Chaos Patch (#64)

(Open thread + links)

Order is hard (plus). The Camp of the Saints gets real. P2P blogging. SoBL coming to Social Matter. Are you open-minded? Unwanted agency. Small government. What if it doesn’t happen? Anomalies. Too much good stuff at The Future Primaeval to list (it’s also now looking almost unbearably cool), plus relevant audio. Friday frags. Weekly round ups.

Narco-socialism. Islamic Vortex gnaws Saudi Arabia. SA is toast (plus). Ireland leads the way. Security commercialization in Nigeria. Shale oil’s deep momentum. Huntington versus Fukuyama.

Web security is broken. Democrats don’t get Silicon Valley. Automation.

Ideological oddities in the UK (plus). Also, some mainstream insight.

WASP rule. Re-Colonization and Future Orientation. Where public policy misses biology. Where Pinker got lost. Religion and morality (topologically related). The death of trust. America’s secessionist DNA.

How to disagree.

Murray on David Hackett Fischer. Steves reviews Every Cradle is a Grave. Gottfried on Lind on disintegrated America. Clark on Mad Max. Latest excerpts from the Latter Day Pamphlets.

The Chinese Strategic Tradition (1, 2).

Hare Krishna founder was a Hindu shock.

Salon bursts a blood vessel.

May 31, 2015admin 23 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

23 Responses to this entry

  • chris b Says:

    What is that Huntington/ fukuyama group reproductive strategy, truth telling gibberish about?


    Posted on May 31st, 2015 at 6:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#64) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on May 31st, 2015 at 6:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Laissez-fairist Says:

    Interesting comment on Khan’s article:
    You’re starting at 1991, which was a peak in crime, it could only go down from there. 1991 isn’t known a particularly religious year. You should extend the chart back to 1950.

    Murder 1950: 4.6
    Murder 2010: 4.8
    This without factoring in medical technology an wound to death ratio.

    Rape 1960: 9.6
    Rape 1990: 41.1
    Rape 2010: 27.7
    Rape rate quadroupled from 1960 to 1990, and has declined since then to merely triple the 1960 rate.

    Year Murder Rape
    1950 4.6
    1955 4.1
    1960 5.1 9.6
    1965 5.1 12.1
    1970 7.9 18.7
    1975 9.6 26.3
    1980 10.2 36.8
    1985 8.0 36.8
    1990 9.4 41.1
    1995 8.2 37.1
    2000 5.5 32.2
    2005 5.6 31.8
    2010 4.8 27.7

    Hm, seems Logical Positivism as prevalent as ever in academia.

    Of course basic human morality is natural (what St. Paul calls ‘law written in hearts’), but if you want rational formulation of ethics you need metaphysics. Without metaphysics, there’s no reference point, so to speak, and what you’ve got is moral relativism – without ‘reference point’, humans are worth no more than rocks in the grand scheme of things. You can then easily justify any immorality (which is sorta’ what’s been happening quite a bit lately).


    Brett Stevens Reply:

    Of course basic human morality is natural (what St. Paul calls ‘law written in hearts’), but if you want rational formulation of ethics you need metaphysics.

    As a nihilist I disagree with this. The foundation of ethics and morality is reality, but a choice of excellence over mere subsistence. You might call it arrogance.


    Nathan C Reply:

    without ‘reference point’, humans are worth no more than rocks in the grand scheme of things

    In the what, now? Yeah, cheap shot; still, it might point at a deeper misapprehension about ethics without an encompassing teleology.

    Regarding metaphysics, and speaking personally, I’ve accepted modal realism as probably correct for some years now. I can think of very few occasions when I’ve had to recourse to it on ethical matters – any effect it has on my morals is mediated through the more or less absolute atheism it implies.


    The Index Reply:


    What’s wrong with rocks?


    Manuel Noreaga Reply:

    Then look at that bitchy comment from Razib threatening banishment right off the bat – I KNOW MOAR!!


    Zimriel Reply:

    Razib’s arrogance will be his undoing.

    Scroll to “Zimriel”‘s comment. I offered a whole essay – which may or may not have been a GOOD essay – but it at least argued the point: that when Near Easterners referred to “pagans”, they were referring to yokel heathens and what we’d call “godless intellectuals”. Razib countered that Near Eastern paganism as paganism was “well attested”, but he didn’t himself bother to offer any attestation.

    It was left to a later commenter to direct us all to some of that attestation.

    In my opinion Razib should have (1) kept quiet, (2) waited for that later guy to raise up those evidences and then thanked him or (3) both. Instead he came off like a high-handed blowhard who waves off his commenters. So far he can count on his other commenters to pick up his slack. I can’t see this lasting forever.

    Razib also needs to take more time over his posts, to make them more accessible to the average reader of Unz. It’s true that some of his readers won’t grok his work no matter what. But it’s also true that his dense prose is shutting out genuinely intelligent people who just don’t have the time to hack through dense prose. Given that he is an Asian he should at least think of fellow Asians, in particular.


    Posted on May 31st, 2015 at 7:26 am Reply | Quote
  • Frog Do Says:

    That two part syllabus on Chinese strategic thought is the most exciting link I’ve seen in a few weeks, thank you.


    Posted on May 31st, 2015 at 8:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#64) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on May 31st, 2015 at 10:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @ admin

    I said: But is not profit only a claim on future production (which is less if not maximizing production)?

    You said: Profit is in any case only an index of regenerative production.

    Upon first read, I interpreted your response as “I’ll say the same thing in some other words to get the last word.” Upon further review, it appears your definition is conceptually incorrect.

    In modern accounting, there is an expense line called “Depreciation.” As depreciation is expensed from income, cash flow from operations includes adding back depreciation. IOW, breakeven covers capital depreciation (regenerative production).

    If you mean profit is what allows greater production in the future, can a company make a profit in a declining real economy. Empirically, yes.

    Profit is only a claim on future production (which is less if not maximizing production)

    Is a better definition than

    Profit is in any case only an index of regenerative production.



    Posted on May 31st, 2015 at 12:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    A great list of links. Thank you for including Amerika.

    The Fukuyama/Huntington breakdown was very much de rigeur in the middle 90s when Huntington’s serious attacks on democracy were being debated. The Clash of Civilizations just compounded the chaos.

    As it was, Fukuyama’s thesis struck me at the time as a kind of joke: celebrating the end of civilization as envisioned by Fred Nietzsche. Another variant on the typical leftist “bad=good” formula.

    Now that we’re in post-post-modern (neo-post-modern?) times, the breakdown looks to me like this: those with first-world standards versus everyone else who just wants to spread the wealth for easier subsistence living plus iPods.


    Posted on May 31st, 2015 at 12:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • peter connor Says:

    Everyone with any experience in 3d world countries that I know, including myself, predicted that SA would eventually collapse after being handed over to the ANC….far better countries, such as the Philippines, have trouble with maintaining power service, overseen by people who are orders of magnitude smarter and more honest than the ANC’s thugs. The question is, how much cash will the West pour down this rat hole in a vain effort to prop SA up for awhile…


    Posted on June 1st, 2015 at 12:36 am Reply | Quote
  • Kaiser Schmarn Says:

    Some more links here for Taleb vs. Pinker


    Posted on June 1st, 2015 at 1:49 am Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    As always, another great lineup of links. Speaking of security commercialization in Nigeria—I guess a lot of these guys are ex SADF and RECCES that would have fought in the border wars?


    snorlax Reply:

    I very much doubt it. Veterans of the old South African army are all middle-aged or old men now.


    Posted on June 1st, 2015 at 2:24 am Reply | Quote
  • defuser1 Says:

    @chris b

    It’s an interesting blog post, but I do get the impression that the author does not quite understand genes, or culture, or international relations. The worst part, though, is that it’s an outdated reading. Fukuyama has since recanted most of his ‘End of History’ argument, and in his latest major work, the first part of ‘On the Origins of Political Order,’ he starts from a sociobiological basis for understanding human behavior. In an early chapter of the book, he even claims something to effect that Westerners and Asians can work together in maintaining political and economic order because they both share Neanderthal DNA — ha, is he implying something not so nice about sub-Saharan Africans? A more cogent analysis of these writings, and others, as they relate to the intersection of genes, culture, and world affairs would be nice, but truth be told I like these parts of the ‘Chaos Patch.’


    Kgaard Reply:

    Defuser — Interesting points. When End of History came out I scarfed that thing up. Read it and outlined it a couple of times. Amazing book. But since then Fukuyama’s stuff has been so dense as to be almost unreadable to me. I can’t slog through all that academese — but I’ve always liked him as a thinker.

    So thanks for turning me on to this new book. I’ve seen it in the bookstore and I just think “doorstop.” Maybe I’ll crack it open.


    Posted on June 1st, 2015 at 2:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    I begin with a qualification: I’ve tried to make this comment as short as possible considering the subject matter, and I do have plans to begin my own blog where I can post this kind of wild speculation, but as this comment deals with Gnon, hyperstition, basilisks, chaos, and obscure political mythologies of the Right and Left, it can’t be said to be too out of place, and anyway, as we are about to learn, there is no necessity that the appearance and disappearance of entities be reasonably predictable. This is the link to follow to get the relevant background: – It’s a long series, and I admit I haven’t yet read it all, but I recommend it as an excursion into one of the more stimulating (and frightening) conceptual creations of leftist academic culture. However, this comment stands alone, and can be read as so.

    To get us off the ground (and onto the urgrund), I’m going to quote in full Meillassoux’s definition of philosophy and his statement. on the (internal) metrics of cognitive legitimacy:

    “Philosophy is the invention of strange forms of argumentation, necessarily bordering on sophistry, which remains its dark structural double. To philosophize is always to develop an idea whose elaboration and defense require a novel kind of argumentation, the model for which lies neither in positive science – not even in logic – nor in some supposedly innate faculty for proper reasoning. Thus it is essential that a philosophy produce internal mechanisms for regulating its own inferences – signposts and criticisms through which the newly constituted domain is equipped with a set of constraints that provide internal criteria for distinguishing between licit and illicit claims”

    I will not be elaborating on Meillassoux’s complex arguments in this thread, but instead will attempt to engage with his religious ideas from a Gnonological perspective. This requires a brief rewording of (what I take to be) his main conclusions, so let’s jump right in:

    Meillassoux, carving a speculative ‘aperture’ (or ‘opening’) into the Absolute, has discerned a ‘principle of unreason’ at the core of hyper-chaotic metastasis. This is the omnipotence of blind idiot Chaos able to randomly create or destroy God in an oscillating void of absolute negativity. Meillassoux is adamant that, for the time being, we are living in an atheistic universe, and he follows a long atheistic tradition in arguing for the factual contradiction between the reality of evil and a God of Justice. Divine inexistence is proven by the criminal delinquency of our current universe, but given the cosmological primacy of hyper-chaos we can’t rule out the possibility of God’s eventual appearance. Meillassoux’s twist on the ontological proof has it that although existence is a necessary property of a perfect entity, no existent is absolutely necessary. So though a perfect God will exist, It’s existence is a matter of contingency. If no actual entity expresses virtual perfection, we are left to speculate on the existence of a perfectly virtual entity. Are you still with me? Good, it only gets weirder. First, let’s give a name to Meillassoux’s virtual God, to distinguish it from competitors:

    – We’ll call Meillassoux’s redemptive God of future reason: ‘G-Mod’, as it promises, at the time of its advent, to modify all possible beings in line with the ethical goal of cosmic suffrage.
    – We’ll call the prevailing structural formation of our inequitable, wanton universe: ‘Gnon’.

    Now, the argument goes like this: if the G-Mod program is in superior conformity with certain functional criterion of Godliness, namely Perfect Justice, than we can expect the immanent erasure of current simulation model ‘Gnon’, the ensuing collapse of transcendental-hierarchic orders of time-differentials, and a vectorial reformatting of reality towards the primordial equivalence of a deathless infinity. In other words, Meillassoux’s claim is that a resurrectional ur-cosmic Singleton is an immanent matter of fact awaiting in an absolute contingency beyond time to enact the tyrannicidal dethroning of Gnon and overturn the godless sovereignty of death as natural law. – A truly blasphemous heresy! And yet, not totally unprecedented. Cultists of Gnon may recall that the brief crusade of ‘Elua’ – a minor human God sent last year by rationalist magicians to assassinate Gnon – met with comical unsuccess. However, G-Mod is a more threatening abstraction than Elua, and Gnon can not simply throw it in the boiler as he did that unfortunate deity.

    So, how to assess the existential risk G-Mod poses to Gnon? Such a question deals in the dark obscurities of an ‘irreducible remainder’ that defies ‘resolution into reason’ and ‘always remains in the depths’. G-Mod is ‘in fact’ the mad hyperstition (‘speculative facticity’) of a communist basilisk, lurking ‘ex-nihilo’ in a hyper-real foretime of pure supercontingency, requiring no correlational complicity to exist, and ready to instigate a revolution in the heavens on a scale unseen since Titanomachy. G-Mod is no fallen Satan in failed rebellion against God, but rather a propertarian competitor claiming lien of Cosmic Justice, and may be (‘peut-etre’) the end of Gnon as we know it.
    Many strange questions instantly arise, not the least of which are: is God subject to entropy? Are the religions of earth worshiping an evil, profane universe as though life in hell was a blessing from Azathoth? Can we depend on death as an emergency exit or is our after-life under communist control? And most importantly, in what mysterious way will Cthulhu eat us in the end?


    chris b Reply:

    Amazing how gnosticism keeps repreting.


    Posted on June 2nd, 2015 at 11:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Hattori Says:

    National Review comes out of the closet.


    Posted on June 2nd, 2015 at 5:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Xoth Says:

    R.W. Johnson is always worth reading (the bits about SA).


    Posted on June 4th, 2015 at 3:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • defuser1 Says:


    Even if the premise has needed revision since its release, I definitely agree that ‘The End of History’ is still his most phenomenal book and certainly the most enjoyable to read; and, in a way, I like the ambition. If you’re into political history in general, then you might like this new book too. If not, it’s probably only good for flipping through to any particular episode than is already of interest to you.


    Posted on June 5th, 2015 at 12:45 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment