Chaos Patch (#79)

(Open thread + links)

Yes, this merits a serious response. Swimming left. Two equilibria. Principled positions. White blight. Difficult spreads. Zones of progressive failure. Idiots at the controls. Popular activism. Cultural analysis. Order force. The weekly round, and the week in doom.

Elements for a popcorn apocalypse: Trump (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); Corbyn (1, 2, 3, 4); NRO (1, 2, 3), yellow stars at the NYT, bathhouse genocidaires, the ugly European, re-colonization time (see also), counter-revolution in the Vatican, burning with indignation (and icy dissent), TSA-grade security, scary book of the century watch, bullet points, and the most confusing story of the week (1, 2). Taylor Swift is, like, way problematic. Imitation games.

Refugee chaos (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). An AoS round-up. “Among them actually there were no women, no children – the vast majority were aggressive young men …” (If anyone has bothered to try and deny that, I’ve yet to see it.) Rising Dampier (1, 2). Best to get on with it?

Negative economic theorems. Half-baked Alaska. Back to the Malthusian trap? How to isolate mass murder memes. Eugenics for the left. Poor brains. Deep roots of poverty (the NYT notices). Women in philosophy.

The Kaiser’s Jihad.

Quantum-resistant protocols. Superconducting graphene. Large Hadron Collider info-graphics. Falcon Heavy schedule.

Alexander on Chomsky. Error and destiny. Pynchon in disguise? Star Trek politics. Vickies.

September 13, 2015admin 46 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , , ,

46 Responses to this entry

  • Hurlock Says:

    So, I bet are a lot of people are dying to know, what do you think about the new Labour (glorious) leader?


    Mai La Dreapta Reply:

    He’s fantastic. Couldn’t ask for a better Labor leader. #AAA


    Izak Reply:

    I’m highly offended by the whole situation. It’s just more patriarchal brocialism from the manspreading mansplainers.

    I mean, consider. As Jeremy Corbyn was anointed leader, not one female voice was heard.



    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 10:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#79) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 12:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • OLF Says:

    An interesting observation here: My problem with Richard Dawkins is not that he is an atheist […] It’s that he’s a Protestant atheist.


    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 1:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Fascinating stuff. Thanks for linking us, and I’ll be perusing these over the next couple cups of coffee and fine English tobaccos (now made in Denmark).


    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 2:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kaiser Schmarn Says:

    The “Woman in Philosophy” article from Sesardić is good. I must admit that I have yet to read “Making sense of heritability”. Generally he seems interesting.


    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 2:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Exfernal Says:

    The ‘Scott Alexander on Chomsky’ link leads to the main page of Slate Star Codex.


    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 3:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Get on with it.

    Oh Spandrell is European. No wonder he’s so bitter.

    Not that his suggestion of let the Syrians rape our women now so the Africans can’t later is exactly ..well..
    well anything that’s worth saving. Wow. I thought we hurt the Japanese. That’s worse.

    I’m cheered up he’s not American.


    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 5:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    “let the Syrians rape our women now so the Africans can’t later”

    Kind of sums up my quarrels with neo-reaction.


    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Spandrel is offering us a (suitably twisted) reason for optimism on the Syrian migrant situation by suggesting that even progressive whites will re-learn the basics of survival after enough raping and killing inflicted against them. I think widespread capitulation to Islamism, communism, and fascism is much more likely. Oh but I forget, this is about you and your ‘quarrels with neo-reaction’. We know if it wasn’t for Spandrel you would have stopped those immigrants by now!


    admin Reply:

    The amount of ‘activism’ that end up as grumpy ankle-biting is simply incredible.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Spandrell is anticipating that Gnon is about to reveal His Truth to Europe.


    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 5:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    “Yes, this merits a serious response.”

    Why? You’ve already made your position clear a number of times. Notably here –

    “An ultimate (or basic) fanged freedom is eminently thinkable. ” (

    here – “The Dark Enlightenment (essay) was clearly catalyzed by the work of Mencius Moldbug, but it was to have had two Anglo-Thomistic or Doubting Thomas intellectual-historical pillars (and neither were Thomas Carlyle)”


    here- “As the most articulate anglophone voice of revolutionary Puritanism, he arrives amongst Carlyleans in the mask of “the Arch-Enemy” (I:81) and “Author of Evil” (VI:262): a scourge of clerical and monarchical authority, a pamphleteer in defense of regicide and the liberalization of divorce, an Arian, and a Roundhead of truly Euclidean spheritude.”

    and most damming here – “As a matter of historical fact, this is how the neoreactionary departure from pure libertarianism has occurred. It has stumbled upon non-zero curvature in the domain of political economy, and — unable to comfort itself through the dismissal of this discovery — it has precipitated an intellectual crisis, through which it spreads. Whether faithfully Carlylean, or not, it insists upon a generalization of realism beyond expectations of liberal order. Civilization is the fragile solution to a deeper problem, not a stable foundation to be assumed — as a parallel postulate — by subsequent, elaborate calculations.”

    The surgical removal of Carlyle’s influence from any subsequent theorizing and thinking is quite amazing.


    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    NIO does not explain how blockchain protocol is democratic (i.e bestows sovereignty on ‘the people’s vote’) nor does he justify his ideas of unlimited sovereignty with regard to the natural limitations of power. Can someone explain to me the mechanism by which a world-historical hero-leader will gain monarchical power of a state? It depends on conquest by war doesn’t it?

    NIO claims that ‘protocol’ (and protocol is always ‘democratic’ for NIO, though, again, he doesn’t say why) relies on ‘lies and propaganda’ but he doesn’t give much meat as to the truth of this claim, or how his own grumpy blog post escapes the much-accused ‘propaganda and lies’ trap, other than, presumably, that his ‘hero’ is constitutionally incapable of lying or bearing false witness. If NIO wishes to contend that cryptographically secured market systems do not allow for the free exchange of vital information and instead only disseminate lies (something that his ‘heroic’ information control would presumably avoid) than he might be so humble as to give an argument rather than vague hand-wringing.

    But honestly, this kind of utter nonsense doesn’t much allow for reasoned reply: “there is no sense or intelligence in any of it, and no real control; only lies and action in line with the fitness environment created by the protocol” – Oh no wait, I get it, the ‘hero’ is the one who has perfect fitness and also creates the environmental problems by which ‘fitness’ itself is measured. IOW, Carlyle is God. That gives a whole new meaning to ‘hero-worship’.


    chris b Reply:

    NRx minus Carlyle is merely libertarianism + realism in the form of HBD, that is to say, wish, and lie.

    And no, the potocol is not always democratic. But democracy is protocol, and the minute you subordinate the leadership of society to protocol,you have erected a great lie which grants power, and this lie destroys society. Slowly or quickly, it destroys it.

    And the leader is free to act as they wish – that has to be let go. Their actions are constrained by reality and the nature of leadership.

    NRx didn’t come into being with MMs realisation of the failure of praxeology under non-normal conditions, though I can see the strategic benefits of claiming, and acting as if that were so (remove Carlyle.)


    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Where’s the lie in HBD?

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Libertarianism + HBD isn’t libertarianism.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    If the ‘hero’ has the power of life and death over his underlings (i.e ‘ultimate human judgement’ not bounded by rule of law) than one ought to choose wisely, but in NIO’s world any ‘choice’ as to who your heroes are is just another form of strangely protean ‘democratic protocol’.

    As for me, if some hero were to come along and prove to me that he is the phenotypical ideal of my clade then I will follow him to the end of the earth, but if the ‘hero’ is acting against my self-interest, he will be resisted as a foreign hostile. Unquestionable obedience to a ‘hero’ who could care less about your well-being is majorly slavish pwnage. To avoid this, one will need to establish a protocol by which ‘heroes’ can compete and be selected on the merits of their sovereign leadership. Patchwork is one such protocol.


    chris b Reply:

    Patchwork as put forward by land is a corruption of what MM put forward as far as I can see. A darwinian morphing off it, in which each state can chose anything (democratic, socialism, fascism etc) and then let reality decide. This is pretty crazy as well, because as far as I can gather, MM never proposed that, he proposed that patchwork is made up of sov sorps, that is to say polities with leaders. Having leaders, and being suitibly incenitvized by the conditions of the role they will respect sovereignty of others.

    How does having democratic/socialist/fascist nations work here? Undermining of other states via their populations iswhat brought down the old westphelian system, and you all think dumping these infestations in a patchwork is a good idea because “darwin”?

    admin Reply:

    So what’s the mechanism for choosing how Patchwork units are governed, if not variation and selection? I’m assuming you’re not promoting some progressive dream of global governance?

    I, too, expect Patchwork units to end up governed by SovCorps. But you have to get there from here. If you build-in your model mode of governance from the start, you’re not seriously grappling with the problem. The Patchwork itself has to process-out dysfunctional governments.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Unless you can propose some mechanism which would effectively restrict all patchwork states from implementing leftist political systems we’re going to be stuck with the second-thing: maximal localization of consequences. IOW, stupid states and even great states) will fail and die regularly. Otherwise you’re stuck in this game of trying to bring about ideal ‘Carlylean’ leadership to the whole globe, which is sheer evangelism. I recognize that defense is important in a patchwork made up of possibly hostile communities, but unless we plan to eradicate conflict we’ll be better off focusing on diplomacy, deterrence, and statecraft to ensure peace between competing states.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    stuck with the *second-best thing*

    admin Reply:

    Yes, that “second best” looks pretty damn ‘good’ to me. (‘Good’ as in, at least minimally consistent with reality.)

    Chris B Reply:

    @Lucian of Samosata the lie is that libertarianism + HBD is even remotely the truth. The underlying assumption is that if everyone is aware women have no real agency, or that blacks are sub-european then reason will prevail, and limited government will be enacted. This is so hopelessly unmoored from truth as to be dismissable as a tangled mess, which it is.


    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Nothing you’ve asserted here makes any sense. There was no such ‘underlying assumption’ as you’ve erroneously derived. There is certainly an argument that libertarianism is a genetic predisposition that the vast majority do not share. Anything less than handing over your family and house keys to Chris B is ‘libertarianism’, and you can’t get away with merely tolerating his spitting on you, you need to worship him as your Lord and Savior as he does so, and do it authentically too! What a grotesque predicament.


    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    NRx is one hell of a drug, and soon its going to be in the blood of every ‘former’ progressive. It’s the beginning of Left singularity and I expect it to end (when it finally does) in nothing short of ten thousand new kingdoms in what was formally the progressive West. It’s going to be one hell of ride not getting crushed underneath collapsing foundations. Get ready to dodge falling cranes.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    (Previous comment was not meant to be posted as a reply)

    Chris B Reply:

    Moldbug “why Carlyle matter” “my journey from Mises to Carlyle” “my child is named after Carlyle” etc. NRx – Carlyle is irrelevent? Carlyle is the core of NRx if it is based on Moldbug. If it is not based on Moldbug and therefore Carlyle, then it is fraud and is another incarnation of leftism having renouced the leader/ Sovereign. That is to say, it is lie.


    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    This is not about Carlyle, it’s about your fundamental illiteracy. Let me remind you that I read and responded on those treatises by Moldbug, and you have chosen to ignore my responses for your own very questionable motives. Your reading of Moldbug is a humorless substitute for the genuine article, and your appropriation of Carlyle is a criminal act to which you have no right.


    admin Reply:

    Can you seriously ever imagine Carlyle subscribing to the idea of a SovCorp? Or to the analysis of a monarch as a stock-holder retained state CEO?

    You’re taking MM’s decorative LARPing and making it the essence of his thinking.

    Next you’ll be saying the Jacobite tom-foolery is of some kind of real importance (despite the quite explicit break made in NeoCam from any principle of hereditary succession).


    chris b Reply:

    Not sure why my previous response seems to have gone awol, but think about it, how do you think he got to Sov corp? How do you think Froud got to his position? And yes, I can very easily see Carlyle subscribing if it was clearly a means to obtain the best leaders.

    Any ejetion of Carlyle from Moldbug while holding the conclusions is akin to fraud. There is no other way to describe it.

    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 5:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    I have just finished reading “Submission.” The book is harsh in its contempt of modern Europe. Some quotes:

    “[A university administrator had been questioned] whether Islam had been chosen for world domination. In the end he answered yes. He hardly bothered with Western societies, since to him they seemed so obviously doomed (liberal individualism triumphed as long as it undermined intermediate structures such as nations, corporations, castes, but when it attached that ultimate social structure, the family, and thus the birth rate, it signed its own death warrant; Muslim dominance was a foregone conclusion.) He had more to say about India and China. If India and China had preserved their traditional civilizations, he wrote, they might have remained strangers to monotheism and eluded the grasp of Islam. But from the moment they had let themselves become contaminated with Western values, they, too, were doomed…”

    “Thanks to the simpering seductions and the lewd enticements of the progressives, the Church had lost the ability to oppose moral decadence, to renounce homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and women in the workplace. The facts were plain: Europe had reached a point of such putrid decomposition that it could no longer save itself, any more than fifth century Rome could have done. The wave of new immigrants, with their traditional culture — of natural hierarchies, the submission of women and respect for elders — offered a historic opportunity for the moral and familial rearmament of Europe.”

    “Without Christianity, the European nations had become bodies without souls — zombies.”

    …And as harsh as it is in its contempt of Europe, the book is even harsher in its treatment of the modern “career woman.”

    It’s certainly worth a read.
    Aside: Just after finishing the book, I went to visit a friend in Manchester. With the book’s narrative fresh in my mind, walking around the city — where fully half of the people are Arabs, Pakistani, or African — was very depressing.


    spandrell Reply:

    The first half of the book is brilliant. His description of how intellectuals both left and right would fall for the Arabs made my jaw drop. It’s exactly right, he knows those fucks better than they know themselves.

    The second half felt rushed, and ridiculously optimist. I’d have written a much more detailed and bleak image of what would happen to leftist intellectuals under Arab rule.


    Erebus Reply:

    I feel like he wrote just as much as he could get away with. He has already been denounced for fear-mongering and “Islamophobia.” (And, among others, by no less than that idiot Valls, the “President of the French Republic”.) If he were to describe how Muslim rule would really look, he’d probably be sent to prison.

    The second half of the book was clever, though. The arguments that the University administrator used to justify conversion to Islam were so obviously weak and nonspecific, and the example of René Guénon as a convert to Islam for “scientific” reasons was so laughable, that it seemed as though the entire thing were something of an inside joke.


    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 5:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Chomsky is full-test communist. No wonder he’s going to see the media as too far right. Similarly, being a leftist, he will attribute it to nefarious psychologies.
    But, in addition to the evidence SA summarizes, Chomsky is not purged and Sailer is. Chomsky asserts falsities, such as the idea that the milieu is anticommunist. I’m sorry, what happened to witch-hunter McCarthy again? What happened to witch-hunter Anal Dish? One’s shrunken head can be found swinging from a tree, the other on its accustomed neck…

    Admittedly I don’t know what’s going on with America toppling supposedly-communist regimes. However, as per homo hypocritus, it would seem the first thing to do is doubt it has anything to do with communism. Is this pure impact? They can, so they do? Possible, but weak. There’s also the ennui hypothesis. State fought communists because they didn’t have anything better to do, the way the elder brother will tweak a younger brother’s nose, simply because the reaction is less boring than being nice.

    Could also be an election thing. It doesn’t escape State Sophists that officially communist governments don’t really hold elections, and ends up with personal responsibility, which means a measure of immunity to their mind control techniques.

    “I am left with a greatly increased respect for the view that it was Western colonialism, broadly defined, that has caused Third World countries all their grief.”
    Oh my. An impressive display of crimestop.
    Thing is ungood? Well, it must be due to unpopular thing, not popular thing.

    No, if it were due to unpopular thing, it would have been solved already. It only has to be covered up because it’s the natural result of some popular thing.

    “After reading this chapter it will be very hard for me to take reports of Third World elections seriously again.”
    Progressives seem awfully behind the times. When do you suppose they’ll stop taking first world elections seriously, if their frontrunners figure this out in 2015?

    “But there are ways to be rigorous and dishonest at the same time.”
    Credit where credit’s due. I would guess C&H recognized the misrepresentation because they’re so familiar with it from the other side.

    “Instead of “the media over-covers Communist murders”, it might be “there is wide variance in the media’s coverage of Communist murders, and C&H focused on the most overdone one in order to support their thesis.””

    Generally, everyone is in the wrong, so it’s always easy to paint your enemies as monsters. They are, in fact, monsters. It’s just the painters, if not as monstrous, are only so due to lack of opportunity.

    In particular, journalists tend to be monstrously bad at journalism. A priori I expect a random relationship to accuracy.
    “C&H’s case studies of foreign wars aren’t great tests for their hypothesized mechanisms of bias.”
    Journalism isn’t stringently selected for accuracy. The thing that cries for explanation isn’t that journalists are wrong, but that they are ever right.
    Most journalists, like everything, are crud. Without a bias they’re quite useless – just noise.


    Posted on September 13th, 2015 at 8:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    Popularly-hated center-right PM Tony Abbot just got ousted by leftier, better-liked Malcolm Turnball so now our government leadership is safely back in line with the Australian Majority View. Tony Abbot had only hours previously expressed gratitude for emails from liberal colleagues ensuring him they ‘were not the Labor Party’, and they would, by admission, avoid at all costs Labor’s ‘revolving-door PM-ship’. However, the ALP, fearing the loss of election under the leadership of a man universally despised by communists were evidently not persuaded by Abbot’s assurances of ‘economic growth and safety’ under his administration, or his commitment to the ‘strong and stable government’ that Australians deserve, or even his attainment of ‘leadership earned by electoral vote’ which he thought was the whole democratic thing, anyway?

    Media representatives say tonight is a disaster for Labor, whose major chance for electoral success in 2016 hinged on the widespread loathing of Tony Abbot and nothing much else.

    For further news and mass democratic voicing of opinion visit #libspill on twitter. (It’s mainly a lot of relieved and gloating leftists frenziedly planning a renewed push for gay marriage and immigration and #YesAllWomen and welfare etc.)


    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 1:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hattori Says:

    Where can I buy the English version? Amazon isn’t releasing it until October.


    Erebus Reply: has it. But it doesn’t seem as though an ebook version is available.

    It is also available in UK bookstores — though, interestingly, the shops I’ve seen are doing unusually little to promote it. Most noteworthy new books by famous authors are displayed in store windows, and receive “staff recommendations”, and that sort of thing… Submission was tucked away in a corner.


    Hattori Reply:

    From the bits I read that Sailer posted it seemed to have a strong reactionary streak so that’s no surprise.


    Posted on September 14th, 2015 at 9:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    I’m not sure if the Chaos Patches are inviting of additional links here in the comment section, but here’s looking at the devil:

    Matt Forney says Neoreaction is dead, this on account of failing to capitalize on media attention and “get out there” and fight the good fight as it were, that it insulated itself to obscure blogs and the winds of time have already blown over it, burying it in the sands of white noise:

    P.S. Matt Forney is dumb.

    Saudi Arabia to the rescue of Germany! By offering to build it mosques for all those Muslim “refugees.” This cannot but be described as insanity undefiled:–one-for-every-100-refugees-who-arrived-last-weekend-10495082.html

    Pierre van den Berghe’s (brief) review of Salter’s “On Genetic Inte”


    admin Reply:

    It’s odd the way these ‘game theorists’ don’t apply their principles to the world of ideas. Live by fashion, die by fashion. Don’t appear to care if you want to live.


    Alrenous Reply:


    Posted on September 15th, 2015 at 12:07 am Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:


    The correct link to the Forney video: “Democracy, Monarchy, and the Fall of Neoreaction:”

    The corrected link to Berghe’s review of Salter:


    Posted on September 15th, 2015 at 12:10 am Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    And for God’s sake, five years ago Stefan Molyneux was your standard libertarian, NAP-totin’ type- he’s not quite at the level of rightward shift within the bounds of NRx, but he sounds profoundly less infantile than he did five years ago.

    An interview with Charles Murray:

    And his recent video on the “migrant crisis,” while at times unfortunately laden with bits of the old Molyneux, was pretty damn good. Of course, the highlight:

    “Sorry, you don’t get diversity, you get a blood bath!”

    Molyneux sounding NRx-ish…in other news, the stars have turned crimson and the earth implodes on itself.


    Posted on September 15th, 2015 at 12:26 am Reply | Quote
  • Lucian of Samosata Says:

    Reposted from /pol/


    Posted on September 15th, 2015 at 4:07 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment