Chaos Patch (#52)

(Open thread + links)

XS candidate for the most thoughtful thing happening in the reactosphere right now — NRx originated in a theoretical synthesis of property and sovereignty, which continues to define its horizon. Crossed lines to the future. Leftism is just an excuse (for this). Musings on complexity and order. Moral sanity (provoked). The secret of power. Weed on the path to states rights? Conservatives cannot win. Enoch was right. Occupy Ukraine! Against suffrage. An academic perspective (plus comment). Reviews of Anissimov’s democracy book from Steves and Glanton. The weekly round.

Important boundary-setting from a double-wave Internet storm. First, a much-needed critique of the theory of ethnic genetic interests (separating the HBD mainstream — represented by Cochran — from its confused WN refraction), with cogent posts by NIO, Athrelon, and Dampier (some of the more lucid WN counter-arguments can be found here, here, here). Clarity. Mark Yuray starts off on the wrong foot, but then leads the next stage of the charge against what has become an overtly NeoNazi argument with an epic series of posts 1, 2, 3, 4. Some relevant contributions from Jim, Milton (+), and — coincidentally? — Frost. Vaguely associated ideological chaos. Then there’s this excellent conclusion:

Revolutionary cryptocurrencies. Targeting the tech-elite. Democracy is doomed (also relevant). The new hegemons. Algorithmic advances.

Lost, but in an interesting way: “To summarize, it seems that the problem people have with human nature today has to do with the current view of nature as pure blind fact. That view makes it morally impossible to treat nature as a substantive guide for how to live. The result, unless we ignore the facts and say human beings do not have a nature, is a choice between a technological approach leading to Left-wing transhumanism and a humanist approach based on a religious or philosophical outlook that sees moral principle as implicit in nature.”

Gardens need walls. Dunbar cascades. The long view on climate. The Ada Lovelace myth. Ludic fallacy. Political confessions. National IQ rankings. Discriminations. A difficult position.

Competitive trolling.

March 8, 2015admin 52 Comments »

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

52 Responses to this entry

  • Lucian Says:


    (wtf is up with the Israel IQ though?)


    admin Reply:

    It’s a puzzle.


    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    I’m no expert, but based on wiki-knowledge Israel looks really dysgenic.

    “If the Sephardim, Mountain Jews and other non-European groups are included in the Middle East and Asian group, then Middle Eastern and Asian Jews will outnumber European and American Jews by a margin of 52 to 48”

    So 52% non European Jews, with pretty low average IQs, around 90, maybe a bit higher for the populations that lack any contact with Arabs and Africans.

    48% European Jews, with some kind of high IQ. But by far the largest group of European Jews in Israel is Russian/USSR, and many of them are relatively recent arrivals, who came in a “panic migration”, due to the socio-economic crisis in the Soviet states, rather than a migration of “born-again” Jews.[14]

    “Many of them did not have any relation to Judaism or Zionism in their former place of residence. An estimated 250,000 of immigrants are not halachically Jewish (which only recognises maternal descent), but rather considered Jewish under the law of return due to having at least one Jewish grandparent, or being the spouse of Jewish immigrants who received Israeli citizenship according to the Law of Return.”

    So that’s another 20% of Israeli Jews where you might want to be careful assuming that they all have a base IQ of 115 or whatever.

    Throw in the selection effects with regard to who would be inclined to move to Israel instead of remaining in safe enclaves in the West and you might end up with only a relatively small minority of the super high IQ people.

    And those high IQ types would be placed in an environment where they had routine contact with lower IQ types and where they were encouraged to view them as members of their in-group, with a shared identity and purpose, etc. The result is likely to be mixing between the high IQ types and the less high IQ types, with the inevitable effect of pulling average IQ downward (it being far easier to ruin a brain than to improve it).

    I understand that there are still some distinctions between Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, so the rate of mixing might not be super high. But I bet it’s significantly higher than the rate of mixing between Ashkenazi Jews and say… Mestizos in the U.S.

    While Jews in the U.S. are also out marrying with lower IQ groups, it mostly seems to be SWPLs they are marrying and SWPLs probably have an average IQ of at least 100 and maybe a few points higher than that, since SWPLs are a somewhat elite group themselves. So it would be pulling the average down more slowly.

    Again we come back to the problem of nationalism not being quite racist enough.


    Chris B Reply:

    Israel as dysgenic. You are onto something. First thing. 115 is average IQ of Ashkenazim, not base, so 50% will be below this. As for the pull down on IQ from Hasidic, there is also the pull down from inter-mixing with the arab pop which does happen. They even have hotlines –

    “If you are in contact with a goy and need assistance, press 1,” the recorded message states. “If you know a girl who is involved with a goy and you want to help her, press 2.” LOL

    Also, SWPL IQ will not be 100 average. That is gen pop average for prots. SWPL being uni grads will be up with the Ashkenazim in the 110-115 range.

    And if you can get from this shit show that nationalism just needs to be MORE selective, than I do not know what to say.


    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “And if you can get from this shit show that nationalism just needs to be MORE selective, than I do not know what to say.”

    No, If I had a point, my point was that it is very difficult or impossible to construct a pseudo-tribe that achieves perfect congruence with the underlying reality. Someone says he wants a Jewish nation, but maybe THOSE Jews weren’t what he had in mind. Etc.

    And of course, *their* tribe is a whole lot less pseudo than most of the tribes being proposed for *us*.

    To quote scientism: “Every kind of fellowship not based on actually existing social relationships seems to undermine group boundaries to some degree, regardless of its basis.”

    And yet pseudo-tribes are all we have, because our original tribes based on real, existing kinship relationships are long gone and because lone individuals are easy meat for tribes, whether pseudo or real.

    Historically, the solution was:

    “I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers”.

    “This saying signifies a hierarchy of loyalties based on proximity of kinship that runs from the nuclear family through the lineage, the tribe, and, in principle at least, to an entire genetic or linguistic group (which is perceived to have a kinship basis).”

    Which seems to make sense. The larger tribe to provides protection against strangers who play by alien rules. Within this space, the members of the tribe compete / fight each other, but it’s a semi-ritualized combat (potentially involving plenty of real death), played out according to customary rules which evolved over time to keep the conflict from spiraling out of control and destroying the tribe.

    Western Civilization prospered for a time because it used Christianity to suppress (but not eliminate) the “I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins” conflict which allowed for greater social scale and complexity than societies that took “I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins” literally. Also it developed a uniquely productive form of ritualized combat (capitalism).

    Western Civilization failed because its overwhelming success allowed it to forget that ritualized conflict is a proxy for real war. And it forgot that outsiders aren’t obliged to play by the customary rules of the tribe. And so it forgot “my cousins and I against strangers”.

    Nationalism will fail to the extent that it forgets about “I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins” and assumes a utopian view of the tribe.

    Posted on March 8th, 2015 at 12:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#52) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on March 8th, 2015 at 1:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    The al fin piece is probably being a little optimistic with its vision of “a marbled world of both prosperity and impoverished anarchy”. We should know by now that even if you build walls around your tech-comm city-state, the real enemy is the bleeding hearts within who’d open the gates to the hordes.


    Chris B Reply:

    WN: “We must open the gates to our impoverished white brothers. It is within our rational genetic interest.
    Progs: “We must open the gates to our impoverished brothers. It is morally good.
    Libertarians: “We must open the gates to our impoverished white brothers. It is of greatest utility to us/we/our society!”

    Pick your poison.


    Chris B Reply:

    -white from the libertarians 🙂


    scientism Reply:

    There’s something deeper in this about the relationship between egalitarianism and threat-blindness. I can even see neoreactionaries fussing over IQ, trying to sort the horde into good and bad, while they scale the walls (“we must save our high IQ brothers”). Every kind of fellowship not based on actually existing social relationships seems to undermine group boundaries to some degree, regardless of its basis.


    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    what you guys need to realise is that your choice pretty much is indeed precisely that.

    rule zero of thinking is pick your biases. the perfect is the enemy of the good and all that. simple kantian thinking is built into the average person. if its a choice between ‘universal brotherhood’ and ‘universal white brotherhood’, i dont need to hesitate, thats being less wrong.

    i should point out ‘i dont see people, only talent’ is itself a highly kantian ‘magic bullet’ mode of though (wherefore talent?). and more pertinently, it is a mode of though that is specific to a certain context, that is; western europeans, anglos especially.

    if the thought of an atomised libertarian paradise gets your theoryboner throbbing, you’ll have to keep all the non-wasps out.

    isint that funny?


    Chris B Reply:

    “if the thought of an atomised libertarian paradise gets your theoryboner throbbing, you’ll have to keep all the non-wasps out.” – Africans and Middle easteners. Others are a more open proposition (Japs and Chinese are civilised.)

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    east asians are also much more collective than yuros.

    not that thats a bad thing.

    just keep it in the family.

    blogospheroid Reply:


    Isn’t the libertarian proposition the following – We must open our gates to anyone who can pay the third party insurance for living within our borders?


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Interesting idea. What would the insurance cover? Does it cover the possibility that the immigrant’s children will vote for politicians who will raise taxes or cause uncompensated regulatory takings?

    Chris B Reply:

    @blogospheroid Not sure. Trying to read Noziks ‘anarchy state and utopia’ and he seems to be agonising over this being distributionary.


    blogospheroid Reply:


    I would guess no insurance would cover such vague events(and so much into the future). I was imagining insurances against just the standard : accidental offense, theft, breakages, assault, murder, etc. Also, libertarianism is an individualist philosophy, so kinda by definition, the parent can’t be responsible for the decisions taken by an adult child.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    There is a great book by Bernard Crick, _In Defense of Politics_. One of my favorite quotations from the book is, “Advocates of particular political doctrines…should beware of denying the context in which their doctrines can operate….” A lot of my complaints about libertarianism are like that. It makes sense within a certain context, but the context is extremely fragile. The risks that really matter are uninsurable.

    Posted on March 8th, 2015 at 4:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    The WN position should be: “We *want* to live around agreeable white people, nobody except agreeable white people, and really for no reason other that we *want* it that way.” Futzing around with genetic interest theories as justification is accepting the frame that such a position *needs* justification.

    That said, it seems to me Cochran is trying to pull a Lewontin. Sure, inter-species altruism doesn’t evolve that way. Not a lie. But nothing about human racial relations (or WN) follows. Nothing at all. There’s nothing “inter-species” about WN or racism, and neither would you have to invoke altruism. White parents not wanting their white daughter to get impregnated by a nonwhite is entirely explainable by purely selfish genes “acting” with no altruistic “motive” at all. The “motive” is self-defense, not altruism, and the threat requires interfertility with the “enemy”. Cochran’s Birds/Mammals ditty misses the mark on both points.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    An astute observation.

    After I wrote my own post contra Cochran I went back and read through his comments, and after a while it became clear to me that he was perfectly correct in his arguments, but that his arguments were extremely reductive, focused purely on the level of “genes.” It occurred to me then that the idea of concentric loyalties could be innate without necessarily flowing from specific genes, instead being caused by emergent effects of genes, psychological mechanisms, etc. In this sense Cochran, as a scientist who formally studies gene selection, is destroying WNs who are unthinkingly using the word “genetic” where they should be using “innate,” “intuitive,” “instinctive” or “natural.” Concentric loyalties could be explained many, many ways, and Cochran is only arguing against the most reductive one which posits that there is a “concentric loyalties gene.”


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    They should demonstrate that they have taken reasonable personal steps to see if this can be achieved without incurring a cost much greater than a little forethought about housing purchases.


    Chris B Reply:

    “Cochran is trying to pull a Lewontin” No. If anything, advocates of ethnic genetic interest are the ones massaging the information to shore up a ideological position. Hamiltonian inclusive fitness is very clear – there has been no selection for ethno-centrism based on selection. BUT, there have been selection pressures for other traits and abilities which add up to what we have today. Low violence levels for example have been selected for example.

    As for concentric loyalties etc, it seems to me that WN and ethno-nats have an innate assumption of equality despite all protestations to the contrary. Muslims may have asabiyyah, but they are inbreeders. Chinese may have not developed ethno-masochism, but this is because they have guilt culture based around the family (they have specific names for mother-sisters-borther etc which is a giveaway for inbreeding links.) Trying to claim this traits are transferable to “whites” is an example of assuming underlying human equality.

    Does this mean we should engage in blind multi-culturalism and African worship? No.


    Lucian Reply:

    “Does this mean we should engage in blind multi-culturalism and African worship? No.”

    Don’t say I didn’t warn you about that slippery slope dawg.


    Chuck Reply:

    Chris B,

    “No. If anything, advocates of ethnic genetic interest are the ones massaging the information to shore up a ideological position. Hamiltonian inclusive fitness is very clear – there has been no selection for ethno-centrism based on selection.”

    Work me through the logic.


    Posted on March 8th, 2015 at 6:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • El Burro Says:

    About NRx:

    “Notice how quick they are to play down the differences between nationalism and communism. Note how they say that the differences are “cosmetic” or “technicalities” or “surface”.

    And then note how they act like really, really superficial things, such as advocacy for a national Orthodox Church, or a contemporary flat-tax, or being against fag marriage, all make certain that the Putinistas are most certainly not communists, and are most certainly right-thinking traditionalists.

    They do just like the ancaps – they attempt to sweep the rhetorical rug out from under your feet by invalidating your premises. They do this by arbitrarily redefining (or rather just totally making up) some 2-dimensional political spectrum to be entirely self-serving.

    Ancaps hate statism, therefore statism is left wing, and ancaps are the most right wing, and anything they dont like is to the left of them and therefore presumably does not need to be engaged seriously, or at least that’s the message it intends to send to the programmed bleating sheeplike cultists who join political cults that flatter members as both intellectually and morally elite.

    I’m not sure exactly what their metric is, but NRx do the same thing, only where their principles of exit from the Cathedral makes them the most right. Anyone who does not want to exit from the Cathedral, or who wants to expand rather than break apart, is therefore a leftist.

    That actually makes it all the more insane that self-proclaimed NRx [childish abuse deleted] like Antidem and Mark [Yuray] call themselves the real right wingers according to their made up NRx standards. They are literally defending an expansionist imperial state that is animated by modernist ideology, two things NRx came together in opposition to.

    I guess he is interpreting Novorussia as an exit from Ukraine and therefore the left, but it’s obviously disingenuous given how much he defends the Russian annexation of her neighbors and the Russian states


    Hurlock Reply:

    Man, the quality of the comment sections on NRx blogs has really plummeted in the last year.

    I think it is time to take some more serious measures to keep the idiotic drivel at bay.

    For what its worth, Yuray and Antidem (especially Antidem) do not speak for the whole of NRx. It should be obvious that whatever opinions they have on the Ukraine crisis – they’re just their own opinions and nothing more than that.


    Hcs Reply:

    NRx needs to evolve out of itself. It needs to become more streamlined, more harsh, and more qualified. It needs to shift deeper into itself, and even out of itself. It needs to become more terrific, sharper. Its horizon needs to jump to double its present draw distance. It needs to step into the darkness, as it has done several times before. It is due up for its next evolutionary leap. Soon, at least.

    I want to post this article I wrote which I consider a “fortifier” node. It’s on the topic of what I call “white positivity.” It isn’t a very good article, but I do think even if 90% of it is total garbage, it suggests, in some of its looser more vague configurations and structure, a possible direction for NRx to go.

    I sometimes think I am missing the “point” of neoreaction in general. My ideas are certainly not particularly aligned toward economics, politics, history, current events, or just ideology. But I truly believe this is what is needed at this juncture. A deepening in theory, a theoretical and philosophical or conceptual basis of neoreactionary thought. I think this is currently missing and this admittedly amateurish and poorly written article at least tries to set out on delineating a first attempt at such a thing. More to come.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    “Euro-Optimism” “White Energetics” “Euro-Positivity” “White Centralism” “Neocaucasianism “core-self-centrality”

    Man… forget political theory and go work for an ad firm, you’ll make more money with those buzzwords.

    Scharlach Reply:

    I don’t know which is worse: entryism from the left or from the white.

    These White Pride circle jerkers are going to be the death of NRx, mark my words. At least Anissimov keeps it generally classy and principled.

    Mark Yuray Reply:

    I should make a rule of not responding to people who have impulse control so low they can’t resist getting in a dig like “Mark Jewray,” but since your conclusion was markedly more lucid than the rest of your post, I’ll make an exception.

    “That actually makes it all the more insane that self-proclaimed NRx faggots like Antidem and Mark Jewray call themselves the real right wingers according to their made up NRx standards. They are literally defending an expansionist imperial state that is animated by modernist ideology, two things NRx came together in opposition to.” I guess he is interpreting Novorussia as an exit from Ukraine and therefore the left, but it’s obviously disingenuous given how much he defends the Russian annexation of her neighbors and the Russian states”

    The only thing bad about the Russian expansionist imperial state is its excessive modernist baggage, which can be found the world over by now (who hasn’t been tainted by modernism?). Then again, the Russian expansionist imperial state has much less modernist baggage than the expansionist imperial state that it is maneuvering against in Ukraine, and certainly less modernist baggage than the modernists in Ukraine waving Wolfsangels and allying with the more-modernists from DC against the less-modernists from Russia.

    So between the choice of three types of modernist chauvinists, two of whom greatly out-do the third in modernist baggage and are at the same time allying against the third in a bid to impose on it even more modernism — should the most preferable option not be obvious?


    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    A modernist chauvinist civil war? Sounds like the only winning move is not to play.

    To some extent we’re forced to pay attention because of the actions of the US government, but so far every group that has passionately defended either side of the conflict has come off rather poorly, appearing to be disingenuous or to overstate their chosen side’s alt-right street cred. That’s not specifically aimed at you, this issue has been heavily debated in the ethnat-o-sphere and it was not one of their better moments.

    And one wonders if there aren’t behind the scenes factors motivating some of these exceedingly passionate opinions.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    Who’s talking about playing? We’re talking about analysis.

    I would point out that no reactionary or neoreactionary of any kind ever wrote a denouncement of the nationalists in Ukraine. Every Rx/NRx article has been a response to a nationalist denunciation of Russia and a concomitant defense of Russia. It was only ever some kind of ardent ethnonationalist who felt the need to attack Russia, and then (in every case I’ve seen, somehow) invent new insane lies so that the Russian list of sins appears as long as DC’s and the nationalist can proclaim himself equally opposed to all evil Jew-backed regimes. Figures.

    I never felt any animosity towards nationalists in Ukraine or the West until that they were taking their artificial ideology as seriously as Marxist leftists and slandering the people doing more actual good for their supposed ideals than anyone else. I listen to the prole kind of nationalist music. When Right Sector came out with their propaganda video around the time of Euromaidan, I was positively giddy. “Jewray” is a mark of someone substituting thede outrage for thought, and a classic case of what I talked about in “Leftists of the Right.”

    If my side has come off poorly in passion, it’s because it’s difficult to write dispassionately in response to someone labeling you sixteen different varieties of shill while passing off agitprop for analysis, especially when that someone is taken to represent a “fellow traveler” in the dissident Right.

    admin Reply:

    [I’ve scratched the most degraded abuse from what was a low grade trollish comment. Would have simply deleted the whole thing, if you hadn’t taken the trouble to reply to it.]


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    I like to think those inclined towards abuse will be a little less inclined after their target disarms them.

    Alrenous Reply:

    Once again, I think the name is supposed to be ironic?
    He literally called himself an ass. Oops?

    Posted on March 8th, 2015 at 6:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lucian Says:

    So why not use something more concrete and grounded in fact.

    It’s well established that conservative and reactionary males have greater upper body strength, on average, than progressives.

    I therefore propose a new spectrum: to be the most shredded is to be the most Right. No fitbrahs to the Left, no DYELs to the Right.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    Does this mean amputees tend to be left-wing?


    Lucian Reply:

    Surely I didn’t need to spell out the obvious ceteris paribus clause?


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    No, though I might’ve had to spell out the humor clause.

    Lucian Reply:

    Sick gains are no laughing matter Mr Yuray.

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    such a metric might work better than you think.


    Posted on March 8th, 2015 at 7:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Was Enlightened Says:

    First-hand report from the event horizon of a left singularity:


    Posted on March 8th, 2015 at 9:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    I found this interesting:

    This is a more realistic, grounded, and scientifically-literate extension of Harari’s inane interview. Although a “revolution in medicine” might not be in the cards, heritable human genetic modification is both possible and likely.


    Interviewer: Should we be talking about benefits and risks such as possible future genomics-based eugenics?

    Church: Eugenics in USA from 1907 to 1981 involved government sterilization of 65,000 individuals to “improve” the gene pool. The new technology enables parents to make choices about their children just as they might with Ritalin or cleft palate surgery to “improve” behavior or appearance. To prevent such parental decisions, the government would again interfere with reproductive choice, but this time in the apparent opposite direction in terms of improving the gene pool. To give the same name (eugenics) to these two scenarios seems unnecessarily confusing. Should we be talking about benefits and risks? Yes. Frequently and engaging many voices.


    Interviewer: Also they said this in the piece: “At meetings of groups of people known as “transhumanists,” who are interested in next steps for human evolution, Church likes to show a slide on which he lists naturally occurring variants of around 10 genes that, when people are born with them, give them extraordinary qualities or resistance to disease.” Can you comment on that?

    Church: Note that throwing in the word “transhumanists” is unnecessarily confusing. I use that slide at all sorts of meetings (none of them on “transhumanism”). There may be transhumanists in the audience, but that is not the point. The point is that: in addition to common variants of small impact and rare deleterious variants, there are rare protective gene variants of large impact (below):

    LRP5 G171V/+ Extra-strong bones

    MSTN -/- Lean muscles

    SCN9A -/- Insensitivity to pain

    ABCC11 -/- Low Odor production

    CCR5, FUT2 -/- Virus resistance

    PCSK9 -/- Low coronary disease

    APP A673T/+ Low Alzheimer’s

    GHR, GH -/- Low cancer

    SLC30A8 -/+ Low T2 Diabetes

    IFIH1 E627X/+ Low T1 Diabetes


    admin Reply:

    Fascinating. The aversion to the ‘eugenics’ label is understandable, though cowardly. ‘Positive Eugenics’ is precisely accurate, which should be enough, even if it brings people out in hives.

    Cognitive tweaks are more complicated, but a lot more interesting, due to the powerful feedback processes they unleash.


    Erebus Reply:

    Yeah, absolutely. It’s certainly possible that cognitive enhancement could be recursive — and, if there’s a ceiling to human intellectual potential, nobody knows where it is, so it might be possible to push that feedback mechanism pretty far. (Though I’d imagine that there has to be a ceiling associated with physical limits, e.g. head size and brain glucose/nutrient uptake and requirements.) A biological singularity or intelligence explosion may be possible in the relatively near future. It’s probably about as likely as an AI explosion.
    …I wonder who will get there first, man or machine. One way or another, it’s probably inevitable…

    China has been trying to find cognition-related genes for quite a while now, haven’t they?

    There was also this, which was published last month:
    (It may contain actionable information. HDAC inhibitors seem to be able to positively impact APOE and ABCG1 function, and they have been tested, with favorable results, as cognitive enhancers in several rodent studies.)


    Posted on March 9th, 2015 at 2:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • hb Says:

    If that bootleggirl post accurately represents the quality of research in a typical humanities PhD thesis, I’m surprised the Cathedral hasn’t collapsed already.

    Do neoreactionaries “love to talk about Hobbes and Locke and other early modern luminaries?” I’ve seen more Locke-bashing than anything, and Hobbes is mostly a non-entity. “Moldbug is a conservative Catholic?” Plus the whole thesis seems to rely on the assumption that NRx is primarily a techno-geek phenomenon. Which is true of Moldbug and Anissimov and Tunney, but not in general.


    Izak Reply:

    I dunno I’ve mentioned Hobbes a few times on this blog comments section. Either way it was a stupid read. The title should have been: “I just read some stuff about Plato and found a hook through which to share it. Yay me.”

    Her next post two days later has the sentence, “Let’s talk about that” in the title. I think I hate my own generation more than any other.


    Posted on March 9th, 2015 at 10:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Using my very advanced wiki-decision-theory I just found out Alexandre Kojève was one of the chief planners of the European Common Market….. does that freak out any one else who has read his books and at least knows some Hegel?


    Lucian Reply:

    I’d love to find out more about Kojeve on Hegel, but honestly if the Eurozone is his brainchild he’s already scary enough for me.

    He’s a big guy.


    Posted on March 10th, 2015 at 4:14 am Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    Does/will the predisposition to clannishness in East Asian population structures/ancestral lineages naturally lead to ethno-nationalism w/ its accompanying ingrained leftism? Why or why not?


    Posted on March 10th, 2015 at 5:00 am Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    Any geographic area—with a resource base—that is defended from outsiders is leftist because it limits competition for those resources to its members. Its members are subsidized.


    Lord Auch Reply:

    That sounds highly questionable to me.


    Posted on March 10th, 2015 at 5:37 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment