Chaos Patch (#7)

This is the Yule-hibernation edition of an open thread, based on the strong suspicion that even maintenance-level blogging is going to take a serious hit over the next several days. There are a number of things I’d like to do here really soon, including a semi-substantial Basilisk post, and a heavy-duty Machineries of Fate series, which would work its way systematically through the Trichotomy, treating the exercise as an opportunity to consolidate some structured ideas on the workings of time. There are also a number of increasingly desperate promises to be kept, not all of which are likely to be conveniently forgotten — a review of Bryce’s book, a response to insightful questions about the politics of accelerationism, and several lamentably incomplete series to crank-forward. Some kind of 2013 round-up has to take scheduling priority.

Instead of advancing these tasks right now, there’s a lot of unproductive shivering in front of the computer happening, with steady interference from a minor daemon that wants to hijack all residual cognitive function in order to write a phenomenology of extreme exhaustion (you can at least be thankful that isn’t going to fly).  It’s the dead of winter, after a truly extraordinary year, and the deep chatter in the basement is all about succumbing to replenishment mode for what looks like being a high-intensity 2014.

Retrospective and prospective analysis would be great to see, but you’re the Lords of Chaos, so whatever …

December 22, 2013admin 22 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : ,

22 Responses to this entry

  • Alex Says:

    “Now spring up, flouris, fra the rutte …”

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 22nd, 2013 at 11:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Giacomo Says:

    I have some questions of a theoretical character that people here might be able to help me with.

    1. Society needs a stable, self-confident elite and some form of overarching ideology. It is also widely believed, e.g. by James Burnham, that in politics the guarantor of liberty is the interaction of two or more independent, antagonistic social forces. How are these ideas to be reconciled?

    2. Law and morality usually allow mutually beneficial resolution of conflicts. They form a network of Schelling points. If one party in a disagreement trivialises law and morality, does it not make it difficult to cooperate?

    3. Apparently, progressives fear that the smallest and least energetic of non-violent dissident communities could suddenly metastasise into a reign of terror. Nonetheless, the three progressive saints of the 20th century are a revolutionary leader, a communist, and a terrorist. Why is this?

    [Reply]

    Giacomo Reply:

    To clarify, I have been persuaded to change my future behaviour based on naked threats. I don’t think I shall give up being a critic of the system, but I shall give more respect to the quite necessary elite and many elements of its overarching ideology. To do otherwise is the fatal conceit.

    I also like to think it’s worth remonstrating; but in that case I am almost certainly projecting.

    [Reply]

    Mai La Dreapta Reply:

    I leave #1 for others, but here’s some thoughts on the other two.

    #2:

    Yes, if one party trivializes law and morality, it makes cooperation essentially impossible. However, this is not an argument against progressivism (if that’s where you were going), because progressivism does not trivialize law or morality. Rather, it trivializes and abhors traditional or conservative morality, while doubling down on on the legal and moral precepts of Equalist Universalism. Progressives want to weaken laws against eg. drug use by minorities, but want to strengthen laws against eg. hate speech, because the former is not a violation of progressive values, while the latter is.

    This does mean, however, that cooperation between reactionaries and progressives is basically impossible, and undesirable even if possible, because they self-consciously embrace incompatible and opposite moral frameworks. (Mainstream conservatives, the poor bastards, think that they can form a truce with progressives, which is why they never successfully conserve anything.)

    #3:

    Progressive over-reaction against conservative dissident groups is an elaborate show meant to provide ongoing energy for progressive causes, by creating a perpetual fear that the forces of reaction are always right there ready to bring back the Reich. This basically describes the purpose and the mechanism under the name of neutered false opposition.

    [Reply]

    Giacomo Reply:

    doubling down on on the legal and moral precepts of Equalist Universalism.

    By sabotaging dissidence without a legal or moral basis—even, if not especially according to the tenets of Equalist Universalism—progressives bring humanity a step closer to bloodthirsty anarchy., which is in no-one’s interest.

    Consequentialism can justify ruthlessness, but it is not a license to carelessly and routinely ignore Schelling points, game theory (iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma etc.) and TDT, all of which validate, as a rational consideration between antagonists, widely shared moral values such as fairness and integrity in a range of circumstances.

    [Reply]

    Giacomo Reply:

    neutered false opposition.

    I can believe this. If e.g. neoreaction were a neutered false opposition, progressives would be able to make a spectacle of private industry firing neoreactionaries, whose free speech certainly doesn’t apply in the workplace.

    I suppose that to neuter a memeplex such as neoreaction, which has sharp ideas as well as futile avenues, considerable effort might be required in order to drive every participant into a futile avenue, or else entirely out of the discourse.

    This would have to be carefully planned and businesslike. I can imagine how irrelevant ethics would seem. I don’t like the idea, but it is a fact of our societies ad their stability that must be reckoned with.

    If neoreaction were to become a neutered false opposition, and I were aware of that, I would be careful to fully dissociate myself from the memeplex. I can imagine how that would be an instance of ongoing cooperation with progressives.

    In such a situation, I would only hope that oblivious bystanders are treated with a modicum of respect and care.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    “neutered false opposition.”

    They’re known as Republicans or Conservatives.

    As Neo-Reaction is the actual anti-body to Prog Antigens, and Dark Enlightenment the diagnostic moment of clarity the usual methods aren’t working. Hence they proceed to naked threats immediately.

    Naked Threats you make seeming submission before are useful later. Later is when it is at last their turn and the sudden fatal vice of pity may suddenly overcome ye, that is when you remember how you feel now.

    There are some hard deeds that are glorious.

    There are some hard deeds that are sordid.

    The sordid chores are more important than the Glorious Deeds. If we faced men instead of viral morphing insectoids we could demonstrate mercy. As we face creatures without honor or shame who’s great measure of self-worth is “manipulating procedural outcomes” they are too dangerous to adopt magnanimity in victory. What is necessary but sordid is more important than other considerations.

    400 years of this is quite enough.

    Giacomo Reply:

    As Neo-Reaction is the actual anti-body to Prog Antigens, and Dark Enlightenment the diagnostic moment of clarity the usual methods aren’t working. Hence they proceed to naked threats immediately.

    I have been interested to learn about progressive enforcers. Their function is necessary.

    I maintain that they are wrong in this instance. To make an analogy that may not be good, there is Cpython, Jython and PyPy. PyPy is more self-contained: Python implemented in Python. PyPy people and PyPy developers are, unsurprisingly, often found together on the Internet, where C and Java implementations are not mandated.

    Progressive enforcers seem to think that PyPy people are a creation of PyPy developers on the Internet. This is incorrect; and so they take an inordinate interest in idiosyncrasies of an arbitrary, voluble PyPy person.

    Quentin Tarantino is a Prog antigen. He opened a space of lurid gangsterism, bursting at the seams with chat and pop culture, animated by the endless ramifications of status-centric hipsterism. Tarantino’s culture has real and imaginary axes; progress in the real direction signals intelligence, although to blur this distinction is counter-signalling. Twenty years after “Pulp Fiction”, Tarantino’s aesthetic propels itself into the future, carrying the hopes of progressives.

    Andrei Tarkovsky is an antibody. So are Bresson, Kieslowski, Renoir and other artists of cinema. In “Sculpting in Time”, Tarkovsky says,

    I shall conclude this chapter by revealing the clandestine aim of the book: my hope is that those readers whom I manage to convince, if not entirely then at least in part, may become my kindred spirits, if only in recognition of the fact that I have no secrets from them.

    Tarkovsky is an artist, a PyPy developer, and Tarantino a toxin. He says,

    I see it as my duty to stimulate reflection on what is essentially human and eternal in each individual soul, and which all too often a person will pass by, even though his fate lies in his hands. He is too busy chasing after phantoms.

    The intrusion of progressive enforcers reminds me of having been compelled to socialise with someone who is different, yet fails to realise how much so. He is tedious because one’s natural and amiable way to converse seems to insult him.

    Progressive enforcers are like this. They think it’s their business to use “methods” on people they don’t comprehend. They mistake interests for influences, discourse for dicta. Why not accept that in every society, a few people do not chase phantoms, and let that be the point of departure for cooperation? Dialogue is a method that can work.

    spandrell Reply:

    #3 is easily explained by who-whom.

    #1 I don’t know about that. For one, liberty is quite overrated.
    But the ideal would be two antagonistic forces which check and balance each other, but hate the outgroup even more, so they don’t fall into the old trap of calling the Saxons to deal with the Briton warlord next door.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Liberties are only overrated until they’re gone.

    To curtail political power is wise.

    To undo Liberties is fatal from several perspectives and possible outcomes, it will be centuries before we have elites that can be trusted again. It also raises every hand against you.

    You are enjoying Liberty on this very page. Governments without Liberty would crush dissent and not for instance allow Neo-Reaction to coordinate.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 23rd, 2013 at 2:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • RiverC Says:

    OT, RFC

    “A Game of Hegemons”

    http://riverc.org/de/hegemony.php?set=initial

    Inspired by the thread on China below.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 23rd, 2013 at 7:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    Some kind of 2013 round-up has to take scheduling priority.

    2013 has been a watershed year for DE/NR. I’m hoping every sage and sophomore blogger summarizes their take for posterity — that kind of meta-analysis is both precious and ephemeral.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 24th, 2013 at 5:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artemisia Says:

    I have no analysis to offer on anything whatsoever, but I do want to wish you (and everyone who sees this) a happy Yuletide, merry Christmas, happy winter solstice, and just wonderful holidays!

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 25th, 2013 at 1:48 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    merry christmas…

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 25th, 2013 at 12:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    Can’t quite get a sappy Yule greeting into line, but I really appreciate all that you guys have done here this year. Best commentariat on the web. (Now, as the tavern owners in the UK say — “Haven’t you people got homes to go to?”) Don’t make yourselves sick.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 25th, 2013 at 2:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    I am still trying to push back on the crypto-Calvinism thesis. My latest effort is called, “Appendix B: Crypto-Calvinism Revisited”.

    http://home.earthlink.net/~peter.a.taylor/moldbug.htm#appB

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 12:02 am Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    You know, this (entirety) gets more absurd by the minute (though not in a stupid way). There are many problems of transmission (forget about corroded tapes…). You said something about it not mattering how intelligent you are… is that a universal (and do we have the time to waste)?!

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    P.S. The stupid thing is a matter of debate – necessary response (whatever that is) to a stupid situation perhaps. Out of interest, do we ever get to read more Duzsl?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The Duzsl schedule, specifically, is still uncertain. However, I’m definitely aiming to introduce a (weekly?) fiction based thread by the end of the month. There are things gathering that can’t be advanced any other way.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    OK. I don’t think I ever mentioned (back on the UF 1.0 blog) how much I enjoyed the fictional section of the expo series (maybe if the comments section had been more refined…). Anyway… back to the much neglected rivets (working on an open deck for star-gazing – I’ll keep you posted).

    fotrkd Reply:

    Silly questions… work with whatever accumulates and some considerable caution… (I’ll try to shut up now).

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 8th, 2014 at 12:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Request chaos patch. Because ferrets.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 6th, 2014 at 3:02 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment