Chaos Patch (#60)

(Open thread + links)

Where in Rome are we? Chaos beasts. Nydwracu’s library. On marriage. Sigma point. View from the blip. Moral imagination (cockroach-phobia warning). Leftward lurches. Darwinian notes. Assembly plans. Letters to a Young Programmer (1, 2). Nietzschean conservatives. Scots logic. Sleight of hand. Southern duality. Sympathy for skinheads. A little practical drama control (episode n). Fridays frags. (Meta-) Metareactions.

Leading from the rear. The blame for Baltimore. Change. Gay religion (related), and communist religion.

Rational actors. The Pentagon in the valley. A business proposition. Gloom at the top. Policing private cities. Exit and human nature.

Europe’s Dark Future. Tectonic shifts in the mid-East (1, 2, 3).

Never go full Al Ghazali. Harris-Chomsky moral jousting. Counter-terror.

Vignettes from Trivers. Genius-autism linkage. Neanderthal legacy.

Quantum computing update. EM Drive oddness. Tambora. Undead galaxies.

May 3, 2015admin 68 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Chaos

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

68 Responses to this entry

  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    If you love Pacquiao you will look for mayweather steroid evidence or frame him anyways T_T

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 3rd, 2015 at 5:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#60) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on May 3rd, 2015 at 8:52 am Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    EM drive: an advanced civilization would primarily use physical processes we think are impossible. This one in particular would be very quiet. No bright lights, no ‘ion trail.’ Just a slightly warm box.

    Amusingly it also means we’re assembling all the components for a classic flying saucer. Glassy metals will be the hull, EM drive for hovering etc. Now we need the energy density and probably some new superlight internal struts, then we’re good to go.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    If it really does work by pushing on virtual particles, then guess what, there’s your aether. Universe has a preferred reference frame after all. Admittedly it might vary from place to place with sufficiently exotic interactions.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    An interesting thought experiment. I’d note that glassy metals tend to have low melting points, and they’re not usually very light. (The toughest amorphous metal I’ve ever seen is predominantly comprised of palladium — 79% by volume, actually.) There are plenty of lightweight metal-matrix composites and structural ceramics that would be superior materials for this application — in terms of weight, hardness, ease of manufacture, radiation shielding, etc. A simple titanium boride/nickel cermet (TiB2/Ni) would be relatively lightweight, extremely hard, highly resistant to both mechanical and thermal shock, and would serve as an excellent neutron absorber — and this is, as mentioned previously, a simple material, and one which can certainly be improved upon.

    …Carbonaceous materials — for example, a temperature resistant outer-skin of fibre-reinforced pyrolytic carbon — would also be of potential utility.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 3rd, 2015 at 11:38 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/white-people-have-now-been-banned-from-an-anti-racism-event-at-a-british-university/

    THIS is getting worse. Even some fairly left-wing people I’m in contact with find it retarded.

    [Reply]

    forkinhell Reply:

    I’m not sure this is a cause worth fighting. Possibly the reverse. Granted it’s stupid, but the more groups granted full control over self-assembly the better from the NRx point of view. Once Otherkin Willy Fog can exclude non-felines, Phileas can have his club back (assuming anything is still standing).

    [Reply]

    Gromboolian Reply:

    Ah my old college. Goldsmiths is ground zero of the social justice student scene in the UK, although our host did give a lecture there back in 2010.

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    Perhaps NRx would be more acceptable in those circles if it was called the neo-dictatorship of the proletariat.

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    This is excellent, Warburton, and should be encouraged. Fractionalization, discrimination, what’s not to like?

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    …assuming the excluded don’t just dissolve into an ether of white guilt and extreme liberal individualism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 3rd, 2015 at 3:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Re Curt Doolittle on marriage, it all sounds nice in theory but there is no incentive for young women NOT to become free riders on the society at large. The only instance where it makes sense for them to marry is if they can find a man who can reliably be expected to both a) provision above the median income line for the ensuing 20 years and b) be a status asset and fun companion. This is a high bar. Thus, by definition marriages that go the distance (til the kids get to college) will top out at 50% of females — and probably less.

    In a democracy with 100% voter participation the much more likely path is exactly what we see: high illegitimacy rate, heavy immigration (to keep the economy growing) and high taxation.

    Doolittle’s vision is not possible in a modern democracy. Nice try though.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    He did not advise it as a transition for modern democracies only say a normative description not prescriptive advice for modern democracies. The fact the democracy gets in the way is just a testament to the failure of democracy under heterogeneous populations.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    I think he basically mis-frames the issue. Marriage was an intermediate stage in societal evolution. The end stage is the all-powerful state with each individual owing allegiance only to that state. Marriage is an impediment to this process The family (particularly the father) is an intermediate power and you know what De Jouvenel says about intermediate powers. They have to go!

    With rising overall living standards, there’s no reason all women and their spawn can’t be looked after by the tribe as a whole, via high tax rates. Those women who can land high-status males are free to hitch to one of them. Everyone else can go on the dole.

    Marriage is becoming analogous to Obamacare: You can buy private insurance if you’re rich (or in this case land a rich male), but for everyone else the government will take care of you.

    The state is freeing women from the tyranny of husbands they don’t want just as it freed children from the tyranny of their parents.

    This whole interpretation fits with what Sailer is now seeing: White birthrates are rising in the RICHEST parts of NYC — but not in the other parts. Apparently Alexandria VA is seeing a similar baby boom (though that is anecdotal).

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    “With rising overall living standards, there’s no reason all women and their spawn can’t be looked after by the tribe as a whole, via high tax rates.”

    What spawn? The reason is that this leads to infertility. Jouvenel does not describe a linear evolution, he describes a cycle which ends with civilizational collapse after power has grown to the maximum possible. When it reaches that point it reduces itself into anarcho-tyranny and out of its ashes the cycle starts again. We can currently observe the late stages of this process in western civilization.

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    I do not see how you can believe what you have said considering what is currently the consensus for high-tier neoreactionary discussions.

    From what I understand the aggregate benefits of marriage are to be counted in not only the positive outcomes but the negative outcomes it prevents which are the externalities produced by *not* being married. I do not think he misframes the issue and perhaps we are not on the same page of discussion.

    Let’s use as reference william tucker’s ‘Marriage and Civilization’. I didn’t find it on libgen unfortunately. =[

    Do you mind bulleting what you think are the benefits of the current system, for whom and why is this is better than the alternative?
    I

    Kgaard Reply:

    Lots of people benefit from the current system:

    1) Women, during their peak of sexual zeal and attractiveness, are free to fornicate with multiple men rather than being stuck with just one boring guy. Remember: The core driver of female sexuality is the desire to be desired. Since we know men get tired of boinking the same woman, we also know that women will naturally want to change men when their men get tired of them. That is, unless the man is top 20% in earning potential.

    2) High status men have never wanted to be limited to one woman. The escape valve for this used to be prostitution, but that was shut down soon after women got the vote. So the only other way out of the problem for high status men was to weaken monogamy. Which is what they did. (See Hollywood.)

    3) The state and the oligarchs get a much enlarged worker class and consumer class.

    4) The state gets weakened competition from families and clans.

    5) The state and the oligarchs get an excuse to bring in poor uneducated immigrants, who work cheap and further reduce the risk of anti-state action from the masses.

    So really it’s a win-win. The only losers are older women, lower-status men and children of divorced parents. But they’ve never mattered anyway.

    Kgaard Reply:

    On De Juvenel — I haven’t gotten to the end of the book yet. RIght now he’s still talking about the inevitability of intermediate powers being crushed by the state. I can see where the whole thing can get top-heavy and collapse. But that may be 100 years or more away. Like most empires, though, the immigrants to the US are, for the most part, adjusting to our way of doing things and don’t look like they are about to revolt and bring the whole thing down. So it’s entirely possible the USA continues on for a long time, just in a much browner form.

    forkinhell Reply:

    You’re really selling marriage there: ‘Shit, we’re out of carats. Quick, get out the stick!’

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @Kgaard I’m with Hurlock on this. It is not evolution, it is blind systemic automation occasioned by roles in society having incentives which have not been analysed properly. No one is at the helm, and even when they are, they act in ways set by the role (of course human’s arrogance being what it is this is not accepted – too horrifying.)
    So, those attracted to work for the state, and those who aggitate for the state to free them from local “oppression” such as family, Google, Ford etc all act out their pre-set roles mindlessly. The state grasps for power automatically and the people call for it to free them (like the king of old – becoming a subject of the king = freedom, beconing a subject of the state only = freedom.)
    To call any of this evolution is a massive abuse of the term.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @kgaard What you have is multiple actors with different desires and incentives. The problem that occurs is when people place narratives over it, which is what humans do automatically. One such narrative is progress or social evolution. Anouther is Jews, anouther is SJW running things logically according to leftism logic. There is no logic involved, there is no real design – just rolling chaos.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 3rd, 2015 at 11:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • zugzug Says:

    It’s interesting how NRx throws Occam’s razor out of the window when it comes the Jews.

    The pattern is perhaps too obvious and too simple for NRx, which is so concerned with sounding smart.
    But NRx is not that smart (IQ range probably 120-150).

    Smarter people, such as Rene Girard or Jesus, have found better answers (not about the Jews, but generally).

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Any links in particular?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Jesus was kind of smart, but he didn’t understand the Jews.”

    [Reply]

    Jesse Reply:

    As a thought-experiment, how different do you think things would be in a history where time travelers caused all Jews to mysteriously become infertile (or have all the embryos in Jewish wombs swapped with pure-blooded Aryan ones, if you are one of those who believes in a biological explanation for Jewish nefariousness) around the time of the French Revolution? Do you think there still wouldn’t be a strong leftist movement with secular, universalistic ideals and a strong utopian tendency? (as in the post-religious multiracial future envisioned by non-Jewish leftist Gene Roddenberry) Do you think feminism wouldn’t exist even if they had the pill and female education, or that immigration quotas based on ethnicity wouldn’t still have been opposed in the US by non-WASP whites like the Catholics (like JFK, who spearheaded the Immigration reforms of 1965, and apparently placed a lot of importance on the idea considering his 1958 book A Nation of Immigrants), or that slavery or Jim Crow type segregation would have persisted to 2015?

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 12:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    I have a thought experiment.
    Suppose there does exist a multiverse such that an infinite number of infinite universes exist and can even be created by 5th level civilizations (able to utilize all the energy of an infinite number of infinite universes). True post-scarcity.

    So some civilizations in the pursuit of truth and perspective might allow and participate in unrestricted universe creation such as to create and catalog every possible permutation of universe, including universes of hellish horror. Is it possible that other civilizations would view this as immoral and seek to liberate and avert the existence of hellish universes, 5th level civilizations in conflict. If there were conflict, how would a moral preening civilization even fight if they get to the point where even unpleasantness isn’t tolerated in their universes (universes containing worlds like ours would be early on the ban list), perhaps through tolerating contradictions. Perhaps even civilizations that oppose the creation of metaverses that contain this very conflict.

    Is moral preening something that can exist outside of scarcity? Or is moral preening entirely rooted in the dynamics of social resource acquisition.

    [Reply]

    Krelian Reply:

    I see it unlikely, in a probablistic sense, that any civilization that reaches a point where it might begin to believe it could somehow avert the existence of nightmare worlds doesn’t also come to realize that such an effort is futile and hopeless game, for if a bubble of causality can be enumerated, it already exists in a timeless sense. See Julian Barbour’s Timeless Physics and End of Time.

    And in those rare universes where such civilizations do arise in pursuit of this hyper-progressive campaign of nightmare-world elimination, I can only imagine that these worlds must be among the most nightmarish of them all.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 1:23 am Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    In addition to the EM drive excitement there’s also this
    http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/press_release.html
    The heat exchanger alone is a game changer, if the SABRE engine actually comes into existence could potentially enable something I thought I’d never see in my lifetime, SSTO. Keep in mind the AFRL study confirming the feasibility of SABRE engines does NOT confirm the feasibility SKYLON or SSTO. I did a double take about some of the SABRE stuff because the results are so ridiculous, using liquid hydrogen for the heat exchanger, tremendous. The SABRE engine concept is a masterwork, it pisses me off that I’m not closer to it’s development.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 3:04 am Reply | Quote
  • zugzug Says:

    [Reply]SanguineEmpiricist Reply:May 4th, 2015 at 2:12 amAny links in particular?
    [Reply]

    Today’s link is on the Skinheads with the usual shaming (for being stupid and conspiracy theorists).
    While the previous Chaos Patch was offering a different conspiracy theory on the Jews (“Down the Jewish rabbit-hole”).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    A link is not an assertion of doctrine. (To assume that it is gets close to Moron bites territory.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 3:06 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    “So really it’s a win-win. The only losers are older women, lower-status men and children of divorced parents. But they’ve never mattered anyway.” – Kgaard

    This is the problem, almost all men can and will do violence just the same and the entire point is to prevent the negative externalities of violence from withholding sex from men although it is not the entirety of my argument necessarily.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Low status men still get sex: with older/portlier women and/or porn. And soon they will have virtual reality porn. So why engage in violence and risk getting thrown in jail when you can have VR porn instead? The state can now knuckle down a lot harder on men precisely because risk of violence from individual men is much lower than in the past. Legalized pot and processed foods further aid the process of neutralizing excess males. All is proceeding according to plan.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Kgaard, it not a damn plan.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 4:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    The centralizing of power into the state is precisely one thing: Liberalism, or at least a critical aspect thereof. To favor it is about as ‘Reactionary’ as Béla Kun. Too many make the mistake of thinking we live in a world where the individual is king. He’s not. In Modernity, the state is king (i.e – the Cathedral), but he does not behave like a king. He grabs power he is not entitled to while dancing with the mask of giving ‘the people’ their liberty. He is an illegitimate king. A fraud.

    The mode of Tradition, as described in detail by De Maistre, Guenon, and Evola, is the correct division of power between the monarchical autocracy, the priestly caste, the male head of house, and the individual (the Four Laws). This is the natural human state, as has been shown through thousands of years of human civilizational history before the ‘Enlightenment’.

    The only thing that is ‘inevitable’ is the collapse of the Modern state because it has broken from the correct mode of structure. A 1984 style government is a fiction, a fantasized ‘Modern Singularity’ that will never be reached because the entire thing will dissolve before it gets close. Human beings cannot function in this kind of society. They were not designed to. They can barely function in what we have now.

    A man needs four things. A strong monarch to fight for and be ruled by. A clerical body to tell him what he ought and ought not do. An unassailable position of authority over his wife in particular, but children as well. And finally to be left to his own devices most of the time. That has been the Reactionary position since the 1700s, for it describes virtually the entire world up until the birth of Liberalism. Social engineering a new form of government that does not hark back to the original model is just another form of Modernism. Hint: National Socialism and Marxism were both variations of Modernism. Don’t try and invent another one.

    [Reply]

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    My apologies to Kgaard if you were simply stating these Modern phenomena rather than supporting their outworking to an all-powerful state.

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    @markcitadel Kgaard was refering to de jouvenals analysis of the inevitable result of power systems. Holding a set of demands or positions and setting wishes misses the whole point. Like demanding water flow uphill.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Exactly.

    Speaking of which … another guy I am reading who mirrors De Jouvenel quite nicely is that Yuval Noah Harari, whose video interview was featured here a month or two ago (with Daniel Kahneman).

    Harari’s book is called “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.”

    http://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-A-Brief-History-Humankind/dp/0062316095

    He pussies out on the trickiest PC-sensitive questions but that doesn’t really matter. His main themes are that evolution doesn’t care about your happiness and that “myths make the man.” In other words, the differences between humans and chimps only become apparent when you look at groups larger than 150 individuals. At that level Sapiens crushes all competitors (including Neanderthals).

    He argues that states will always jam their key myths down the people’s throats at every turn until most people can’t believe anything else. That’s what states do. That’s what HUMANS do.

    He also says throughout history most people have lived in multicultural empires. It’s a stable form and its theology is always universalist and pan-racial. The rulers of said empires generally find it quite easy to put down rebellions.

    He argues like De Jouvenel that the state has been experienced by most people as a bringer of freedom from oppression by NEAR forces: parents, schoolmasters, bosses, local officials and most recently husbands. So, dudes who complain about women getting rights should look in the mirror and see how the state has helped THEM escape the overbearing clutches of (for instance) overbearing mafiosi types at the local level.

    Anyway, there is a lot in here and it’s very well written. Not a dry science text but a big thinkpiece. He has good things to say about money: Says it is the greatest instrument of trust ever created. Strangers who despise each other on every other level will cooperate in a money transaction. Interesting point.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    “He also says throughout history most people have lived in multicultural empires.”

    How would he define “multicultural”, in such a context? Would he consider China under Manchurian or Mongolian rule a “multicultural empire” — despite the fact that the vast majority of the population was Han Chinese, and that the “culture”, as we would define it, remained remarkably constant over a period of millennia? (It is commonly asserted in China that, in all cases, the ruling dynasties adopted the “superior culture” of the people they ruled!)

    Did Indians living under the British Empire reap the benefits of “multiculturalism”? How about those South Americans?

    …I dare say that even Rome wasn’t very multicultural — at least not in the word’s modern, racial sense — and full civic participation tended to demand certain concessions to Roman culture and religion.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Erebus — In response to your last point about Rome, he makes the point that empires eventually suffer population replacement because they suck so many people into the capital from different races. Eventually these foreigners demand and get equal rights etc. He notes that by the second or third century AD Rome was already being basically run by foreigners.

    This position is in sync with Neoreaction. What he’s saying is that this is how history rolls. The process can go on for a long time. He notes that intervening generations “will often be left out in the cold” with their traditional culture shattered but yet not really part of the new culture.

    He then goes on to point out that there are no “authentic” cultures anymore, and that basically everyone in the western hemisphere is part of an empire, as we all speak English, French, Portuguese or Spanish.

    He rejects the whole line of racial homogeneity as meaning anything, because he rejects the idea that the races are materially different. Whether he actually believes that is another question.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @ Mark Citadel “The centralizing of power into the state is precisely one thing: Liberalism, or at least a critical aspect thereof. To favor it is about as ‘Reactionary’ as Béla Kun.” and “The mode of Tradition, as described in detail by De Maistre, Guenon, and Evola, is the correct division of power between the monarchical autocracy, the priestly caste, the male head of house, and the individual (the Four Laws). This is the natural human state, as has been shown through thousands of years of human civilizational history before the ‘Enlightenment’.”

    Thinking more on your comment, this is where NRx would have differed had it maintained MM as its jump off point, but alas it hasn’t, and I don’t think it should be pretended that it does anymore – there is ZERO discussion of MM points or MM sources. Reaction is the attempt to contain the central power by balancing other powers against it (priestly caste, family even lords etc) MM raised the question of the ability to do this by not trying to fight and contain central power, but instead driving it to full control as per the Chinese tradition – this may sound counter intuitive but this is hypothesized to create a system in which alternate powers are encouraged (family etc) because they are healthy, functional and profitable, and the responsible power no longer has to maniacally undermine threats because it has no fear of them. NRx has not even bothered to grasp this issue, and I doubt it will anytime soon. Too busy larping and whinging about Jews.

    Erebus Reply:

    Granted. But early Rome was not multicultural as we’d understand the term — there was a strong Roman culture, a strong Roman religion, and a sense amongst Romans of shared history. It was this Rome that rose to dominate over the other cultures of Europe. By the third century AD Rome was a shell of its former glory, and it went on to face further catastrophic decline. This doesn’t square with Harari’s assertion that the “multicultural empire” is a stable form, historically. To the contrary, it looks like multiculturalism — by which I mean (1) a nation or empire composed of either a plurality of races or a plurality of living, “authentic” cultures, and (2) a nation or empire wherein these races or cultures are well-dispersed and do not exist in enclaves — is both historically rare, and, when it is observed, appears to be indicative of societal decay.

    Needless to say, Harari’s assertion does not hold true for much of Asia. Not in China, for instance, as far as I can tell. Nor in Japan, certainly. The Mongol Empire — a top-down exercise in multiculturalism — ended in a disintegration just as impressive and rapid as its initial consolidation. In India, a caste-system and self-segregation served to nullify “multiculturalism” — and, in any case, you can’t argue that the Muslims and Hindus lived together in harmony, and enriched each other’s lives! Nothing could be further from the truth.

    How, then, did “most of humanity” live in stable multicultural empires?

    There’s at least one living, authentic culture in the West. NRx knows what it is. There are also the ghosts of cultures — the ghost of a Germanic culture along the Rhine, and among the Austrian alps; the ghost of a Celtic culture in Welsh forests and hills; the ancient ghost of a once-mighty culture in the Peloponnese. I believe that these things exist, and that they can speak to those attuned to them. I get the impression that people like Harari would deny their very existence, and seek to denigrate the old monocultures from which they sprang forth.

    Ah, that aside, I find that Harari likes to make sweeping generalizations which sound nice and impressive, but which don’t hold up to careful scrutiny. His previous “revolution in medicine” claim was a real head-scratcher. This sounds like he’s trying to pay tribute to the Black Gods of Multiculturalism.

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 8:35 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    “Policing private cities.” this article covering problems related to public policies in great details and offer reliable approach for developing functional public policies without experimentation. http://www.albany.edu/~gpr/SmallModels.pdf

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 11:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    De Jouvenel and Harari would love this one:

    http://www.newnownext.com/wells-fargo-features-same-sex-couple-adopting-a-deaf-child-in-new-ad-campaign/04/2015/

    New Wells Fargo ad features lesbian couple adopting mixed-race deaf child while black woman looks on. I stumbled on Yahoo’s baseball page.

    Does this mark some sort of ultimate victory for the multiculturalist empire state?

    [Reply]

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    The most disturbing element is the comments. “Oh so sweet!” “right in the feels!” “this made me tear up!”. I guess if one looks at human excrement long enough, it does become a kind of moving art form.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    At some level it’s not even something to get excited about: The ad is rational application of the state myths:

    1) Freedom: Anyone can do anything they want;
    2) Equality: Anyone can do what they want and everyone is valuable;
    3) Capitalism: We, a bank, align ourselves with the myths of the democratic empire state, which in turn protects capitalists.

    It seems to me that if you want to fight any of this you’re going to have a very hard time. The better option is some form of clustering into a neighborhood of like-minded people.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 5:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • zugzug Says:

    A link is not an assertion of doctrine. (To assume that it is gets close to Moron bites territory.)

    It is not.
    It is perhaps though an indicator of the author’s interest towards articles showing a particular inclination.

    But the comment was directed at NRx generally.
    There seems to be an undercurrent in the movement to avoid talking about Jews or at least to try to deflect blame that they might be subject to.

    “Jesus was kind of smart, but he didn’t understand the Jews.”

    If anything, it is the other way around. Christ understood Judaism, it is out of which Christianity has been built.
    Christ is consciousness, Judaism is (self)deceit.
    The Jews understand not Christ or themselves, a good example of this is Netanyahu speech. Every accusation against Iran that he makes, Israel is guilty of.
    It is the lack of self understanding and the projection of self onto the other that is characteristic.

    Otto Weininger had this to say on Judaism in Sex and Character.

    “To defeat Judaism, the Jew must first understand himself and war against himself.
    So far, the Jew has reached no further than to make and enjoy jokes against his own
    peculiarities. Unconsciously he respects the Aryan more than himself. Only steady
    resolution, united to the highest self-respect, can free the Jew from Jewishness. This
    resolution, be it ever so strong, ever so honourable, can only be understood and
    carried out by the individual, not by the group. Therefore the Jewish question can
    only be solved individually; every single Jew must try to solve it in his proper person.”

    “In Christians pride and humility, in Jews haughtiness and cringing, are ever at strife;
    in the former self-consciousness and contrition, in the latter arrogance and bigotry, In
    the total lack of humility of the Jew lies his failure to grasp the idea of grace. ”

    “The founder of a religion is the man for whom no problem has been solved from his
    birth. He is the man with the least possible sureness of conviction, for whom
    everything is doubtful and uncertain, and who has to conquer everything for himself
    in this life. One has to struggle against illness and physical weakness, another
    trembles on the brink of the crimes which are possible for him, yet another has been in
    the bonds of sin from his birth. It is only a formal statement to say that original sin is
    the same in all persons; it differs materially for each person. Here one, there another,
    each as he was born, has chosen what is senseless and worthless, has preferred instinct
    to his will, or pleasure to love; only the founder of a religion has had original sin in its
    absolute form; in him everything is doubtful, everything is in question. He has to meet
    every problem and free himself from all guilt. He has to reach firm ground from the
    deepest abyss; he has to surmount the nothingness in him and bind himself to the
    utmost reality. And so it may be said of him that he frees himself of original sin, that
    in him God becomes man, but also that the man becomes God; in him was all error
    and all guilt; in him there comes to be all expiation and redemption.
    Thus the founder of a religion is the greatest of the geniuses, for he has vanquished
    the most. He is the man who has accomplished victoriously what the deepest thinkers
    of mankind have thought of only timorously as a possibility, the complete
    regeneration of a man, the reversal of his will. Other great men of genius have,
    indeed, to fight against evil, but the bent of their souls is towards the good. The
    founder of a religion has so much in him of evil, of the perverse, of earthly passion,
    that he must fight with the enemy within him for forty days in the wilderness, without
    food or sleep. It was only thus that he can conquer and overcome the death within
    him and free himself for the highest life. Were it otherwise there would be no impulse
    to found a faith. The founder of a religion is thus the very antipodes of the emperor;
    emperor and Galilean are at the two poles of thought. In Napoleon’s life, also, there
    was a moment when a conversion took place; but this was not a turning away from
    earthly life, but the deliberate decision for the treasure and power and splendour of
    the earthly life. Napoleon was great in the colossal intensity with which he flung from
    him all the ideal, all relation to the absolute, in the magnitude of his guilt. The
    founder of religion, on the other hand, cannot and will not bring to man anything
    except that which was most difficult for himself to attain, the reconciliation with God.
    He knows that he himself was the man most laden with guilt, and he atones for the
    guilt by his death on the cross.
    There were two possibilities in Judaism. Before the birth of Christ, these two,
    negation and affirmation, were together awaiting choice. Christ was the man who
    conquered in Himself Judaism, the greatest negation, and created Christianity, the
    strongest affirmation and the most direct opposite of Judaism. Now the choice has
    been made; the old Israel has divided into Jews and Christians, and Judaism has lost
    the possibility of producing greatness. The new Judaism has been unable to produce
    men like Samson and Joshua, the least Jewish of the old Jews. In the history of the
    world, Christendom and Jewry represent negation and affirmation. In old Israel there
    was the highest possibility of mankind, the possibility of Christ. The other possibility
    is the Jew.
    I must guard against misconception; I do not mean that there was any approach to
    Christianity in Judaism; the one is the absolute negation of the other; the relation
    between the two is only that which exists between all pairs of direct opposites. Even
    more than in the case of piety and Judaism, Judaism and Christianity can best be
    contrasted by what each respectively excludes. Nothing is easier than to be Jewish,
    nothing so difficult as to be Christian. Judaism is the abyss over which Christianity is
    erected, and for that reason the Aryan dreads nothing so deeply as the Jew.”

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    Otto Weininger? An odd choice. Not only was he a full-blooded Jew himself, he had a rather vague idea of what actually constitutes a Jew. He wrote: “When I speak of the Jew I mean neither a specific individual nor a collective, but every human being as such, insofar as he participates in the Platonic idea of Judaism.” (Emphasis added.) Weininger’s Jew is rather like Evola’s Jew — the Jewish Condition, in both cases, is something which has more to do with the spirit than with the blood. Only in such a context can a Jew, in total seriousness, make a statement like: “The Aryan dreads nothing so deeply as the Jew.”

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    “Every accusation against Iran that he makes, Israel is guilty of. It is the lack of self understanding and the projection of self onto the other that is characteristic.” – it’s called politics. To try and use that as a club against Jews and Jewishness is silly.

    “In Christians pride and humility, in Jews haughtiness and cringing, are ever at strife; in the former self-consciousness and contrition, in the latter arrogance and bigotry, In the total lack of humility of the Jew lies his failure to grasp the idea of grace. ” – to my untrained ear, this sounds like he is unhappy Jews are not being universalists.

    “that in him God becomes man, but also that the man becomes God” – this bugs me about xtianity. I still hold that the door to Utopian psychosis is left open due to xtianity and cataphatic theology.

    “Nothing is easier than to be Jewish, nothing so difficult as to be Christian” – this is pure humbug.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 10:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Meanwhile, in Singapore, the Prime Minister just posted a C++ sudoku solver that he wrote himself.

    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/04/prime-minister-of-singapore-shares-his-c-code-for-sudoku-solver/

    My god, the west is boned.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    And he’s going to read a Haskell book “in his retirement”. Which, to me, shows him to be a man of discriminating taste, with respect to programming languages.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 4th, 2015 at 11:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Back to Harari on empire. Here is what he says:

    Empire is the world’s most common form of political organization for the last 2,500 years. Most humans have lived in empires. It’s also a very stable form of government. Most empires have found it alarmingly easy to put down rebellions.

    “Imperial ideology from Cyrus onward has tended to be inclusive and all encompassing. Humankind is seen as a large family. This new imperial vision passed from Cyrus and the Persians to Alexander the Great, the Hellenistic kings, Roman emperors, Muslim caliphs, Indian dynasts, Soviet premiers and American presidents.”

    There’s a bit of sleight of hand here. He should really say that for 99.9% of human history man lived in small homogeneous groups. So multi-culturalism is absolutely unnatural at the small-group level.

    But Harari’s big point is that what defines Homo Sapiens — particularly in contrast to Neanderthals and chimps — is his ability to create myths and massive trust systems that bring together people in cooperative groups far larger than Dunbar’s number of 150. In this sense, then, empire is a natural evolution.

    Harari also says that history doesn’t care about your or me. Our happiness is irrelevant. If we personally want to be happy, we should focus on Buddhist practices, since these are basically engineered to maximize human happiness.

    He is silent on the question of whether all this applies to Israel.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    “He should really say that for 99.9% of human history man lived in small homogeneous groups. So multi-culturalism is absolutely unnatural at the small-group level.” well said. He is right on the multicultural empire angle. It happens repeatedly. China managed it without importing half of asia, but the west keeps going for mongrelization at every chance. (then again, China is going for mongrelaization with the Ugyhurs.)

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    China is also going for mongrelization with the Tibetans. But given the size of the different populations, it looks like a rather obvious attempt at genocide and stealing those key high altitude adaptations.

    [quote]
    China promotes mixed marriages in Tibet as way to achieve ‘unity’

    Now, China has turned to interracial marriage in an apparent attempt to assimilate Tibetans and stamp out rebellious impulses.

    In recent weeks, Chinese officials in charge of the Tibetan Autonomous Region have ordered a run of stories in local newspapers promoting mixed marriages. And according to newly published government reports, the government has adopted a series of policies in recent years favorable to interracial couples. [/quote]

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-promotes-mixed-marriages-in-tibet-as-way-to-achieve-unity/2014/08/16/94409ca6-238e-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    Do you think the guys who devised the policy are acting with knowledge of the historical repetition of the policy? Or merely acting in line with systemic incentives blindly?

    Erebus Reply:

    Agreed. I’d add: And not only in small homogeneous groups, but in agricultural communities specifically.

    I haven’t read the book, but I feel as though Harari is missing something basic here. Jew that he is — and I mean, in the spiritual sense that men like Evola and Weininger would recognize at once; in the sense that Harari’s cosmopolitan homosexual character is a Jewish one — he forgets “Blood and Soil”. He ignores that connection to the land that virtually all cultures have shared. The ancient Chinese farmer and the old English farmer would recognize each other at once; neither of them would recognize the character of the Wandering Jew.

    …The early Zionists realized the importance of this. The very first thing they did in Israel was set-up agricultural communities & preach a secular “back to the land” philosophy. They quickly became very good farmers, but the philosophy doesn’t seem to lasted. (In all fairness, the agricultural community itself is dead, these days.)

    Harari’s vision of history appears to ignore the fact that we’ve lived in agricultural communities for most of recorded history. Typically stationary and racially-homogeneous ones, at that. He appears to be glorifying empire, multiculturalism, inclusiveness, and other fashionable and popular ideas — but very few of those things applied to the average man of Rome, to say nothing of men of different times and places. What’s more, I wonder if Harari isn’t making a compelling case for monarchy as opposed to empire?

    That this world doesn’t care anything for our happiness is not news. Wasn’t that Schopenhauer’s entire point? I think you’d like Schopenhauer, by the way.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Love Schopenhauer — Just outlined Essays and Aphorisms a couple months ago. I never read him as a youngster because I assumed Nietzsche had superceded him. Boy was I wrong. Nietzsche is really just a riff on Schopenhauer in many ways.

    On Harari … he doesn’t fetishize agricultural communities. He actually thinks they represented a step DOWN in human happiness from hunter gatherers. He probably has a good point here: Foragers were taller, healthier and happier than the farmers that followed. But here again, history doesn’t care: History wants to see more copies of the DNA pumped out and agriculture allows for that.

    I liked Harari’s book. If you just put on your Lacan critical theory cap and adjust for the fact that he’s writing as an Israeli, he makes a lot of great points that are absolutely relevant to us post-modern, post-Christian city and suburb dwellers.

    In fact I think between him and Matthew Caldwell, you have the workings of a holistic philosophy: Create ecologies of attention in small communities that are insulated from the state’s prying tentacles yet still helped by the state’s ability to maintain order. Focus on family. Focus on male leadership (as all societies have been patriarchal). Live paleo in diet and work (varied activity, not a full-time cubicle dweller). Cultivate Buddhist mindfulness. Cultivate trust networks via use of money. Accept that the world doesn’t give a shit about you, and thus build something of value at the local level focused on family and community and quality of life. Strengthen your family by creating an environment that is more loving for the children than the state can provide. (Love is your edge over the state.) Bring animals and plants back into your “boardroom” — make them part of the community, as they were in pre-agricultural days. Embrace high-quality ritualized activity.

    That’s the message in a nutshell, I think. Harari also makes the useful point that pretty soon Homo Sapiens is likely to be superseded — at which point all our debates about nationality, religion, sex roles will be moot.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Matthew Crawford, not Caldwell.

    Erebus Reply:

    Okay, now I’ve got to read the book. I’ll get back to you in a while — in a different chaos patch — with my thoughts. Thanks very much for the details and synopsis!

    Chris B Reply:

    Would be nice if Jew wasn’t used as short hand for cosmopolitan, non-rooted thought processes and people. It hides a lot.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    I don’t entirely disagree, and it’s not the sort of phrasing I would use reflexively. It is a very convenient bit of shorthand, though, in certain cases — and I can think of few cases more apt than Harari’s. (As he’s an ultra-cosmopolitan and appears to have an ultra-cosmopolitan conception of history.)

    …It’s also a very ancient bit of shorthand; I don’t know if I can bring to mind a 19th century European philosopher or literary writer who hasn’t used it in that sense or a similar sense. (For whatever it’s worth, I think that they tended to view “Jewishness” as a set of characteristics, and not as an overarching racial destiny. This naturally helped lead to Zionism and it’s ersatz “blood and soil” implementation — whereby secular European Jews, infused with a most un-Jewish pioneer spirit, attempted to shed those hated characteristics in agricultural communities full of wehrbauer-esque soldier peasants.)

    chris b Reply:

    @Erebus True. The countryside/land/ prot work ethic versus cosmopolitan/ deterritorislised/ jewishness is a re-occuring theme. I just really find the Jew “infection” sort of vibe to be compete brain activity murder. Traders and detrerritorislised people pop up everywhere, the problem with europe is this involves Jews who are of diff ethnicity and were aggressivly opposed to assimilation. In the likes of Japan and China merchants etc were not of diff ethnicity as far as I know, so the question did not break down into retardation. This is an area in which I am leaning towards the Jap/Chinese/ Dugginist interpretation of things, as opposed to the Xenosystem direction of ultra-deterritorialisation.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Yes there are several problems with the whole “blood and soil” thing generally:

    1) It’s inconsistent with capitalism. In capitalism YOU may be tied to a piece of ground, but your kids will need to go out into the world and make some coin on their own. Hence if they are tied to that same piece of ground as you, their ability to adapt to changes in the market will be extremely limited.

    2) It’s inconsistent with “exit.” In a democracy you always know you’re one election away from a demagogic Chavezesque moron foisting exploitative policies on you. Thus it behooves one to be light of foot — with an eye toward moving to Panama or Switzerland if conditions dictate.

    3) It’s inconsistent with human history. This is a tricky one I grant, but the theory goes like this: Agriculture was a step DOWN for human happiness at the individual level. The hunter/gatherer life was healthier and happier. So, following this line of reasoning, one shouldn’t really look askance at the whole hunter/gatherer lifestyle. If you need to pick up and move to a new place to take advantage of opportunities, well, it could be fun. And, anyway, with the main cultures having spread to many points on the globe, it’s usually possible to give up “soil” without giving up “blood.” An example might be Brits moving to the south of Spain, or Americans moving to the tony parts of Central America.

    All this being said, if I personally would have grown up around NYC or SF, perhaps I never would have left, and would have retained all the social capital I would have amassed as a youth and young adult. That’s actually an argument for living near a major city if one plans on having ambitious children …

    Erebus Reply:

    I agree wholeheartedly with every single point. To be honest, it feels a bit hypocritical for me to even speak of “blood and soil” these days. I live in Hong Kong, but have nothing to do with the local culture, and in fact I cannot even cultivate a proper appreciation for it. I’m here for the tax laws, for capitalism… So of course I agree with you. Blood and soil is incompatible with modern life, and particularly with modern economic activity, which is globalist.

    But this wasn’t the case for pre-industrial societies. Their people were stationary and focused on agriculture — from Ancient Egypt to 20th Century Mongolia, for as long as humans have recorded history, the farmer/herdsman peasant has been the dominant form of human life. Every single culture we’d recognize — and let’s leave aside the fact that they’re all dead or moribund — arose from agricultural communities, from the blood of small groups and the soil of their farming plots, which is why virtually all of them have harvest holidays. The Jews, for better or worse, were defined by the “wandering people” trope, though even they have ancient harvest holidays of their own.

    I think that any conception of history needs to hammer this point home. Now I realize that it’s clearly more interesting to talk about empires and battles and large cities of over 150 people. (With a focus on multicultural ones, in Harari’s case, apparently?) But that’s not the whole story — and when you’re trying to put to paper the entire macro-history of the human race, you can’t gloss over the agricultural community. When you said that Harari’s thought can be paraphrased “the differences between humans and chimps only become apparent when you look at groups larger than 150 individuals” — I have to wonder how serious he’s being. For despite the existence of cities in the pre-industrial world, farmers and herdsmen — who lived in small groups — consistently made up approximately 95% of the overall population.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Well perhaps our current situation is more in keeping with the experience of PRE-agricultural man. I mean, when’s the last time you participated in a harvest? I may have gone to pick pumpkins and blueberries a couple times but got bored after about 20 minutes. Point being that perhaps we now have more in common with our hunter-gatherer ancestors than our stationary farm/town ancestors. There is no reason to focus on “recorded” history to the exclusion of the complete record of human history, which is probably 500x longer.

    The other thing to consider is the whole mouse utopia angle. We are in a deformed version of human society now simply because the population density is so high (and mobility is high and technology is ubiquitous etc etc). Thus, if one wants an old-time blood and soil experience, it seems to me one might have to be rather conscious about it.

    Speaking of which, this crew has set up a community in the wilds of Pennsylvania. Kind of lacking in aesthetics but it’s very much an intentional community. Maybe more like tattoos and dirt rather than blood and soil, but one would think there would be more efforts like this here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2015/05/06/the-250-acre-church-nurturing-faith-and-free-spirits-in-the-foothills-of-pennsylvania/?hpid=z11

    Posted on May 5th, 2015 at 12:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Nice article by T. Greer at Chicagoboyz on “Asabiyah”.

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/48326.html

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    Very interesting article.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2015 at 1:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Postnietzschean Says:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urban-scientist/2015/03/26/when-discussing-humanitys-next-move-to-space-the-language-we-use-matters/ Lol

    The Guardian weighed in too http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2015/may/06/how-can-our-future-mars-colonies-be-free-of-sexism-and-racism

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Let them have Mars, and encourage them to double down on keeping weapons out of space (non-weaponization needs a full blown holiness spiral, the cathedral approved generals will get holiness points and more stars for purging weaponization black budgets). It’s great, keeps the State’s hands tied while subsidies continue to flow into the needed aspects of technological development. It creates the perfect opportunity, one that only a group who embraces crimethink can take advantage of.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2015 at 12:28 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment