Chaos Patch (#62)

(Open thread + links)

They just can’t stop. The egalitarian end game. Neoreactionary achievements (0, 1, 2, 310). Insanity and nihilism. Jacobin dreams. Rights and rites. Against conservatism. Against antinatalism. Against economic ownership. Against the Gnostics. Against Kant and consumerism. (What a contrary bunch.) Contribute to the commons. Friday fragments. The weekly round.

Eugenics is coming. Climate dissidence.

A report from China. Who lost China (again)?

Gold rush (see also this).

Turf wars, and see also (1, 2, 3). Derbyshire on the UK circus (plus, fingers crossed). Knives out for Harper (1, 2). Well, this is embarrassing. Satanic materialism. Women forge ahead. Ancient Rome’s rotten elites.

The shadow of Szabo. Grizzle-punk. Briggs, on Pew, on religion (related).

Deep state commercialization (via.).

May 17, 2015admin 40 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

40 Responses to this entry

  • Gromboolian Says:

    That Pj Media link (”The End of Great Britain’? Who cares?’) is quite terrible, although I suppose any article beginning with ‘I know nothing about this subject which I don’t care about, but these are my opinions’ is off to a somewhat inauspicious start. While Scotland leaving is likely, Ulster has never been more pro-British; Sinn Fein have the least seats for decades and contrary to his claims protestants make up a majority (wariness of false statistics was the first thing NRx taught me). Typical American fantasising about Irish Republicanism with no idea what the situation there is like. The fact that Cornish nationalism (a role-playing game for eccentric owners of holiday homes) is even mentioned shows his ignorance.


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 11:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    I’m reading the Gnostic post on the orthosphere blog with utter fascination (directly after reading Pellicani’s revolutionary apocalypse) and it strikes me that the underlying metaphysical structures and doctrines of Gnosticism, modern leftism and to a degree Protestantism are all so closely linked as to be a sociological constant of societal decay. The various names seem to hide a deeper connection. Maybe it is not that Gnosticism has survived through the ages, it is that it is invented anew constantly, or maybe not at times, maybe sometimes the ability to refer back to previous versions allowed for more sophisticated psychosis as evidenced by Lenin’s perfection of Jacobinism.

    The mechanism seems to be the production of disenfranchised elite, who become predatory and set of a chain of actions resulting in parasitism on the prevailing philosophical and religious structure of the society which produced them.

    This, oddly enough raises questions about the NRx project. The idea of holding secret knowledge (HBD awareness) and forming alternate elites who want to reformat the world in accordance with their own values seems very gnostic, yet different in that there is no utopia which is being sought, and no attempt to aggressively alter reality by virtue of creating a metaphysical structure which we then want the physical world to conform to to create the aimed for utopia. (can it be discounted as gnosticism on this basis? I’m not sure.)

    I am wondering if a more aggressive discussion of Gnosticism is not necessary, coupled with an attempt to categorize the various constants which occur in a more clear manner. Maybe starting from the concept of it being a elite cannibalization of society created by wealth causing a situation in which instant cybernetic feedback is not provided. Or given such things as the Taiping rebellion, maybe it is better to describe it as alienation failure mode (exacerbated by wealth.)


    Rasputin Reply:

    I remember being very impressed by Handel’s knowledge of Gnosticism (amongst other things). While he seems to have effectively opted out of writing much at the moment, perhaps he would consent to having a discussion via email on the subject with you, which could be posted on your blog, or something?

    I would certainly be facinated to read it.


    Chris B Reply:

    Yes. Quite jaw dropping on admins Pellicani post.


    Izak Reply:

    Check out The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas. It was written before the discoveries at the Nag Hammadi library and has held up well since then. Jonas’s insights into their metaphysics and what they imply are quite penetrating. Voegelin’s thesis is interesting as well, but I am wary of the attempt to link everything bad to Gnostic thought. I have friends who do this, and it gets tiresome. Ultimately, one finds that there is a general resentment that Gnostics and progressives share, but the Gnostics had a very particular understanding of the universe with a very particular conception of God, and a very particular set of ethics (depending on the group — they tend to be extremely ascetic or extremely libertine) that progressives will not tend to share, and which cannot be linked genetically through the history of ideas. We can find some parallels, certainly, but the “Gnostic problem” that cultural conservatives keep identifying strikes me as a Western white-guy problem more than anything (see Ricardo Duchesne). In this article, some highly tenuous relationships are established, especially the part about Rousseau. Rousseau’s claim is that inequality happened because some jerk first decided to be greedy. Obviously wrong, but how does that connect with the Gnostic conception of the demiurge, exactly? What is the basis of this? Is that jerk now the demiurge? How? What has he created?

    A less charitable part of me wants to say that certain Christians engage in this kind of thinking because a part of them is ashamed of their religion’s past relationship with Roman slaves and Nietzsche’s charge of ressentiment, so they focus on something more radical to criticize. But isn’t it somewhat Gnostic, according to their own reasoning, to pass all of the blame onto the Gnostics, and to see the Gnostics everywhere? Isn’t that just charging the Gnostics with being the evil demiurge, or whatever, the way Rousseau did with his imaginary mean guy?


    Kgaard Reply:

    I am reading Vogelin right now. Gotta say I like what he is saying about Gnostic movements — and how they evolve during periods of societal decay / collapse, when individuals are thrown back on themselves because external structures no longer have felt meaning.

    In fact, he even mentions Heidegger’s concept of “thrownness” as a defining element of gnosticism. About 25 years ago I wrote an essay on thrownness for the edification of myself and friends because it made so much damn sense to me.

    So when I read about the gnostics and what they were up against and what they were about, I am highly sympathetic to them. In fact, what I wrestle with is the ANTI-gnostics. They seem to me like bullies of some kind. I’m reminded of Sartre’s idea that “Whoever propounds a determinism I shall call a “stinker.”” The anti-gnostics strike me initially as stinkers. What am I missing here?


    Chris B Reply:

    Gnosticism and all various manifestations of the same thing are utterly devoid of responsibility and refuse to engage in the world as it is. It is quite striking how aggressively they create metaphysical systems which are utterly opposed to the world as it is, and demand the world adheres to their metaphysics. Marxism, racial egalitarianism, liberal democracy – the whole menu of leftism as we see it now is of the same type. The world is wrong, here is what it should be, and the more it does not adhere, the stronger the reaction to make it adhere. Being metaphysical it is not falsifiable.

    Non-Gnostic metaphysics do not assert that the world is in need of immediate and drastic alteration and destruction hence why they are not retarded like gnosticism/ leftism. In fact they are helpful in that they provide a framework and direction within which current reality can be placed in a context spatially and more importantly – temporally. We started here at A, we are now here B, and we are heading here C. C is usually put off indefinitely (as per Xtian judgement day.) Although, it is interesting to note this was not always the case as per Xtianities original spread. It was the church that reset the C part to some unspecified time – marking its position as the religion of power and maturity past needing to be radical I guess.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Chris … this doesn’t strike me as a correct. I think the reason gnosticism keeps popping up in history is that it captures and reflects a core human reality. Or let’s put it differently: there is a big-r Reality and little-r reality. In the former the gnostics are basically right: in the realm beyond ego all humans are spiritually in the same zone. When I get into hallucinatory trance mode, I often find myself meditating with A-rabs overlooking an ancient medieval Arab town, with A-rab tunes a-playing in the background. This is well and good. Yet in day to day life we (me and the arabs) are mistrustful of each other. So here we have Reality and reality. The gnostics are asserting the timelessness of the big-R reality.

    If you don’t like gnostics don’t you have to take Buddhism and much of Hinduism to the woodshed as well?

    Izak Reply:

    Kgaard: the key problem with Gnostics has nothing to do with metaphysical universalism, which is a key part of other ideas. Since they debuted, the Gnostics have had two major problems:

    1. Hatred of the world and all physical things. They believe that anything concrete is the product of an evil or morally neutral demiurge, which gives undue weight to evil as a concept. The Orthodox position, which I like more, says that nothing evil can come from God, and therefore evil is simply the absence of good, not something which God is held responsible for. The neoplatonists share this position, and although the school of advaita vedanta says that all material things are an illusion (maya), they never stress the evil of the material world. Even the Tantrics, who are frequently lumped together with Gnosticism, feel that the physical universe is characterized merely by a successive series of veilings of the prime spiritual matter (Cit) as the male Shiva and the female Shakti make love together. The Valentinian-Gnostic cosmology, on the other hand, is tellingly different: they feel that the physical universe was created when a cosmic primordial woman wept, screamed, and convulsed in a disturbing display. I have no use for this.

    2. The Gnostics were the first philosophical school of thought to posit a metaphysical analysis of the universe with no accompanying discussion on virtue. Everyone before them had tried to define what a virtuous man was. There were some ethical analyses that the Gnostics advocated — like, for instance, Mani felt that man is always sinning all the time, because every time he steps on the ground, he punishes and hurts the underlying spirit beneath all physical structures (we can see some of this mentality in the Jainists). But the extremity of their hatred for the world destroyed any willingness to engage with it on its own terms. The question of how to behave in the world either boils down to extreme asceticism — trying to leave as small of a footprint as possible on the world (we can probably link this to the extreme environmentalist left), or saying “fuck it, I’m sinning just by existing” and being as hedonistic as possible (we can also probably link this to the pan-sexual polymorphous perversity left).

    Gnosticism is altogether a terrible ideology.

    I should also stress that these were the main reasons that Plotinus had no use for them. His tract against them was titled something like, “Against the Gnostics and Those Who Say the World is Bad” — if I’m remembering the title correctly, it’s a very good one.

    Kgaard Reply:

    All right well I will dig into this more. The way I learned it, the early Christians worked to crush the happy-go-lucky gnostics because one couldn’t build a wealth-amassing civilization on the gnostics’ groovy precepts. Therefore, for the Catholic Church to be right, the gnostics had to be wrong and evil and thus deserving of persecution by the church.

    I thought that was the whole meaning of the Nag Hammadi scrolls: that this groovy strand of Christian gnosticism — or perhaps more like Christian existentialism — had existed but was crushed out of existence by the power-mad Church.

    chris b Reply:

    @kgaard, Iwould not class gnosticism as anything other than a nasty virus. The whole point of gnosticism seems to me to be the immanization of the eschaton -the materialisation ofthe utopia or end point of the metaphysical narrative that constitutes the religious narrative. To achieve this they always have the strain of thought centered on escape from this false reality. All of modernity having destroyed god and the narrative is pretty gnostic, from the counter culture of the 60s to recent feminisation and all the rest. There is nothing groovy or nice in any of this, in fact trad xtians are, and were, justified in killing everyone who lets it loose. Unfortunatly xtianity has a gnostic core that has run riot following the failure of the church to put a lid on it (or maybe they never had a chance.) This raises the question- Can gnosticism be inorporated into the prot thesis? gnosis unleashed in Enland, connecting with jew gnosis and infecting the modern world via approaching in the clothes of secularisation? The whole thing parasiting the metaphysical structures of major religions like a Phronima?

    Kgaard Reply:

    Upon further reading I see your points, but I don’t see a good guy in this. The Catholics are no damn better in several important ways. Also I think the gnosticism = virus analogy is wrong.


    1) I realized that much of my understanding of gnosticism comes from Elaine Pagels’ “The Gnostic Gospels” which almost surely spins them in the most favorable light. Looking at wikipedia, their take on it is closer to what you are saying.

    2) The notion of gnosticism as a virus that keeps coming back … that doesn’t make sense to me. I would view the matter more like this: There will always be individual, unmediated attempts to understand the true nature of the cosmos. That’s what protestantism is all about. The Catholics are just spinning a story about reality and thus there will always be those who reject it. Granted Christian philosophy is HEAVILY based on the best of Greek philosophy and in that sense is pretty solid. But all the creation of the liturgy and canon … that is just a power grab by the Catholic Church.

    3) From a Myers Briggs standpoint, smart INFP women (the priestesses) and INTJ dudes were never just gonna bed over for the Catholic Church and accept what they gave them. That’s for the SPs and SJs. So the notion that protestant/gnostic spiritual efforts are a virus is the wrong analogy.

    Chris B Reply:

    @Kgaard, I don’t think our understanding is diverging that much, I just think we have differing opinions on the manifestation of the thing. I think it is irresponsible, self indulgent and insane.

    In addition, you say Catholics are spinning a story about reality, but it is deeper and more significant than that, they have/ had a chain of being which posited a beginning and an end which are not physically provable (hence metaphysics) and put the end off indefinitely. Xtian Gnosticism (progism, Protestantism etc) hijacks this, reroutes the metaphysical structure of the end back into reality and they make it imminent. Hegel opened the door with his dialectics by bringing the “spirit” into the material world, and Marx seems to have picked up on it, bashed through the door and demanded apocalypse now.

    The end point really is that if you don’t have a metaphysical superstructure, then you don’t have any real direction within the physical world. Trying to get your bearings from the physical world alone is largely insane, like trying to establish up and down in space – in relation to what point? Also placing the end firmly in metaphysics places a lock of some idiot coming along and saying that we have the tools to immanentize the eschaton.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Yeah, “spinning a story about reality” is not the right turn of phrase at all. The Catholics’ cosmology is pretty good, all things considered. The story they are spinning is the story of Jesus, saints, the resurrection, the whole schmere. That is a story about reality. I think anyone with a 120+ IQ would agree that it’s a story. Lots of TRUTH in the story, but a story all the same.

    So anyway this takes me back to philosophy itself as the answer for the intelligent NT.

    Your attack on Hegel and Marx is kind of interesting. I’d never viewed Hegel’s concepts of the world spirit and historical dialectic to be particularly nefarious. Kierkegaard certainly thought so … so in that sense he would take your side (but then again Kierkegaard was also a protestant).

    Much to ruminate on here.

    chris b Reply:

    Drop the names and look at the structure. Obviously manicheism had very specific myths and such, but the underlying mechanism seems the same. It is always that *something* is wrong with the material world, that it corrupts man and that we must act on it to bring about the utopia/apocalypse. It seem less of meme thing, and more of a expression of elite alienation – something Pellicani deduces. It becomes a revolt against civilisation which is perceived as short changing them.


    Izak Reply:

    But does the Left ever say that anything is wrong with the material world? Ever?

    Certainly, they see something wrong with society, and they come up with quasi-conspiracy theories about the Patriarchy or the White Man or whatever, but do they actually see anything wrong with the material qua the material? I don’t see it in the article, I don’t see it much of anywhere.

    In fact, if anything, the Left’s big problem is that they don’t see anything corrupt about nature or the material at all. I’d find it very refreshing and responsible if they said something like, “An evil demiurge invented racism and sexism and he put it inside of us.” That would be far closer to the truth than what they think. In their view, the world is a lovely, beautiful, benign, benevolent place, and if only we could get rid of the evil people who forswore God’s divine grace (God being the pristine and natural state of equality), everything would be great. Racism, to the left, is not a feature of humanity or material creation — it’s a social construction, emphasis on the *social*. I appreciate the need for generalizations, but one can only generalize so much.

    There’s a pretty good writer named Karl Loewith. His book Meaning in History wrestles with some of the same questions about the Left’s desire to “immanentize the eschaton” (not his words, but same basic idea). He argues that it’s mostly due to Christianity and, more broadly, monotheism, and I agree. When he analyzes Marx, he argues that Marx unknowingly channels the Old Testament prophets like Daniel and Isaiah. This strikes me as far more plausible.

    This is not to throw away Voegelin’s idea entirely, since I can see some truth to it in for certain individuals, but his observation cannot be overstated, and it far too often is.


    Different T Reply:

    Is there such a thing as someone who accepts the gnostic creation story and is successful on Earth? This can be either anecdotal or a known example, are there any?

    If the demuirge and “rulers” are evil, is success inversely related to truth?


    Chris B Reply:

    @ different T “If the demuirge and “rulers” are evil, is success inversely related to truth?”
    A major part of gnosticism and all over movements that fall into the area is that the gnostics have a structure in which there are elect, they are on a predestined path to lead the rest towards the goal which they alone have been allowed to see. Their leadership and reality is apart from the demiurge. Pellicani takes great pains to point out this is fundamental to marxism. Once the Gnostic elect is in power, they can do as they wish, including lying and engaging in duplicitous behaviour to bring everyone to gnosis and restore the overturned world.

    @ Izak That Jonas book is excellent. Worth it for just the introduction on the universalization of Hellenism alone.


    Different T Reply:

    Thanks Chris.

    That helps clear up what you mean by the “immanization of the eschaton.” Still not sure how they can square the circle that the material world is inherently evil and made in a false image, yet is able to be the “Kingdom of God,” but logic probably doesn’t apply.

    I know you were reading Pellicani a while ago, but do you remember approximately where it talked about what you mention in your post?


    Money quote from my reading Pellicani so far…

    ““He who dares to takethe initiative to found a nation must feel he is capable of changing, so tospeak, human nature; he must be capable of transforming every individual, initself a perfect and isolated whole, into part of a greater whole, from whichthis individual in some way draws life and being; to change the constitutionof man to strengthen it; to substitute the physical and independent existence we have all received from nature with a partial and moral existence. In short,he will remove from man the forces which are his own strength in order togive him other forces that are foreign to him and which he cannot use with-out the help of others. The more the natural forces are dead and eliminated,the greater and more lasting will be the acquired forces and the more insti-tutions will be solid and perfect. In this way, once every citizen is nothing and can nothing, other than through all the others, and once the force acquiredfrom the whole is equal or superior to the sum of natural forces of all indi- viduals, then it can be said that legislation has reached the highest degree of perfection.” – Rousseau

    Seems very applicable to the “wisdom of crowds” and “hivemind” which tech seems to desperately attempt.

    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 12:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    No Twitter Cuts on this?


    admin Reply:

    Overloads my drama circuits.


    Chris B Reply:

    SOBL killed it.


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 12:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#62) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 1:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Eugenics is inevitable for the same reason inequality is: economics.

    If worker A can produce more than worker B, even if wages don’t change, A will be given a more important role and some kind of benefits to keep him there.

    In the same way, as we wake up to a planet flooded with humanity with most candidates having IQs in the mid-90s or below, competition for life above the favela and working at Wal-mart will intensify, making eugenic practices appealing.

    Liberals and other delusionals find this literality to life itself to be disturbing and as a result deny it, then are ruled by it when it sneaks around their categorical barriers and infiltrates even their ideological safe space.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    “Eugenics is inevitable for the same reason inequality is: economics.”

    If you frame the global thermoeconomic system ecologically, seeing the forest for the trees, then progressivism/egalitarianism/atomization is self-organizing and most likely a manifestation of the catabolisis of industrial civilization—the system’s overall tendency is to seek efficiency, hence it must consume itself to stay alive.


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 3:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    It’s always striking how in the West—whether on indigenous turf or in former colonies carved out of the wilderness—the lucrative white-dispossession industry is so massively incentivized. Then again, there is no better way to achieve The Ten Planks but to lubricate the route to these goals through financial reward.

    Once monolithically white territory is cracked, self reinforcing feedbacks (ex: the achievement of diverse ethnic group interests via the exploitation of democracy) are set into motion and accelerated atomization commences; there is absolutely no doubt though, that the more liquid modernity is, the better it is for business and the easier it becomes to harvest wealth from the masses.


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 4:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    O/T. Whatever T is.

    This is too hilarious just for twitter.

    The Spy Who billed Me blog.

    “The Abbottabad Bucket Challenge to the Press: Try Setting up a Safe House in Abbottabad and See if the ISI Notices”

    “And OBL was not alone, but was hiding in with his big crazy family.

    Oh, I know! The Kardashians! Try hiding the Kardashians for 6 years in Abottabad without the Pakistani Intelligence or the ISI noticing. Then we can talk about whether Seymour Hersh’s claims that the Pakistanis knew about OBL in their midst is far-fetched.”


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 6:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • peter connor Says:

    Good post! All I can say is that if the radicals try any of this stuff in southern AZ, great fun will be had by all.


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 7:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Anissimov, if you are reading this you can be A-OK if you just lay low and work hard for a few years and reinvent yourself. Stuff like this definitely happens and it’s easy for stuff to get out of control when everyone is constantly provoking you and it’s even harder to move past it considering the internet is a semi-permanent archive.

    You *seem* like you have some level of competence and natural talent that can be refined, but you’re going to burn yourself out if you continue like this. I have more familiarity with this than I would like to admit. Just reduce the cognitive strain you are under for a while and recollect. Run the meta-hedge and rationality.


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 8:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Laissez-fairist Says:

    Heat death of the universe scenario is the Left Utopia. That’s what I have always seen as ultimate egalitarian end game, but Hood’s article is more interesting.


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 8:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Specter Says:

    Ha, that link under the Cyberpunk video!

    Yo, Gibson, if you could go back in time, where would you go?

    “Victorian London” –Whuh?– “though I imagine the experience would be traumatic.”

    Ah. Nice recovery, Redistribution Man!


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 8:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    @vxxc2014 OBL was killed by drone strike in another place about 2 weeks before that heli ride to Abottabad. Because that info got into open circulation, they urgently fabricated another rumor.


    Posted on May 17th, 2015 at 9:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    Somewhat related, a lady with an anthropology background writes about her rich lady neighbors on the Upper East Side:


    Posted on May 18th, 2015 at 1:36 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Nice article by Trent Telenko: “A Politically Incorrect US View of the UK Election”.

    I love the cartoon.

    “The most offensive thing about this cartoon is that it is all true.”


    Posted on May 18th, 2015 at 2:32 am Reply | Quote
  • saturnite Says:

    a college diversity officer might be losing her job for tweeting “kill all white men” from an official school account


    Posted on May 19th, 2015 at 5:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tinkerer Says:

    That nihilism piece was interesting. However, it appeared the author left in this Cartesian notion of “choice” while attempting to utterly obliterate every other human narrative construct. Does the transcendental “I” survive the death of meaning, at least enough to prop up an agential construct?

    I would think a thoroughgoing nihilist working today would be astute enough to recognize the challenges that eliminativism poses to keeping a quasi-existentialist “deciding subject” alive after the eradication of every other fairy tale.


    Posted on May 19th, 2015 at 10:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Curt updated his reading list


    Posted on May 20th, 2015 at 3:53 am Reply | Quote
  • The Index Says:

    The Hot New Trend: Islamic Atheism


    admin Reply:


    Although it is fraught with human drama – existential crisis, philosophical doubt, family rupture, violent threats, communal expulsion, depression, and all manner of other problems – the apostate’s journey elicits remarkably little media interest or civic concern. According to Cottee, there is not “a single sociological study … on the issue of apostasy from Islam”.

    Academia-Media suppressed. Evidently a significant challenge to the Cathedral, then. (Ironic, indeed, to see it discussed in the Guardian …)


    Frog Do Reply:

    Prediction that this is going to change, then. Cathedral uses superior social collectivism of immigrant Mohammedan blocks to destabilize Europe. Once that mission is accomplished, destabilize the Mohammedan collective by encouraging atomization into individual units, treat them as white people. The incoming population surge from Africa should serve the same destabilizing purpose the Mohammedan collective without the danger of strong competing memeplexes. They can then use the destabilzation of the Mohammedan collective as an easy sacrifice to placate the rise of UKIP/FN/PEGIDA etc. A slight reversal of the leftist ratchet in one direction to accelerate it in others.

    I would give low weight to this prediction, I don’t understand Mohammedans in Britain or Europe to any degree of complexity. This also assumes a strong and smart Cathedral.


    Posted on May 20th, 2015 at 8:40 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment