Chaos Patch (#72)

(Open thread + links)

“What do you do if the Church has been hijacked by demons?” What libertarians don’t think (responding to this), also relevant. Law is discovered. Catch-22. On capitalism, and revolution. Perfectibility. Place. What does decadence do? Secession update. Friday frags. The weekly round. Ascending the Tower is always excellently done.

The troll option (more). AFFH (1, 2, 3). Limits of the Murray strategy.

Islamic State, according to the NYT, and Jim. Annex Mexico.

Neglected freedom. Leftism vs the Internet. Bulverism. Obligatory lies. Mania for microaggression. Enough? The view from your knees.

An African century (plus a reminder). Racial kryptonite. Brains.

Anarchy in the herb garden.

Where social science goes wrong (for instance). Strange case of the aliens that didn’t bark. Challenge ratings. Defensive epistemology.

Where Moore’s Law ends.

“We should be aware that … every society in the history of the world has ultimately collapsed.”

(Looking forward to this.)

July 26, 2015admin 40 Comments »

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

40 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#72) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 10:19 am Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    (This is a duplicate of a comment made far too deep in the cuckservative thread, a first attempt towards a more explanatory potent Puritan narrative.)

    In the beginning, Luther helped his reformation by cleverly pitting the word of God against the Church. Thus, sola scriptura. He probably didn’t anticipate how completely his little trick would eventually eviscerate the Catholic tradition that he, of course, was still totally immersed in.

    Yet, in hindsight, it was an inevitable consequence of sola scriptura that Christianity was now open and prepared for massive cultural hybridisation. Far-reaching reinterpretations of scripture were now possible and made Luther’s flexible core of Christianity compatible with other, formerly culturally incompatible memeplexes. Many of the resulting cultural hybrids were viable, a Cambrian explosion of denominations followed. Puritanism should be seen as a cultural hybrid of a variety of protestantism crossed with an early form of progressivism.

    That’s why the original Puritan hypothesis has so little explanatory power. Progressivism is not a gradually evolved form of Christianity, but a separate cultural species that became capable of hybridisation with Christianity by sola scriptura and later was gradually re-purified through dechristianisation.

    (Judaism might have entered the picture through a related decision by Luther. When decreeing sola scriptura, he probably should have ditched the Old Testament. I guess he imagined that scriptural interpretation would remain principally guided by those professionally well versed in scripture, priests and Christian scholars. There was, of course, another class of people very well versed in Old Testament scripture, even if they called it Torah. No matter how progressivism itself relates to Jews, they certainly would have found themselves in a good position to help create those early hybrid forms.)


    admin Reply:

    There look to be a lot of affinities to me — starting with militant, evangelical universalism. (It’s often hard for people inside this complex to see how odd that is.)


    Brett Stevens Reply:

    Another perspective is that social decay, being a voracious force, caught up the church as well as other institutions and corrupted each one. Only the military and assorted internet malcontents seem immune.


    Xoth Reply:

    The US military doesn’t seem immune.


    Mark Citadel Reply:

    All religions inherently have the potential for a holiness spiral (highly destructive), however this only becomes a problem if the proper priesthood is destabilized, corrupted, or dethroned. The problem with the Reformation is that it basically removed all the centralized religious authority, allowing there to open up a great battlefield of what were essentially new heresies, with cannons pointing out of every church window at each other.

    Islam had a similar problem with Sunnis but it only manifested after the introduction of Arab Socialism, which it revolted against and we see today in the form of Islamic Fundamentalism. Baghdadi is like a late incarnation of Luther for the Islamic world. So begins a horrific holiness spiral.

    In the absence of a rigid and entrenched religious establishment, the Cult of Progress starts to make inroads and before you know it, your monarch gets his head chopped off. I don’t mean to demean well-intentioned Protestants in saying this, but EVERY king in Europe should have marched their armies into the Germanic territories when this crap started. Not to say the Catholic Church was in a most healthy state at the time (various factors involved there), but for crying out loud, Luther was the biggest f*ckup Christendom ever saw. Did he have any idea what he was doing would eventually give birth to all the horrific things Modernity has given us? Maybe I don’t want to know.


    Different T Reply:

    Somewhat on-topic:

    All religions inherently have the potential for a holiness spiral (highly destructive), however this only becomes a problem if the proper priesthood is destabilized, corrupted, or dethroned.

    I have no reference for this, but I find it very hard to believe Luther was the first priest to come up with these heresies and that he nailed his list to the Church without being confident he would find support. If he wasn’t the first and knew he had support isn’t it very likely “the proper priesthood (was already) destabilized, corrupted, or dethroned.”

    The problem with the Reformation is that it basically removed all the centralized religious authority


    Instead of viewing “sola scriptura” as a neccessary response to an inept priesthood, he elevates it to a good, in itself.”

    But then the question becomes, can the “destabilized, corrupted, or dethroned” be removed without this self-deception?

    It’s reminiscent of the MGTOW people. They revolt against all authority as they can longer differentiate between legitimate vs. illegitimate power and vividly remember their previous experiences.


    Mark Citadel Reply:

    Well, Luther himself was in the priesthood (all be it at a very low level), but he appealed to two main groups, those being people looking for any excuse to alleviate economic hardship and influential political figures who sensed an opportunity for personal aggrandizement. Whether he knew these people would follow him beforehand I have no idea. He could well have expected to be executed as a heretic with a smug sense of self-righteousness since there was no shortage of this in Christianity’s history with heresy.

    Just to clear up confusion, I don’t necessarily mean a priesthood corrupted in the general sense (though this likely has a big impact), but rather corrupted with the heresy of Liberalism. If the priesthood feels this throughout its entire body, it will be unable to stop an outbreak of the holiness spiral. What authority will it have when it has already acquiesced to some heresy already?

    Your comparison to MGTOW is a pretty good one, but I’m seeing something more depressing in MGTOW in that its a kind of totalistic defeatism which skews history to an extreme pessimism for men. Mention bringing back patriarchy to a MGTOW and they will respond that even patriarchy is pseudo-slavery to women. Thus men must become like Shakers I guess and live in the wilderness crying about how there is no possible society which doesn’t suck for them. This is extremely unhealthy and thankfully many in the Manosphere are calling this out for what it is. MGTOW are the Shakers of the Manosphere.

    Exfernal Reply:

    Is it too difficult for you to use ‘total’ instead of ‘totalistic’, or was the choice deliberate (association with totalitarian, etc.)?

    Nobody asks you to choose celibacy. The choice of having kids or not is the prerogative of individuals. There is no MGTOW ‘party line’ about that issue.

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    I apologize for using a term you disliked. But yes, the defeatism does seem to be totalitarian in a way as you can see any Manospheran who doesn’t adhere to MGTOW is criticized as someone still buying into feminine rule (they just don’t know it). This is why there is now a cleaving in two within the Manosphere which is pretty heated. I can only go off of MGTOWs who I have spoken to, so perhaps you take a different approach, but the ones I have seen seem to dislike patriarchy as much as matriarchy, because even when they are the heads of households, they still are forced to ‘provide’ which is like slavery to women.

    I don’t really understand this logic, but hey, it’s okay to disagree on this point. I just don’t see then how MGTOWs are at all politically useful since they have resigned themselves to not really caring about a world they don’t think can ever be improved upon from its current state. If not matriarchy and not patriarchy, what?

    Exfernal Reply:

    If the idea of defending my interests is at odds with your intentions toward me, then hey, I delight in being ‘politically useless’, personally. Especially for those trying to straw-man me. As of now, Poland has pretty un-intrusive laws regarding man-woman interactions. Patriarchy enshrined in law would be a change for worse, from the personal standpoint.

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    Well, let me take your bullet point definition list for MGTOW point by point, and square it with a general Reactionary philosophy (so not my specific ideology, but generally what the Reactionary right believes)

    1) The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!

    Your first two points are fine, and we can both agree on those, the third point being more problematic, but we’ll get to that later.

    2) By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent.

    Good so far. The Reactionary embraces this and understands that men must indeed be self-reliant, proud, and independent, especially as the virtuous characteristics of manhood are bound up in the independence of spirit (womanhood contrasting by being dependent)

    3) By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible.

    Again, this encounters no problems. We can agree on this.

    4) By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice.

    Here is where we run into problems. First of all, ‘limited government’ in what sense? If you mean this in the Libertarian sense then history is your greatest enemy, as it shows Libertarian beginnings mutating into the largest and most intrusive governmental structures man has ever known. Because it assumes equality among men in the arena of having ‘rights’, there is no hierarchy and without hierarchy there is no successive level-authority model which society works upon. The president elected from among ‘the people’ feels far more entitled to monitor your water usage than any monarch would. Freedom is also not a good in and of itself. It is only good when ancillary to higher principles like the other you mention, justice. If freedom for example allows degenerate elements to corrupt a society from within, this freedom is not good. And when we speak of justice, we have to qualify this by describing what kind of moral framework is being worked from, an Islamic one? A Christian one? A Hindu one?

    5) Women having “other qualities” is not interesting to men because we don’t need them!

    I generally agree with this statement, but we shouldn’t sell short other wonderful qualities women may have, for instance a woman with a beautiful singing voice can find this to be a very admirable quality to possess.

    6) Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men!

    This almost views femininity as some kind of thing that women should accept begrudgingly to get what they secretly want. As such it is incorrect. Femininity comes as naturally to women as masculinity does to men. A queen wasp does not behave in the way she does to retain the loyalty of her male and female entourage, she does so because it is natural for her. Human females also have an ‘organic state’. What we see today is a wholly unnatural state applied to both men and women in which masculinity and femininity are rejected due to the forces of the epoch.

    You cite Poland as being a good example of how a MGTOW would want society to look, but this ignores that Poland is essentially living off of its Catholic heritage and fighting an encroaching Liberalism from within. Given the current dynamics, Poland will start to look like its Western neighbors in perhaps as little as a decade. Just look at what became of Catholic Ireland. The Reactionary generally holds that if you wish to preserve a stability in the sexual economy and avoid into the future the kind of problems that MGTOW takes notice of, your entire societal structure must become anti-Liberal. Entropy means that if one element of a society becomes corrupt, it is likely the other elements will be corrupted as well in short order. Liberalism itself has to be eradicated to the root, and as such, gender roles brought into conformity with the Patriarchal tradition. Men lead. Women follow.

    jay Reply:

    The problem with blaming tne reformation for progressivism:


    Eternal Apparatchik Reply:

    Quite expectedly, we did not advance a foot on this front beyond Nietzsche. The intrinsic problem with blaming “progressivism” on any variant of Christianity is that this kind of argument is nothing but a train of thought chasing a stack of conflations.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    That’s giving too much intellectual cred to Baghdadi. I’d line up Luther rather with Wahhab, and Cromwell with Baghdadi.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Joachim of Fiore. The West is Christian, and progressivism didn’t come from outside the West. So progressivism was Christian from its beginning.


    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 10:23 am Reply | Quote
  • Troll Chi Minh Says:

    Internet trolling is gorilla warfare for the 21st century.

    By virtue of Poe’s Law, it is a art of limitless applicability.


    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 11:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Thank you for the lovely links, and for including us.

    In the original sense, the point of trolling was to get the other party to cross his own T by logically contradicting the major point he was arguing.

    This was back when the internet had a userbase with an IQ average in the high 110s. Now the average is probably in the mid-90s.

    At this point, trolling is more of a sense of provoking the other into revealing that it is not in control of itself emotionally, and is willing to state the ludicrous as fact.

    This is positive mostly because it shows a shift from taking the left and media seriously to seeing them as mental patients on extended furlough.

    However, they will adapt to this tactic at some point. It strikes them at their weak point, which is their need to rally their own troops through hysteria in a Two Minutes Hate, but one of their other strengths is pretense, and so they may convert rapidly to a more sedate method of hive swarming.


    Different T Reply:

    To your article on Amerika (more specifically the comments about future iterations)…

    Have you looked into bonds and leases? It seems as though a paternalistic form of marriage could be re-instated outside of the current lunacy through strict bond covenants and a “kingship” could be approximated through such bonds and leasing (again with very strict covenants) instead of ownership. This would be very tricky and is not a solution, so much as a holding pattern for the T-cells still alive in the corpse.


    ivvenalis Reply:

    Who enforces the contract? The government sure won’t.


    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 12:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#72) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 2:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    ““Now, in Sub-Saharan Africa, you’re never more than two conversations away from someone who can get you to Europe,” said Tuesday Reitano, a human trafficking expert at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, a think tank. __

    But if you won’t fight for it you shouldn’t keep anything including existence.


    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 5:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    True Detective season 2 already started Admin.

    Episode 5 already, episode 6 tonight.

    Different but don’t worry it’s there.

    “[Detective X ] accepts that dualities must be effected to serve the public interest.’

    ‘[Det X] I really do.”

    It gets better from there….I’m going to work that ^ gem ^ into real life, oh yes.

    I wish sometimes….sigh…


    admin Reply:

    (There’s a China DVD-store time lag.)


    TRDante Reply:

    When Season 2 finally comes to a close, I’ll post a full review of it on TRV. I’m a bit less than happy with it, mostly because it seems to be trying too many different things and is going off in a million directions at once. Character arcs can get ignored for entire episodes because there’s not enough space to fit them all in. It feels like an over-ambitious mess as opposed to the very simple, straightforward season 1.


    Skilluminati Reply:

    It has been just superb: systematically denying urban liberal viewers the consolation of pretending that Those Horrible Things only happen in backwoods Louisiana, perpetrated by inbred Christians.

    It’s very upfront about the reality of sexual blackmail as true currency of political control; timely resonance with the Thatcher-era network coming slowly unglued in London.

    I have wondered, at times, if the universally sneering “critical” response is partly due to Silicon Valley money (the owners of so many brave upstart, uh, New Media Outlets) being slightly alarmed by having their closets examined on HBO.

    Most of it is simply due to the fact these people don’t have the attention span to follow their own social media feeds. That much is certain.


    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 5:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bill Says:

    In the original sense, the point of trolling was to get the other party to cross his own T by logically contradicting the major point he was arguing.

    This was back when the internet had a userbase with an IQ average in the high 110s. Now the average is probably in the mid-90s.

    At this point, trolling is more of a sense of provoking the other into revealing that it is not in control of itself emotionally, and is willing to state the ludicrous as fact.

    I would also add that trolling depends on shared references and meanings between the troll and the target, but that this is increasingly less the case. The rise of trolling has coincided with the increase and splintering of internet communities with their own internal references and meanings that are less well known and understood, or even completely impervious, to outsiders. Trolling often now involves a troll from a particular internet community trolling someone outside of it, with the community as the intended or primary audience of the troll. The target of the troll is increasingly removed from the internal references and meaning of the community from which the troll originates. The target is revealed to be ludicrous to the troll’s community, but not to himself or others outside the troll’s community. Without or with fewer and fewer shared references between troll and target, trolls increasingly become like inside jokes, rather than trolls proper.


    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 6:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    Thanks for the link to my Social Matter article, Nick!


    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 8:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Good piece by Neocolonial on valuing place. I wonder, though, if the whole blood and soil concept is simply becoming too much of a luxury to sustain in the face of relentless demagogic democracy. I mean …. demagoguery FEEDS on the citizen’s attachment to blood and soil. The demagogue’s whole game is to squeeze you for as much as he can before you run screaming.

    Another option, if you want to go blood and soil, is to build your own civilization within a weak state. There is a crew of Israeali/German/hippie/Osho acolytes doing just that in the jungles of Costa Rica at a place called Pachamama. Been at it 15 years. Have achieved moderate success. Turn a profit every year at their compound, largely from ecotourists and spiritual travelers. Place is technically a monarchy. They create fantastic music.


    Posted on July 26th, 2015 at 11:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    Re. Roodt/Sailer Africa pieces—in the West, things should get “progressively” more interesting. From a short piece in Nature (

    “There’s no need to talk about a population bomb,” he says. “Give poor families a decent life, and fast population growth will soon be over.”

    How to accomplish this? My guess, in an attempt to accommodate the coming Tsunami, westerners will continue to be subjected to increasingly totalitarian humanitarian policies.

    …..and the reaction?

    If Trumpism doesn’t fizzle out, it could be the tip of the iceberg—things are going to get extremely fugly.


    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 1:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    Re: AFFH, where are the local authorities getting their data on the race of inhabitants from? I think we need a mass campaign of civilly disobedient false self-reporting…


    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 1:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Freihals Says:

    Thanks for the link to my article, Nick.


    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 2:08 am Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    I love Al Fin, and that Al Fin article is interesting… but it is rather misleading. It must be pointed out that it’s fairly easy to get plants to produce proteins on-demand — not always easy, often impossible, to get plants to produce small organic molecules, especially where the biosynthetic pathways (and the enzymes involved) are unknown. And there can be dozens of enzymes involved. What’s more, these genes involved in the conversion of precursor-A to precursor-B may be located on nonhomologous chromosomes. Finally, the process is imperfectly understood in general.

    Example: The biosynthesis of nicotine, a very simple molecule, which has been studied perhaps more extensively than any other alkaloid, is still not perfectly understood. Hundreds of experiments with labelled precursors of nicotine alkaloids have been carried out, however, so the process is fairly well understood in general. What is known is that it starts with the amino acid arginine, which is enzymatically reduced to form putrescine, which is fairly ubiquitous across species. The next steps involve methylation and oxidation thanks to putrescine N-methyltransferase and methylputrescine oxidase, which are far from ubiquitous. These enzymes give us the n-methylpyrrolinium ion, which, in a final step, forms nicotine via a condensation reaction with (ubiquitous) nicotinic acid. The enzyme which performs this final condensation is unknown — but is presumably one called A622. This has not been conclusively proven one way or the other, as far as I’m aware.

    …So if I want my herbs to start producing nicotine, I’ll need to get them to express several enzymes they don’t already have. This would be non-trivial. It would also fail outright if there’s something to the final step beyond A622.

    (It’s even more complex than that, really. I’d need to control the expression levels of those enzymes fairly tightly. Location also matters — some natural products are biosynthesized or sequestered only in certain tissue types, e.g. resveratrol in red grape skins, but not in the flesh of the fruit itself; safranal in crocus flower stigmas, but not in the flower petals themselves, and so forth… We might also run into another situation: If the plant already produces natural products from arginine or putrescine, for example, there might be competition for those substrates. There are still further potential issues that would not be reasonable to discuss here. Let’s just say that there’s a reason most of these enzyme-additions are performed in yeast.)

    To get my garden herbs to start producing something more complex than nicotine, but still natural, like colchicine, would require Herculean efforts. I’d say that this is practically impossible for most, if not all, research labs — to say nothing of individuals.

    To get my garden herbs to start producing something extremely complex, but still natural, like byrostatin-1, would be impossible outright. (It seems to be practically impossible to synthesize via chemical means, as well, which makes it an interesting natural molecule.)

    To get my garden herbs to start producing synthetic drugs, even relatively simple ones like fingolimod, would also be essentially impossible. There are no known enzymes which can catalyze the reactions necessary.

    …But proteins and other chains of amino acids are easy. (Trouble is that they’re not orally active — your stomach will break them down as though they were your breakfast — which is a whole different can of worms!)


    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 5:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Cathedral intelligensia fearful of military-tech-comm developments?


    admin Reply:

    You could see why they’d try to stop it. But then, people try all kinds of futile things. (Without insoluble collective action problems, there’d be no future at all.)


    SVErshov Reply:

    usually, when they say “it will be available in few years”, means it is available for last few years already.

    this declaration rather denial of responsibility. hard to believe, that such smart people as they are, actually think it can be banned. how ironic, first you work hard to create something, then deny responsibility. corporate slaves dig your rabbit hole now.


    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 10:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Good Camille Paglia interview. The Clinton/Cosby stuff is getting headlines (and Rush is talking about it today in fact). But to me the more interesting point involved the problem of suburbanization and its effect on women. One reason I am wary of turning back the clock on family structure is that the isolated suburban home paradigm is just wildly unnatural for women. It’s not how they roll. Paglia is saying the same here.


    Are we letting the behavior of straight men off the hook here? They’re just wired differently?

    Wherever I go to speak, whether it’s Brazil or Italy or Norway, I find that upper-middle-class professional women are very unhappy. This is a global problem! And it’s coming from the fact that women are expecting men to provide them with the same kind of emotional and conversational support and intimacy that they get from their women friends. And when they don’t get it, they’re full of resentment and bitterness. It’s tragic!

    Women are blaming men for a genuine problem that I say is systemic. It has to do with the transition from the old, agrarian culture to this urban professional culture, where women don’t have that big support network that they had in the countryside. All four of my grandparents and my mother were born in Italy. In the small country towns they came from, the extended family was the rule, and the women were a force unto themselves. Women had a chatty group solidarity as they did chores all day and took care of children and the elderly. Men and women never had that much to do with each other over history! There was the world of men and the world of women. Now we’re working side-by-side in offices at the same job. Women want to leave at the end of the day and have a happy marriage at home, but then they put all this pressure on men because they expect them to be exactly like their female friends. If they feel restlessness or misery or malaise, they automatically blame it on men. Men are not doing enough; men aren’t sharing enough. But it’s not the fault of men that we have this crazy and rather neurotic system where women are now functioning like men in the workplace, with all its material rewards.


    Different T Reply:

    Good Camille Paglia interview.

    I’ve hear of dumpster-diving. But this seems like bathing in industrial waste processing run-off because the ayahuasca made your BO extra smelly.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Nah. Camille is good. What’s your specific objection?


    Posted on July 28th, 2015 at 7:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • ElderStatesman Says: is back and looking ominous


    Posted on July 29th, 2015 at 6:11 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment