Chaos Patch (#56)

(Open thread + a few links dribbling in later)

ADDED: Pitiful link trickle (I’ve been distracted):

Cromwell shut down a left singularity. “… it’s a mob all the way down.” Squishy moderns. Easter. Weekly reactosphere round ups.

The IQ of Jesus. Asians in the diversity cross-hairs. Dishonesty.

Nicely charted collapse.

Intheorum.

April 5, 2015admin 72 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Chaos

TAGGED WITH : , ,

72 Responses to this entry

  • max Says:

    This time he’s gone too far!

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 9:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    Eliezer Yudkowsky posing a question on FB this morning (when *exactly* did he and LW get mind hacked by the Cathedral?):

    “As I understand it, there’s two main reasons why a well-functioning economy should be inflationary, maybe at a steady rate of 3% per annum or thereabouts:

    1) The amount of money flowing corresponds to the number of trades occurring. If there isn’t enough money flowing, some number of trades will fail to occur and this represents a loss of real productivity for the economy. Adding enough money to produce significant inflation means that you have enough money in the system to be vigorously competing against other money to make trades, that you’re operating at the limits of real capacity. If there’s no inflation, it means the monetary pedal that accelerates trade isn’t pushed down far enough.

    2) Nominal price levels in many parts of the economy are sticky downwards, because the seller is usually the person who sets the price and loss aversion is a thing. A nominal salary cut requires renegotiating a contract, a nominal salary increase does not, and even e.g. an airline may be more reluctant to cut nominal prices than to raise them. So inflation, by decreasing the real price corresponding to a nominal price, helps real price levels to adjust despite nominal stickiness.

    Also a default rate of inflation gives the central bank the power to regularize NGDP by regulating interest rates rather than QE, but I don’t really see that as a strong feature. QE seems to me like the natural and normal way to regulate the flow of a currency (sell or buy the unit of exchange), and it seems to me like trying to regulate interest rates is much worse than this natural method even if it’s considered traditional.

    So am I missing anything? In particular, did I misunderstand something about reason 1? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it spelled out in exactly those terms.

    It’s not clear to me why we shouldn’t try for 5% inflation instead of 2% inflation. Except that a lot of people try to store money in nominal bank accounts that earn interest below the risk-free rate, and they would see this as theft. But if nobody’s trying to store value in low-interest nominal bank accounts, 5% annual inflation would help people to see price levels as temporary things and money as a unit of account rather than a store of value.”

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Why 2% indeed. Why not make inflation 15%? 50% 100% 1,000,000%!!! then we will be all rich beyond our wildest imaginations!

    Also, an easy way to see how bullsh*t the question of insufficient money supply in the economy is to this issue is to ask why money supply is centralized as opposed to decentralised.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    When did he get mind hacked? At the very beginning: he endorsed voting.

    Velocity is also a thing. The amount of money spent every day is almost independent of how much money there is. Don’t even need to make trades particularly fast if you’re willing to use buffers.

    Loss aversion might be a thing, but has he heard of sales? As in, the things that happen constantly? People are usually good at their jobs. If a merchant’s job involves neglecting loss aversion, then they neglect loss aversion.

    Even if these weren’t so, ‘trades fail to occur’ doesn’t follow. “Whelp, I asked for $20 and They only has $19. I guess I’ll just give up!” If it were so it would prove deflation is impossible.

    [Reply]

    orlandu84 Reply:

    @ Alrenous “Velocity is also a thing.”

    That is the main thing, imho. Anyone who attempts to fix an economy by inflation is really stating that the world ought to be going at a certain predictable speed at all times. They imagine the economy as a car that needs a certain amount of fuel to function properly. Step on the gas too hard, however, and the engine might give out. Life, however, is not nearly so orderly or simple. For the economy, including trading, is much more like a game. Any change to a single player is also a change to everyone other player. Think of Monopoly. With the internet this game is now played 24/7 across the globe. Good luck trying to keep everyone happy with a board that big!

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 10:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    On page 514 of Reinhard Mehring’s biography on Carl Schmitt I found this:

    “Hegel was faced with problem that the Protestant critique sparked revolutions…. The reinterprtation of his Christolog into a ‘pseudo-religion of absolute humanity’ by left Hegelianism ensued, which – according to Schmitt’s dramatizing account – opened ‘the way towards inhuman terror’. The political-theological problem thus expands into a ‘modern Church-state-society problem’, which Schmitt sees as charaterized by the fact that the politicization of society empowers every individual to question authority. Schmitt understands this process of the individual’s emancipation as the completion of the Reformation; and the completiion of the Reformation in the form of political emancipation, according to him, determines the dynamic of modern times…… The consequences of the humanist inversion of Christology, says, Schmitt turns out to be a horrible ‘homo-homini-homo eshatology’.”

    I’ve said it before, but the more I read about Schmitt, the more I believe he is a neglected figure. Alain De Benoist’s book on Schmitt carefully argues that he’s not a proto-neo-con like so many superficial readings of his work suggest. He’s actually a proto-NRXer. On the one hand he’s throne and altar in his interpretation of the katechon, the importance of spatial order (especially the roman-christian empire), on the other he’s a nationalist in the friend-enemy distinction working best at a national – ethnically homogenous level. And more ambivalently, he becomes a tentative tech-comster in that he realises socialism is wrong, but wants authortarian states to maintain economic enterprise and fragmentation. In Renato Cristi’s hard-to-find book, Schmitt’s speech, ‘Strong state, free economy’ strongly suggests this.

    Did Moldbug reference him in any of his calvin thesis posts? Good to see Chris B. has reinvigorated interest in him. What are people’s thoughts on him as a bondafided thinker of the NRX cannon? As I’ve tussled for several years as to where the hell I stand, I’m starting to believe where he stands I stand. Somewhere on the fence between the tension of nation and (true) capital with a strong dash of the self-identity bolstering narrative of (Christian) political theology. I’m certainly not the naive tech-comma I was when I first came across these pages.

    [Reply]

    Lord Auch Reply:

    One popular name for Schmitt, Heidegger, Juenger et al. is “reactionary modernism.” Seems a reasonable facsimile to what we’re getting at here.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    So ‘of its time’ with the occasional prescient morsel?

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    He’s a downright necessity. Even left academics read his Nomos of the Earth.

    Political Theology had a huge impact on my thinking. His monograph on Hobbes’s Leviathan is also very underrated.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    For sure on Nomos and the fascination leftist geographer types have:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spatiality-Sovereignty-Carl-Schmitt-Interventions-ebook/dp/B00545DFVC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428375844&sr=8-1&keywords=Spatiality%2C+Sovereignty+and+Carl+Schmitt%3A+Geographies+of+the+Nomos

    The Concept of The Political; Theory of a Partisan; his engagement with Jacob Taubes, and Mehring’’s analysis of his early work, Der Wert des Staates und die Bedeutung des Einzelnen, are essential to me.

    Lord Auch – There is very little romaticism of technology in the so-called ‘reactionary modernists’ come to think of it, though – (Junger’s Glass Bees and his treatise on technology especially).

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 11:35 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Sorry for the typos, have to rush.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 11:36 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The only antidote to growth is to limit the scope in which growth can occur by entrusting assets to an aristocracy. This puts them in the hands of the good, instead of creating destructive competition.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Destructive competition is the lifeblood and source of vitality for all that is good and noble. To avoid it is to embrace stagnation and decay.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Clearly, there are rational limits on destructive competition. The bad strains need to die off; where competition is no longer useful, it should cease, and where it is useful, it should stomp around. There exist two peculiar ideologies, parallel: the first which sees competition as an untrammeled good and wishes to see it everywhere and monopoly nowhere. The other end is the thought that competition is bad and destructive and should not exist in an ideal society. My only thought is that one should not be too sad when competition ceases, unless it is evident that its attenuation is due to state intervention. Likewise, destructive competition is not to be created where it is not needed. “A war of all against all” is not an environment in which children can be raised, but suppression of competition to create stability misunderstands that prosperity must undergird stability; and competition is necessary for prosperity.

    I could go round and round on this like a book of proverbs. I’ll spare all y’all.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 5:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    That Henry Dampier piece is flat-out horrendous. He seems to have thrown his copy of Genealogy of Morals off a bridge — or never read it at all. Since when are 1950s morals somehow the optimum? Since when are hardcore fanatical protestant sexual ideas written in stone?

    Is this where neoreaction is going? Nick why are you endorsing this crap?

    Heartiste has a much better take on evolution of sexual mores here:

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/heartiste-grand-unifying-theory-of-infantilization-in-western-societies/

    Sexual markets change as economies, political systems and demographics change. If sexual mores are not changing in the direction of Father Knows Best, well, too bad. History doesn’t care.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Lol, someone is butthurt.

    What is so objectionable in Dampier’s post?

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Where to start. How about this:

    “What’s considered healthy romantic behavior now would have been considered ‘psychopathic’ in 1950.”

    Perhaps true. But what was considered healthy in 1950 would have been considered deranged for about a million years prior to 30 A.D.

    He’s cherry picking his moral high point. A philosopher can’t justifiably do that post-Nietzsche and post-Darwin. Dampier’s got to prove that 1950 morality was the gold standard. It may have been an optimal period for beta males, but even by 1950 economic and military changes were already ushering in the looming end of monogamy in the west.

    Have a read of Heartiste and tell me why he’s wrong (though granted the 1 in 17 number is almost assuredly way off).

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I don’t see how anything in that post of Heartiste contradicts what Dampier is saying. Sure before 30 AD 1 in 17 males reproduced, but monogamy was still the norm and they the sexual norms were much closer to those in 1950 than they were to those in 2015.

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    His post is very dangerous because it is superficial about mental illness and lacks any coherent understanding of what they even are writers cannot write about stuff that already has well grounded theory.

    I’m glad someone else picked up on it.

    forkinhell Reply:

    I object to casting moral aspersions. It should always be ‘moral nasturtiums’. Prettier, no? And way more effective.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    I agree that it’s not his best post. Conservatives need to understand that the 1950s was already pretty basted in decadence. But his earlier posts from that week have been great.

    I’ve been having a lot of fun engaging with him and his commenters on the questions of romantic love and why conservatives are so clueless about it. I also had a good joust with him over the value of Roger Scruton (I think Scruton sucks, he likes Scruton). Dampier is a good blogger, and he discusses issues that normal conservatives far too often neglect (and White Power dudes seriously misunderstand)

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 6:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    @Kgaard

    I want to make sure you are not making a typo: You are saying 1 in 17 males reproduced AND monogamy was the norm (pre-30 AD)? That’s impossible. The only way you get such a sweepstakes sexual environment for men is if monogamy is NOT the norm.

    That’s what Heartiste is contending: The whole notion of monogamy as the norm is fairly flukey and situation dependent. Today the politco-economic environment has reverted back to one that favors the big man/alpha male + harem model.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I don’t think the shift has anything to do with economic factors.

    It’s just religious ones i.e. progressivism. And this is the point Heartiste is making as well. Which overlaps with Dampier’s point.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    I thought the 1 in 17 statistic included 100000 years ago putting civilization around the margin of error. What I do know is that the maintenance of great civilizations is built on monogamy and without it you get instability and collapse. The genius of civilization was having the civilization impose it’s own values on women’s reproduction. Without patriarchal values, human civilization goes into free fall.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Well but there’s a big difference between “patriarchal values” and “monogamy.” The category of patriarchal values includes polygamy and prostitution, and does not rule out casual homosexuality.

    Western Europe was ostensibly “built on monogamy,” and yet the 20th Century in Europe was unstable, violent and marked by constant collapse of regimes. By contrast, for instance, the Ottoman Empire lasted from 1299 to 1922 — 623 years.

    I think what the history of civilization shows quite clearly is that maintenance of civilization does NOT require that every man be rationed a woman. In certain periods it is helpful, in other periods it probably doesn’t matter. We appear to be in one of those latter periods now:

    What is the marginal utility — militarily or economically — of a Wal Mart shelf stocker? Why do elite males need to assign that guy a fertile woman? What’s in it for the elites? If the shelf-stocker quits, well, get an unfertile woman or a robot or an immigrant to do the job. No loss to the elites’ power.

    The shelf stocker is probably incapable of adding military value, so you don’t need to allot him a woman on the grounds that you need him in combat, either.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Every male shelf stocker is more useful both as a laborer and as a warrior than any infertile woman.

    Unless you think like a feminist. Are you thinking like a feminist?

    Kgaard Reply:

    @Kgaard

    I don’t think that is the relevant comparison. I think you have to ask whether the fertile woman is more valuable to the elites as a mistress than the shelf stocker is to the elites as a laborer and fighter. Seems pretty clear when you look at it that way the fertile woman has way higher value to the elites as a mistress. Not even close, really. Infertile women can stock shelves just fine. And who’s gonna miss one low-level grunt when you’ve got drones? Nobody.

    Thus there is no need for the elites to allot a fertile woman to the shelf stocker. And, in fact, that is what we see.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    If women’s libidos were stoked by military or economic utility you would be correct, however we observe the guys only capable of being shelf-stockers being the harem masters while those with high military and economic utility are careful to use birth control. But if we go down the path of turning people into fertilizer if that maximizes their utility (without women and responsibilities to stabilize them, men tend to make a mess of things after all) it won’t be long before we’re all replaced by machines anyway (exactly how hard would it be for rouge programmers to set loose a program that can compete with the elites and is more competent than them), not that I have a problem with that. Or maybe compromise and sterilize instead, but regardless it’s not at all what we’re seeing. r-selection not K-selection is the rule of the day. r-selection lends itself best to promiscuity, K-selection lends itself to being far more sexually exclusive. Sure you don’t see precise monogamy in every situation but monogamy is the direction K-selection drives towards.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Without Malthusian pressure r-selection will always trump, it’s how you get bonobos, vast abundant resources. But it’s hardly self sustaining, you need K-selection to maintain the infrastructure. Artificial constraints and pressures are necessary for the maintenance of civilization, for the favoring of K-selection. Left alone the system collapses, it is in opposition to entropy like how an engine is in opposition to entropy, it maintains a continuous differential in temperature, requiring energy to maintain.

    Kgaard Reply:

    @Kgaard

    Well I would propose that the women the shelf stockers are actually boinking would not be of any interest to the elites. The smart and attractive rural women go to the city and joint corporate/government harems.

    You may be right about actual reproduction rates (r vs. K) but with a couple of caveats. First, the elites boink a WAY higher number of attractive women, which is what they care about. The birth control issue is secondary. Second, the true alpha males will create serial families. They won’t have two women simultaneously, but they will create one family in their 20s, then remarry in their 40s and create a second family. Clint Eastwood did this process four times.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    K-selectors by definition can’t keep up with r-selectors when it comes to breeding, rather they can only become dominant if r-selectors are disproportionately killed off or sterilized in significant numbers. Thinking you can avert Idiocracy by boosting K-selected breeding is a foolish as Republicans trying to win elections by becoming more leftist (sub-replacement fertility is self correcting, see Mormonism, and no, Mormons can’t out compete octomom without turning into octomom themselves) For every Clint Eastwood you have 100 babydaddies outbreeding him with fat ugly single mommies (having standards falls under K-selection) which doesn’t help matters if the goal is protecting civilization (the fact that current elites don’t care about civilization is proof of their transience; sure they win the hedonism contest but my contempt for hedonism is such that I am incapable of envying such a hollow achievement).

    Men should compete for quality women (genetically speaking, personally I say a quality woman is more than genetics, she also has to be continuously socialized by a patriarch), but not on women’s terms. Rather on civilization’s terms which favors neither male nor female breeding preferences but rather K-selection which often comes in conflict with both sex’s biological imperatives.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Agree with much of this but …

    You’re setting up a difficult situation here:

    “Men should compete for quality women … on civilization’s terms which favors neither male nor female breeding preferences but rather K-selection which often comes in conflict with both sex’s biological imperatives.”

    Does this even make sense? How could K selection EVER have come about if it were running against BOTH sexes’ biological imperative?

    This gets to the nub of my argument: We are not in a harsh economic environment so for the most part it’s an r-selected reality. If you try to go K you may or may not be able to breed. The women who would be the natural mates of K-selected men have been selecting themselves out of the gene pool via corporate harem activities etc. (This is why the Episcopal Church has ceased to exist, by the way.)

    So I’m saying that the argument that a dude has a moral responsibility to go K in mating (if he himself is K) sets the guy up for a fall if he can’t find a K woman.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    I’m in total agreement about the insanity of saying there’s a moral responsibility to be setup for failure. The Manosphere is right about Marriage 2.0 not being something that should be venerated and people who still push marriage (as in getting a contract in 2015 from USG entitling a woman to cash and prizes for cucking you in exchange for platitudes) are useful idiots for the left.

    This turns to the issue of exit and whether to treat society as an enemy to be raped and pillaged or to still avoid shitting where you eat. Regarding family, I say you have yourself to blame if you acquire valuables before acquiring a safe. There’s an old military quip, if they won’t fuck they won’t fight, high T men are always your best fighters and they don’t suffer abstinence well. However having them sit poolside is wasteful, they need to be organized into building a new set of walls. When you have walls to keep women in as proper wives there will be Sabine Women waiting to be abducted.

    Kgaard Reply:

    “This turns to the issue of exit and whether to treat society as an enemy to be raped and pillaged or to still avoid shitting where you eat.”

    I would put it this way: The neoreactionary obsession with American financial meltdown precisely misses the point: The financial system is the one thing that ISN’T going to melt down. Everything else is sacrificed to keep it running smoothly. My interest in New Age is a function of recognizing that western culture is, while not exactly dead, no longer serving the function it’s supposed to serve: that of being a repository of rituals and experiences by which the individual can fully engage with the experience of being alive.

    So anything posited as some sort of responsibility of the individual to the culture or to the society, I have to reject on principle. There is no society, there is no culture. There is no responsibility of the individual to the system as it now exists because the culture has been gutted by the elites for their own purposes.

    Still working through the details of this of course …

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 8:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • forkinhell Says:

    Drip drip… Blockchain on the Wharf(path).

    [Reply]

    forkinhell Reply:

    Link/Limp inepitude – my apologies (probably old news anyway hey?)

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 8:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    @Kgaard

    “And, in fact, that is what we see.”

    Is it?

    I see a decline in fertility because of an unrestrained female sexuality.

    I do not see anything even remotely close to the patriarchal polygamy you are describing.

    And I definitely do not see the elites trying to establish anything like that. Because polygamous patriarchy is about as antithetical to progressivism as you can get.

    On the contrary I see being a cuckold beta male being rewarded with marginal status points, while not being a cuckold beta male being punished by the elites. Recall all the rape hoaxes that go viral, recall all the new laws about “consent”.
    The elite at the moment is not helping foster a breed of utra-patriarchal polygamous alpha males who own dozens of women. Exactly the opposite.

    Alpha males get to fuck dozens of women nowadays, but until they get to marry, or otherwise own said dozens of women, and actually get those dozens of women to birth them some children, this is not in any shape or form a polygamous patriarchy. It’s simply unrestrained female sexuality subsidized by the state under the official banner of progressive feminism.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    My original point is that Dampier has fallen into a trap: When he says 1950s sexuality is the moral ideal, it directly follows that society OWES him an intelligent fertile white woman for him to breed with. Heartiste is saying he is wrong: Society owes him nothing. Mating is a Darwinian struggle between males for fertile females. If you don’t personally fight you don’t mate.

    Now … Heartiste does everyone a favor here. For, if you feel that society owes you an intelligent fertile white woman (since the just society is monogamous), it thus follows that you are personally OBLIGATED to keep looking until you FIND an intelligent fertile white woman. And if you can’t find one to mate with, then it’s your duty to die without producing spawn.

    If, however, you reject 1950s sexuality as the ideal, it opens up more opportunities for mating and spawn creation. Society owes you nothing, so you owe society nothing. If you want to do a McAfee and go to Belize and build a harem, good for you. If you want to do like the Brits in the 1800s and go to India and build a harem, right on. Etc etc.

    [Reply]

    forkinhell Reply:

    Oy vey. It’s almost enough to make one a feminist. And Clint Eastwood is a true alpha male? Didn’t you watch Back to the Future? What kinda stupid name is that? Clint’s name may well explain some of his more eccentric behaviour you know.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about there Fork. If Clint is not an alpha male (count ’em FOUR families — and all his wives and ex wives get along, often coming to his house for picnics) who is?

    forkinhell Reply:

    Well, he’s an alpha-acting-male. Get reality back into play and we’d have someone not called Clint as alpha pin-up boy.

    Hurlock Reply:

    Where does Dampier claim the 1950’s is the moral ideal?

    Where does Dampier claim society owes him a fertile woman?

    Where does Dampier deny mating is a darwinian struggle?

    [Reply]

    forkinhell Reply:

    Someone’s got a hard-on for Dampier…

    Hurlock Reply:

    @forkinhell

    I am just a curious man, asking simple questions.

    forkinhell Reply:

    Indeed (and I agree with your questions)..

    Kgaard Reply:

    I thought these questions would come up. I like Dampier but this is a very sophistic, slippery piece. Lemme offer some quotes, from which the reader can judge the writer’s intent:

    “For many years now, the West has tended to train its people into moral error, and those moral errors often manifest themselves in disastrous physical and mental symptoms.”

    “It’s easy to blame the birth control pill for your own sexual incontinence, but much harder to confess your own willful sins. ”

    “The family structure of 1950, which was already relatively feminine-centered, tends to be termed as ‘abusive’ today. … There’s a certain method to this madness — it’s to grasp for demons to blame for sin.”

    AND the biggie:

    “So, while in the 1950s and earlier, loose men and women were seen as kin to serial killers, just a decade or two afterward, they became objects of mass veneration and adoration — in a way that lasts to this day.”

    Again, you can make your own judgments as to what he’s doing here, but to me he’s arguing for the moral righteousness of 1950s monogamy. And once you take that as the MORAL TRUTH, well, the rest of it follows: The man’s personal responsibility becomes UPHOLDING that model. This is the trap Heartiste is saying you should fall into.

    Kgaard Reply:

    @

    Should “NOT” fall into, that is.

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Compared to today’s market, yeah. 1950’s were pretty ‘righteous’ by any standard except ‘love and do what thou wilt’

    You aren’t one of those hippies, are you?

    Kgaard Reply:

    Well have a read of that Heartiste piece and tell me where he’s wrong …

    Frau Braun Reply:

    You aren’t one of those hippies, are you?

    Yump thay’re gonna forget y’all posted ‘New Age’ sheet on da previous post… [loss of character]… sheet yes Kgaard is a hippie (heil!)

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 10:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • forkinhell Says:

    Are you signalling? You better not be signalling. You fucking are, aren’t you..? Purge this mofo…

    NRx finds its own special way to leftist retardation (once you start looking, it will find you everywhere).

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 5th, 2015 at 10:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Frau Braun Says:

    Who, little ol’ me? I must admit I’m a little embarrassed to be commenting here, but I could no longer withstand the on-show virility. What’s a girl to do if she can’t get a little giddy in the face of such… allure? The things I would do to you… (I want to stop myself, I really do). Do you know what talk of r selection does to me? How long I’ve waited? How the girls at home have sought to know.. this is our awakening; this our release. If you had only known how long we sought a model, and model men to uphold their valour in battle. Alas, how we have pined, lamented, and been left bereft in progressive loss. There are few today that we call men. Few that tickle our little, cutesy-wutesy front bottoms. Few we would bow down to. I look forward to welcoming a neoreactionary, most intimately, in the near future xxx

    [Reply]

    Frau Braun Reply:

    Note to Ed: *… into my private quarters [xxx]

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    [I’d have chopped this and its companion comments for vulgar drunk-trolling, but then I saw the conversation it was responding to …]

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    You see the problem, no? Two reactionaries, Dampier and Heartiste, are in diametrical opposition to each other on this question. For Dampier to be right, Heartiste has to be wrong. And that means somebody has to show where Heartiste is wrong.

    Posted on April 6th, 2015 at 12:40 am Reply | Quote
  • Frau Braun Says:

    [Clipped for ridiculousness] Quite right too. Is any of this real? Is any of this going anywhere? Pissed off right-leaners, doing everything everyone else does. It’s a motor you says. OK. Is Mou what’s-is-name real? […] About how to solve this mess? That’s what I want… a community to help me – because I don’t have a fucking real clue – to bring my children to adult life. Fuck the rest of it. I accept most people don’t want to know. But where’s the building online going on for educating? Blah blah… I be drunk (hence the trolling)… I’d like a community to raise my children in. I genuinely think that’s it (though of course, that could very welcomely grow). [Please delete [Why this one in perticular? Admin]]

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    [Note initial “clipped for ridiculousness” was self-applied.]

    [Reply]

    Frau Braun Reply:

    Because a girl has standards (even with bog roll hanging out of her skirt). Yours is not to reason why. I see HRx is my more likely audience. NRx shall be crushed. Mwaahaha! [Now, where are those pills?]

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 6th, 2015 at 1:05 am Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    Cochran doesn’t buy 1 in 17

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/y-chromosome-crash/

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    I’m with Cochran. I think that the “1-in-17” thing is a staggeringly flawed interpretation.

    For whatever it’s worth, the study itself is here. It offers a few hypotheses, but does not directly assert anything in support of that interpretation:
    http://www.docdroid.net/wmdq/a-recent-bottleneck-of-y-chromosome-diversity-coincides-with-a-global-change-in-culture.pdf.html

    It’s certainly true that some dominant men reproduced much more than others, and that those individuals have had an outsized effect on Y-chromosomal diversity. It’s also true that many men in small agricultural communities, who are ostensibly unrelated, share Y chromosomes. Once that’s taken into consideration, I believe it’s fairly easy to spot the error in the “1-in-17” interpretation.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    I noted above that Heartiste was wrong on 1-in-17. (I suspect he was citing it as a peak figure.) The correct figure over time is that roughly 2 in 5 males have reproduced. But even that figure eviscerates the whole notion of 1950s monogamy being the moral standard.

    There is still a flaw in applying the Heartiste paradigm (i.e. the alpha reproduces, the beta does not) to today’s environment. With easy birth control, he who fornicates with the most women does not leave the most spawn. So the three types of men in the west who reproduce now display:

    1) Lack of forward thinking + dominance (thug game);
    2) Religious adherence plus willingness to commit and spawn under prevailing legal regime (beta provider/religious fundamentalist), or;
    3) Elysium game: The small sub-set of non-thug, non-fundamentalists who meet and spawn on generally rationalist principles, and then commence to dominate society.

    The third category, the Elysi-ites, must necessarily be a small and contracting portion of the pie because of the contradictions involved: why should a successful man sign a bad contract — when his whole life he’s been signing good ones (or else he would not have become successful)? More interestingly: If the successful non-beta, non-fundamentalist man is consciously Darwinian, would that not necessarily interfere with the community-building and self-sacrificing impulses needed to build a family (and to signal to a woman that a man is a good long-term bet)?

    In other words, simply becoming aware of the 2-in-5 statistic and working the implications through to their logical conclusion may have the effect of reducing a man’s reproductive fitness. In this sense, perhaps Dampier is running Straussian game — pushing the noble lie because the truth is literally too dangerous to contemplate.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    You guys are driving me nuts with these unqualified, knowing statements about what is and is not moral. If you have a moral theory that allows you to make a statement like that, please tell me what it is, and what is the domain in which it applies. Otherwise, I’m going to conclude that you’re arguing over matters of taste.

    What really frightens me is that Admin is going to start writing about Nietzsche.

    Kgaard Reply:

    How can you have Neoreaction WITHOUT Nietzsche? The “neo” component of the term implies self-consciousness and awareness that morals evolve. And that implies one has read the mandatory text on the matter, Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals.

    But beyond that I am simply making the theoretical point that there is a logical disconnect between Dampier’s argument that monogamy is the moral gold standard and the anthropological data showing that only 2-in-5 men have reproduced. Objectively speaking, Dampier can’t be right.

    Erebus Reply:

    How did you get 2-in-5? It sounds reasonable to me, but I find myself wondering how you came up with that figure.

    And are you saying that only 2-in-5 men have reproduced at all — which is a remarkable assertion — or are you saying that 2-in-5 men have had children which eventually go on to reproduce? In other words, that 2-in-5 men have descendants. (Given the rates of child mortality back then, I think that this is a very important distinction to make. Life was a very precarious thing in those days.)

    Kgaard Reply:

    Well if it helps the same anthropological studies show that 80% of women have reproduced. So however you adjust for child mortality, historically individual women have had twice the reproductive success of individual men.

    Some internet digging points back to the following Harvard paper for the 40%-80% differential. It’s a monster but the conclusion begins in the second column on page 9. Basically what they say is that over the eons alpha males have dominated the reproductive sweepstakes for men.

    http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/edwards/people/postdocs/papers/WilderMobasher.pdf

    Erebus Reply:

    Yeah, looks like they state it plainly:

    “In conclusion, our results indicate that the human NRY
    tends to have an approximately twofold smaller Ne and
    TMRCA than mtDNA within human populations. There is
    no indication from our data that this difference is caused by
    different forms or intensities of natural selection acting on
    mtDNA and the NRY. Instead, we favor a hypothesis
    whereby sex-specific demographic processes act to reduce
    the male breeding population size.”

    (Where NRY = Y-chromosomal DNA, Ne = population size, and TMRCA = The time to the most recent common ancestor.)

    This sort of thing isn’t my area of expertise, but I am now inclined to believe that your 2-in-5 interpretation is correct. For whatever reason. I don’t want to speculate. Definitely interesting, though; food for thought…

    Posted on April 6th, 2015 at 2:27 am Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    It’s not about morality.

    GBFM explains

    “the fallacy in all this reasoning
    is that heartiste’s socalled “beta” civilizations
    where each man had the right to his wife
    and property
    kicked the shit out of and dominated those
    civilizations
    which didn’t.”

    Monogamy was an innovation that helped the monogamous humans dominate their non-monogamous rivals.

    So ought to think carefully before you throw that innovation away.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    GBFM’s view is no longer operative.

    Enforcing monogamy no longer offers positive marginal utility to the elites who set cultural standards. The fertile single woman is more useful to the individual elite male as a mistress/corporate harem member than as a carrot to motivate the proletarian. That is because the marginal economic and military utility of the proletarian is now so low.

    So, it’s not a matter of whether monogamy creates a more powerful society. At the margin that may be true — but only at the margin. What really counts now — both for military and economic purposes– is the creative capacity of the genius elite.

    For Pakistan the logic is different because they exist so much further down the economic and military food chain. Thus in Pakistan they maintain a very patriarchal system at the grass roots level. I’ve been there twice and what I notice is that young males are well acculturated. They are pretty normal because they have fathers. So, down the road, the 50th percentile American will be less effective than the 50th percentile Pakistani.

    But elite Americans will still be far more dominant than elite Pakistanis.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 6th, 2015 at 1:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alan J. Perrick Says:

    There are some good links here…

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 6th, 2015 at 9:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Just based on reading an online summary of Nietzsche’s _Genealogy of Morals_, I’m not feeling the love. If I want to read insults directed at Christianity, I’ll read Dawkins.

    I don’t see how this puts anyone in a position to claim that his moral tastes are scientifically authoritative. Does Nietzsche have something worthwhile to say that wasn’t said better by Arthur Leff?

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Don’t know what to say Peter. Genealogy is among the most important books of the 19th century and set the stage for many of the big events of the 20th. Nietzsche’s basic insight — that morals are contingent on time and place — is extremely compelling.

    Now … with respect to his knocks on Christianity … I grant you that these were perhaps more pressing in the 19th century than now. His big complaint involved the Christian tendency toward resentment of those who have more fun (or whatever) than the Christian. Nietzsche was taking aim at the Christian’s idea that “I’ll get him back in the NEXT world: He’ll be burning in hell and I’ll be partying with Jesus up on some cloud.”

    I might propose that this issue is less urgent now. Modern Christians are very likely much less resentful of non-Christians than was the case in the 19th century — precisely because much of Christian practice has recognized and incorporated Nietzsche’s critique.

    Anyway, with regard to Neoreaction, I think by definition it must be self-consciously aware that accepted morals change over time. Otherwise it’s just plain old reaction.

    [Reply]

    epicleses Reply:

    genealogy of morals was written as an expansion and extrapolation of certain key points in beyond good and evil. this is the recommended starting point. cursory or shallow readings of nietzsche are absolutely not recommended. you will gain nothing. if you do not have the time to commit to full-corpus (or at least mid period and late period) reading, do not bother. many bland and banal summaries and interpretations of nietzsche exist; they are not worth reading. nietzsche’s importance lies in his intuitive understanding of systems dynamics as applied to culture, psychology, history. these insights are scattered across multiple books and require careful threading together.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 7th, 2015 at 1:49 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment