interpret them to make a connection, which doesn’t exist. Hitler was a product of deflation, not inflation.

    On Africa … I watched that Addio Africa movie recommended by a reader here last week. Very powerful. Jesus … I got up from the couch and just thought, “Well, everybody hates everybody. Life is one big racial warfare free-for-all.” The most powerful scenes were actually the slaughter of arabs by africans.

    Gottfried on Dugin on Heidegger: Heidegger was correct in fingering technology as a destroyer of our ability to experience pure being, but I’m not sure the right path is a return to extant traditions, because for the most part they are rotten. The way in is probably through hallucinogenic drugs (acid, shrooms, Ecstasy), Holotropic Breathing and elements of Buddhist and Hindu practice.

    There is a GREAT new book out on hallucinogenics, “Acid Trip: LSD, Ecstasy and the power to heal.” One funny anecdote: Researchers were trying to prove that Ecstasy does not cause brain damage, but they couldn’t find anyone who had JUST done ecstasy (without having taken a dozen other drugs). And then they came upon some mormons. Turns out Mormonism lets you do Ecstasy but nothing else. So they found this Mormon cat who had done Ecstasy 95 times. And his brain was rock solid. No damage at all.


    Izak Reply:

    Yeah, Addio Africa! Wasn’t the music really well done? It’s probably the most artful documentary I’ve ever seen, except maybe Triumph of the Will, if that even counts as one. It’s very hard to tell which parts are contrived for better aesthetics (like the rich people bouncing up and down on trampolines) and which are totally spontaneous, but I appreciate that about it. Check out Roger Ebert’s review of it; he was thoroughly disgusted and outraged.

    Also watch Addio Zio Tom, it’s almost as good. It’s one of the only movies I know of where the core fan base seems to be a split between white nationalists and black nationalists.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Yeah now that you mention it the music was fantastic. Sort of that 1960s Bossa Nova vibe. Really well done. Which reminds me, I also just watched a great documentary on the Doors. Man … talk about an argument for dysgenics. The musicianship of those guys was off the charts. They recorded Light My Fire in TWO TAKES. They recorded LA Woman with the same approach. Unbelievable. The 60s/early 70s was a peak artistic period, similar to the 1880-1910 period. I felt like I was experiencing the same peak human brainpower than one saw in those clips of the NASA dudes in the control center as they were working the earth side on the moon landings …

    Back to Addio Africa … the trampoline scene was very moving. Those women were beautiful — and all very similar in appearance. That’s one of the reasons people just GOT married in those days. One fell into it. One was surrounded by attractive women of almost identical DNA to oneself, and it seemed the obvious thing to do. The opportunity cost was low. (And the reasoning would have been the same from the woman’s side.)

    Oh, one more point on the Doors: When Robbie Krieger meets Jim Morrison, he is described as “living on a roof in Santa Monica, dropping acid and writing poetry.” I love that!


    soapjackal Reply:

    Someone mentioned mormonism and fertility rates in a recent post so I gathered some research documents and wrote up a short screed on it. That may have to form the basis of a longer research piece if mormons really are allowed to use ecstasy.


    Y.Ilan Reply:

    Marvelous movie. Funnily enough, I was much more moved by the needless and graphic slaughter of animals than by any of the human slaughter that was going on.


    Posted on February 8th, 2015 at 11:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • defer Says:


    Well, there’s a reason anecdotes are the lowest form of evidence. I was raised a Mormon and maintain ties with many, and I can say that Mormons are unequivocally against all drugs including ecstasy. In fact, until very recently the Mormon church proscribed drinking caffeinated beverages for this very reason, and most still abstain from those.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Thanks Defer … I went back to the text to check this out. Turns out the main Mormon guy was “lapsed” — and had actually done Ecstasy 1,000 times — but hadn’t done any other drugs and had never drunk alcohol.

    “Not only that, he said, but he could find others like him: young Mormons who strictly obeyed the letter of their religion’s law by avoiding drugs and alcohol, but felt free to use anything not specifically mentioned in doctrine. Ecstasy wasn’t on the list.” (p 291.) Now, granted, this was 2003, so perhaps the list has been updated.

    In related news, today’s New Yorker magazine has a big piece on the resurgence of psychedelics as a healing remedy, particularly for “existential dread’ suffered by those facing death. Great piece.

    And speaking of existentialism, I was thinking more about the Heidegger issue. The text to read is The Question Concerning Technology (it’s much easier than Being and Time), where he specifically discusses the de-sacralization (of whatever you want to call it) of the landscape caused by slapping up human capital everywhere. He specifically uses the example of a hydroelectric plant on the Rhine. It changes our perception of the river. No longer do we see the infinite in the river, we just see a reflection of ourselves. It becomes just one more tool.

    This is why I think shrooms and Ecstasy might break the psychic logjam created by modernity. They break down that barrier between “me” and “the world” that industrialization puts up all around us.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Can you break down exactly what the benefits would be in quantitative terms? In the context of strict training and supervision it could be used as a shortcut to gaining certain insights (which is exactly what they are used for in particular religious rituals). But how is this any different than the hippie mind expansion of the 60’s? I was unaware that such a “psychic logjam” problem existed. There are problems like scaling beyond the Dunbar number, but hallucinogenics doesn’t seem like a solution. I get what you’re saying about the artificial barrier between the self and the world, it’s essentially the same as the Hindu conception of Atman and Brahman. Sure it’s hard for a westerner to fully wrap their mind around the concept at first but it’s not like you need hallucinogens to do so.


    Kgaard Reply:

    The experience creates a fundamental shift in perspective of almost … what’s the word … Kantian proportions. It’s like being in a dream state and yet awake at the same time. The defining characteristic of the dream is that space and time are no longer limiting factors. As such, neither are physical, bodily needs. Once I don’t have a needy body holding me back, my ego … and perhaps more to the point my selfishness … dissipates. I don’t have any physical needs so I don’t have to be needy or greedy or protective. In this realm I can be anyone, be everyone, be anywhere, be everywhere, be any TIME as well.

    The result is a radical increase in empathy, for one. And that leads to an increase in trust, in capacity to love, in reduced fear, in increased openness to experience of deeper elements of reality.

    I should note that my experiences have come almost entirely via Holotropic Breathing, which is perfectly legal. It’s a kind of self-induced hyperventilation. I’ve done it four times over the past year and every time entered into a visionary state. The visions played out kind of like an opera (there is music in the background, which helps). I feel that I am a changed person as a result of all this. I only did shrooms once, 30 years ago. That, too, was awesome, and very similar.

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    “They break down that barrier between “me” and “the world” that industrialization puts up all around us”

    see: Paul Cooijmans here

    He has a lot of cool stuff on occultness, and I can’t help but seeing Nick in a lot of his posts. He probably has more exhaustive post on ‘ratio’

    “Degenerative brain diseases

    Diseases that destroy ratio and the self, the “I”, slowly erase the Person A personality type. This includes all forms of dementia and of chronic or recurring psychosis.”


    “Forms of deep meditation, often rooted in the Far East, aim to destroy the “I” and ratio, and to break down the barriers between “I” and “the other”, so essentially to return to a pre-human stage. For some this does seem to work toward becoming a Person B. Sometimes, meditation is accompanied by a being occupied with “spirituality” or mysticism, and this then further amplifies its effect. Paradoxically, the seemingly individual-oriented popular forms of spirituality and mysticism – often requiring one to adopt a new name – are much more B-forming than are organized mass religions like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, which strange enough are relatively more likely to allow A-types among their adherents.”

    I still do drugs, but this is worth paying attention to. Cooijman does not lie. He is sometimes wrong though.


    Kgaard Reply:

    This is good stuff. Thanks. I was just about to write out and highlight the precise sentences you pulled out. I actually know some people like this. Super high consciousness on one level … and yet on another absolutely fucking frustrating in the extent to which they won’t listen to arguments — or more to the point, think they are above them, to evolved for them etc etc. A lot of universalists fall in this category.

    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 1:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    It’s been a busy weekend, but I want to get started on making a list of different meanings of the word, “universalism”.

    1. Disbelief in Hell. This is the Christian heresy from which Unitarian Universalism gets the second part of its name.

    2. Disbelief in the idea that God has any “chosen people”. This is a Jewish heresy, but is pretty much orthodox within Christianity.

    3. Religious supremecism. My religion and/or political ideology will conquer the world! You’ll thank me later.

    4. Tactical decision made on a case-by-case basis. Group-level “cooperate” move in a Prisoners Dilemma game. Relaxation of collective defenses. Suppression of distrust of outsiders. One is not universalist or particularist in an absolute sense, but only with regard to a specific situation.

    5. Same as 4, but made on an individual level (?). The Good Samaritan? This may be more of a psychological decision, to extend one’s altruistic tendencies across tribal boundaries.

    6. Global, as opposed to national ambition. FDR (and Trotzky?) as opposed to Hitler (and Stalin?)?

    7. Fraud. To repeat Steve Sailer yet again, “In contrast, modern liberals’ defining trait is making a public spectacle of how their loyalties leapfrog over some unworthy folks relatively close to them in favor of other people they barely know (or in the case of profoundly liberal sci-fi movies such as Avatar, other 10-foot-tall blue space creatures they barely know). ”

    8. Autism. Not having “sticky” relationships with people one knows, likes, or are closely related to. Not realizing that strangers are dangerous.

    9. Positive scientific autism. Refusing to recognize (model) the fact that people have “sticky” relationships with people they know, like, or are more closely related to. Failure to include in one’s models the fact that the Hutus and the Tutsis have a lot of intergroup karma.

    10. Normative autism. Tribal boundaries may exist now, but they ought not to, and some day they will be eradicated. Immanentize the eschaton!

    11. Strict utilitarianism and beyond. Peter Singer and the gorilla rights movement.

    12. Recognizing that various tribes are at war with one another, or that people often can’t be trusted across tribal lines, and wanting to get the tribes to play nicer together and be more porous and have lower transaction costs. What the Catholic Church did to Europe.


    admin Reply:

    This is an important project. It has to be that the list can be systematically compressed in accordance with some clear logical principles, doesn’t it? My guess is that anything above three points, in the end, will be too shaggy and empirical to allow for a definite formulation of counter-universalism (which the Patchwork idea surely instantiates).


    Erebus Reply:

    It is a very interesting list. In light of your point re: compression, I think that some of it is amenable to generalization. It starts looking a bit simpler if you apply one thought to it: The Universalist belief that all people, everywhere, are equal before God and are essentially good.

    (1) Disbelief in Hell? All people are essentially good, thus Hell need not (and must not) exist.
    (2) Disbelief in a Chosen People? All are equal before God.
    (4,5) Relaxation of collective/individual defenses & suppression of distrust of outsiders? All people are essentially good, thus they can be trusted.
    (7) I would characterize this as making a show of the fact that one holds the “correct” universalist views with respect to the moral goodness and trustworthiness of distant peoples — and with the equality of their culture to one’s own.

    A second part might be a snippet from #10 of the original post: “Tribal boundaries may exist now, but they ought not to, and some day they will be eradicated.”

    (3) Religious supremecism — e.g. My religion and/or political ideology will conquer the world? Tribal religious boundaries ought not to exist and will some day be eradicated.
    (6) Global, as opposed to national ambition? Tribal ethno-nationalist boundaries ought not to exist and will some day be eradicated.
    (12) I would characterize this as a small step towards softer ethno-nationalist boundaries.

    …So at least in some senses, and I’m sure I’m missing quite a lot, the long list can collapse to:

    -The belief that all people, everywhere, are equal before God and are essentially good.
    -Tribal (religious/ethnic/national) boundaries may exist now, but they ought not to, and some day they will be eradicated.


    Alrenous Reply:

    Moral universalism and corrupt, object-level moral universalism.

    I’m a moral universalist. I believe at the meta level, the same framework applies to everyone.

    Unsophisticated thinkers have issues keeping object and abstract levels apart. This results in Kantian thinking, saying particular acts like lying are wrong everywhere and for everyone. Or, even worse, thinking that the moral state ‘not going to hell’ must apply either to nobody or everybody. ‘Chosen people’ == ‘not going to hell’ == high status according to God.

    Similarly religious universalism. The idea that, much like physics is true for everyone, there must be a true religion that’s for everyone. Given the common understanding of religion, this is status universalism – that some group norms are universal and apply to all groups. (This is an obviously necessary belief for parasite groups.) Tying this back to moral universalism, hobbits treat their local norms as moral precepts, meaning this is an unusual example of a reasonably distant inferential horizon. Local norms == morality + morality is universal –> local norms are universal norms + religion is a set of social norms –> religion is universal.

    Local norms call for trusting all insiders. Moral universalism –> everyone is an insider –> everyone is trustworthy.

    Global ambitions: well, to first order, this is a fig leaf for power addicts. None of them ever had less than global ambition. Still, “If my rule is good for some people some of the time, it must be good for all people all of the time, because object-level moral universalism!”

    7. Now that you mention it, this is a weaponized scholar norm. If the locals don’t respect certain truths, and distant ten-foot blue strangers do, then your loyalty as a scholar -should- lie with the truth-holders, at least on this point. Two problems. Scholars make up at most 10% of the population, and scholar norms don’t work for the rest. Proggie ‘truths’ are in fact lies.

    12. Also pathological scholar norms.
    Especially considering neighbouring tribes, what are the substantial differences? Buttfuck all. There is absolutely no good reason for tribes to be at war. It’s also game-theoretically stupid. If you don’t like your tribe members dying, the first thing to do is end blood feuds and not start any new ones, because the rational response to a violent tribe is pre-emptive, preventative genocide.
    Here’s where proggie lies come in: there is actually no good reason not to be at war either. If the risk of pre-emptive genocide is acceptable to the tribe, then go nuts.

    This ties back to moral/status universalism too. If the universalizing tribe is the scholar tribe – and who else universalizes? – then they’re going to attempt to universalize specifically scholar norms.

    Alrenous Reply:

    Universalizing of moral states –
    One person isn’t a bad person. Therefore, nobody is a bad person. Therefore, murderers are not bad people.
    (Therefore empricism is false! Unless it makes my enemies look bad.)

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    > (7) I would characterize this as making a show of the fact that one holds the “correct” universalist views with respect to the moral goodness and trustworthiness of distant peoples — and with the equality of their culture to one’s own.

    I would rather say that a wolf in sheep’s clothing isn’t really a sheep. Outgroup demonization masquerading as universalism isn’t really universalism at all. So we should go back through the Moldbug canon and substitute “phony universalism” for maybe 90% of the instances where he says, “universalism”.

    Erebus Reply:

    @Peter A. Taylor
    I see your point… but how would you classify the outgroup, in this case? If the only convenient way to classify them is to call them “non-Universalists”, then I’m not convinced that the sincerity of the ingroup — whether they’re true believers or merely ersatz-Universalists — matters very much.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Imagine a high school with a varsity sanctimony team. If I tried out for the team, but I didn’t make the cut, do you say that I’m “not sanctimonious”?

    What if the school has a Liar’s Club that calls itself “The Stamp-Collecting Club”? If I’m not a member, do you say that I’m a “non-stamp collector”? What if I really do collect stamps?

    The point of the “universalist” label is that it’s supposed to me a more meaningful label than “leftist”. I’m not convinced that this is the case.

    I would like to talk about “left” and “right” in terms of attitudes towards property rights, but that’s too narrow. Failing that, I’d like to talk about them in terms of “prophets” vs. “custodians”, but that’s probably too broad.

    Erebus Reply:

    I agree.

    As I alluded to earlier, I am of the opinion that the sincerity and the motivations of these “universalists” are much less important than their deeds. As it was once said, “by their works ye shall know them.” Thus I believe that fake-universalists and real-universalists — insofar as they work towards the same ends, and express the same opinions, in a broad sense — can be lumped together into the exact same category, without any more fuss.

    …Having said that, you’re right that “universalist” might not be the best descriptor for that category. I think that the aim in calling them universalists was merely to get at their motivations — and, if so, the term probably does a pretty poor job of that, as many of the people we call “universalists” may hold views incompatible with universalism itself. (Stringently interpreted.) And this is probably the case more often than not.

    There has to be more accurate, more meaningful term we could use.

    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 2:53 am Reply | Quote
  • Y.Ilan Says:

    I posted some of my thoughts on fertility in “Cold Water,” but it’s probably best to approach the issue here as well. Spandrell ends his post with the mention of tribalism and synthetic tribes; tribalism is a cultural/biological institution that has been missing for a long while from the Western world, and such an institution is probably the only thing that can affect real change in the West’s fecundity. I believe that cultural variables in general are the most effective in changing fertility, much more than any economic ones. I can mention some variables that, from my own experience of my own “tribal” group, seem to encourage family formation and baby-making:

    – Societal approval and respect for successful large families.
    – Religious/cultural rituals that require and rely on family life.
    – Siege-mentality; enemies at the gates and frequent warfare naturally heightens the need for biological continuity, even without objectively high casualty rates.

    So, tribalism. I think that for tribalism to come back and be properly successful, several things need to be realized from the get go. Firstly, too much tribal solidarity leads to blood feuds, inbreeding and general backwardness (see the majority of Arab society), and secondly, any sort of tribal solidarity is ultimately reliant on conflict and hardship stemming from the out-group. No conflict, no consolidation.


    vxxc2014 Reply:


    “– Societal approval and respect for successful large families.
    – Religious/cultural rituals that require and rely on family life.
    – Siege-mentality; enemies at the gates and frequent warfare naturally heightens the need for biological continuity, even without objectively high casualty rates.”

    Well then we have everything we need now save Balls.
    Et Al,

    Left offers LOOT, Right offers FORCE.

    All the arguments can be summed to above. Again: LEFT offers LOOT, RIGHT offers FORCE. Leftism sells in Ferguson because you can come to town to LOOT, RIGHT sells in Ferguson among everyone who wants to defend with FORCE their persons and their property. In Ferguson rioting didn’t get very far with armed shop-owners, nor in Koreatown in LA riots. Ferguson in riot terms was incredibly hyped compared to previous US riots or indeed the London 2012 riots. The London 2012 riots only broke when the non-yet castrated by Intellect/Education East Asian property owners [storekeepers] formed armed bands [admittedly not firearms, but Sikh knives work fine if other guy doesn’t have guns] and these armed bands met LOOT with FORCE.

    That’s really what’s offered. Leftism offers excuses and banners to march under to LOOT and so will always win “Intellectual” argument…they have tenure, salary, grant money and Bureaucratic, NGO and QUANGOCRAT jobs, lawsuits with generous settlements, HR positions for demi-morons to enter the middle class.

    Rightism offers only FORCE and variations such as War, Policing and Defense of self and property with FORCE [which underwrites all order, law, defense].

    That’s It, that’s all.

    The Left’s Troops have a Homo Economcus expectation of being rewarded in material wealth and power to the extent they prevail, they don’t care about the damage done because Fortune belongs to the Brave and the Strong Looters in their View. Sure they’re looting someone’s store but they are richer a TV for moderate risk [the risk=work in this view…and let’s grant it is].

    Leftism delivers the booty, above all to Intellectuals and not just Street Criminals [who don’t get Tenure]. That’s why Right Intellectual movements fail to catch on, there’s nothing Intellectual about any of this…

    The Right’s Troops if given unclouded goals of DEFEND with FORCE and no compromise with Chaos, if told SHOOT the LOOTERS will prevail. If they are given extraordinarily esoteric and airy emanations of Truth, Beauty and Classical Music they’ll dissipate and disband, melt away for lack of leadership. This is why Mannerheim and Franco win but Don Colacho loses. Franco led and told his troops to win, he didn’t come out and babble on about Truth and Beauty.


    Y.Ilan Reply:

    And so in your estimation, the Left is viscerally about the overthrow of power hierarchies in the attempt to gain power (Chaos), while the Right is viscerally about the protection of existing (natural), civilizing power hierarchies (Law). This being one of Moldbug’s main premises, I would say. Is there really an existing group of people in the West that is motivated to cordon itself against those who wish to continuously overthrow hierarchies? I don’t think things are quite bad enough for any of that to happen, unless some seasteaders decide to actually go at it. There is no real motivation for conflict within the West, people are too soft.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    @Y.llan –Unless your West stops at the Hudson and Potomac Rivers, yes there is motivation.

    The West is rather too a large term for dealing with people and conflict. West of that line, yes there is, nor are they quite so soft.

    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 9:25 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    I see a lot of people saying that the United States economy is now second, but they make a pretty big mistake. It’s not how much your GDP is per year, it’s how many years it’s been going. So while an economy might be ahead in income per year, we’ve had more wealth period built. We have also had less wars inside our borders.

    I never see a ’empty wealth per gdp’ or ‘how much wealth destroyed’ metric. This is why the Britain is still extremely wealthy because it has a relatively small land mass and all its wealth is concentrated in a small area.

    Wealth accumulated over time > wealth per year. Among other things.

    It’s still a big deal, but you have to understand this sort of stuff. This is why tiny European countries look so rich because their wealth is all concentrated.


    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 9:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Had a look at the Opus Dei and Losing the South links.

    None here seem to understand or grasp the importance of power; money, geography, force.
    For that matter Food.

    Hard Stands on principle, no compromise, we’re fighting “Leftism” (which may have ceased to exist with Thermidor, certainly Napoleon), morality, reason, winning the argument but always losing all wars. This is how the Right has lost so much.

    This is not how the Left won. Anything. They won by war, revolution, violence, promising their followers bread and money [loot]. They won nothing by having the better argument or better solutions because it’s usually disastrous but their followers see correctly that their lot and fortunes will be improved and so they are – by taking what they want under the banners of The Left.

    The Right only won what it’s had by FORCE and permutations of FORCE such as Victory, Law, Order, the end of Chaos and the prosperity it’s rule brings. “Opus Dei engineered the Spanish economic miracle.” Well after Franco won, sure.

    When the Right has intellectuals who have the Balls to take what they want, to FORCE things to be the way they want then the Right will be “winning the arguments” too.

    You cannot offer the bounty of the Left. The Left can. No argument trumps material rewards [upon which accolades are piled]. The Ivies will be teaching Opus Dei or Neoreaction when the Ivies are taken by Force and our “inevitable” Gnon presents his wisdom on bayonet points.

    Not one moment before.


    Posted on February 10th, 2015 at 1:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Exfernal Says:

    OT: are epigenetic mechanisms responsible for tissue-specific protein isoforms? What might be the implications wrt ageing?


    Posted on February 10th, 2015 at 12:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    I agree about not being bearish on America. I like to think of America as being, to some extent, an HBD success story, where the meritocracy allows the best and the brightest to thrive, an economic environment conducive to intellectual flouring, a fertile ground for the establishment of rapidly growing and innovative companies like Facebook, Uber, Snapchat and Tesla, and an ethos of individualism that engenders the creation of great wealth through hard work and IQ.


    Hurlock Reply:

    Are you sure you are posting on the right blog?


    Posted on February 11th, 2015 at 2:33 am Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    I just started reading Pillsbury’s “The Hundred Year Marathon” and so far your characterisation of the grand strategy he attributes to China as a “sneaky plan to avoid world war” is spot on. Essentially, he was surprised to learn that China (1) has its own intellectual tradition, (2) cares about its place in the world, and (3) thinks it’s strategically important not to provoke America while America is more powerful. He doesn’t have a good grasp of Chinese philosophy either and so he has a tough time interpreting the material (example: “a significant component or feature of shi is called wu wei, which means to get other nations to do your work for you”). That said, the anecdotes and accounts of what Chinese hawks believe are quite entertaining.


    Posted on February 12th, 2015 at 2:16 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 1:15 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment