Chaos Patch (#80)

(Open thread + links)

Left Singularities and restoration (plus, the Cathedral isn’t ZOG). Private cities (1, 2), and police. Swimming right? Chomsky’s methods. Babies and bathwater. Distrust. Liberated power. Welcome to the future. Migration. Fresh blood. A Moldbug-gloss for Marxists. The weekly round of doom.

America’s ideological divide. The Amerika Plan. Go Texas! The end of social democracy. Google-core. Death spiral in SA. Cathedral clean-up in Japan. Swedish discord.

High-popcorn diet section. Trump stuff (1, 2, 3). Corbyn stuff (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Refugee crisis stuff (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Let’s compromise. The microaggression discussion (1, 2, 3, 4). Heterodox academy (Haidt-think, plus Briggs comment). Intersectional auto-cannibalism watch. The menace of libertarians Nazis. Matt ‘Lyncher‘ Damon. Taylor ‘1488‘ Swift.

Perspectives on African demography. Diversity Island. Annihilation (viz). Race against time. Heel-digging in Hungary. Was Mahatma Gandhi a racist? Dreher’s errors. On the way to the jury box? The case for leftist over-reach on race (plus commentary). Genetics of the American nations. Weird history.

Robots and jobs commentary, plus footnotes on America and Japan. Eating the Chinese journalists first.

Selective impressions. Time to start writing. Schrödinger’s bug. Tragedy of the commons. Pluto pictures. Climate discrepancy (also relevant). Where robots are at (video). Quantum chess.

Government intelligence. The claim of tradition. Against schooling. A Polish prophet. Cryptic aliens.

September 20, 2015admin 43 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

43 Responses to this entry

  • Anomaly UK Says:

    There seems to be some encouraging chatter about the possibility of a military coup in the UK if the AAA candidate Corbyn were somehow to win an election


    Erebus Reply:

    Ah, that would be a nice thing to see. Regardless of how it ultimately turns out, it would be the best thing to happen to the UK in over than a century, as nothing could possibly be worse (or more embarrassing, or more ineffectual,) than the current succession of increasingly pathetic elected governments. Sadly, for obvious reasons, a coup is incredibly unlikely.

    Aside: I feel as though Corbyn is just grist for the media’s mill. Nothing more. They’ll toy with him for a while, and then they’ll make sure that some scandal or other forces him to step down before the next election, or ensures that he’s unelectable. They’ve sure been quick to highlight his recent gaffes.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 12:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    Private cities 1

    Gurgaon has seriouse water shortages. Road connecting Gurgaon with Delhi has a Toll Plaza and everyone who travel everyday has to pay a fee. Last place I will go to leave in India.

    Faridabad did not become another Gurgaon, because it is in another state Uttar Pradesh and they have developed Noida (also free trade zone).

    But fact is that most people in India will prefer to leave in gated community with wall around and 24/7 security.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 12:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#80) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 1:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Ramzpaul finding some light – even if it’s shards – at the end of the tunnel.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 2:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • ivvenalis Says:

    The RW Johnson article on South Africa had a lot of food for thought (I read Part 1 as well).

    For starters, the Communistic nature of the ANC is really underrated/underreported. I’m sure it’s obvious around here why that is, but to be honest this is probably the first article that drew a connection between the ANC’s Communist ideology and specific dysfunctional policies.

    That having been said, I still don’t think it’s obvious that the crude naughty model of the post-Apartheid government as a bunch of clueless African savages looting a white nation by dint of population pressure, with smiling Big Men fattening themselves on the seed corn of civilization, is not closer to being correct. Did the USSR put “traditional leaders” on the government payroll? And at least they kept the lights on, although I might be giving them too much credit.

    That being said, either model renders Johnson’s quasi-Marxist suggestion (again: I find myself doubting that the ANC government cares about Marxist over racialist thought) that if only the government better represented a coherent ruling class instead of a fractious coalition that it could at least manage to create a serviceable Latin American-style de facto dictatorship absurd. (Disillusionment with democracy is all over that article, although he never really names the beast.) He doesn’t even seem to believe it himself, since he basically says Zuma was the man to do it, but then it didn’t happen. More likely SA’s ruling class finds their interests well served as it is, thank you very much. Perhaps Johnson finds that too horrible to contemplate.

    The prog belief that, once the foul taint of Western civilization has been washed away, the world will finally prosper must be one of the dumbest beliefs of the Cathedral. The ANC clearly hopes that China will be their sugar daddy once the remains of Bad South Africa have all been thoroughly picked over. I suppose it might work out for them *personally*. That arrangement is going to look a lot less one-sided than what goes on now, though.

    There is a lot of ruin in a nation. It’s taken twenty years for them to get here, and it will probably be another ten years at least before the next big step down (power plants going permanently offline, famine). Democratic attention spans don’t help. I’m told that 25 years ago, South Africa was one of the most pressing issues ever, the LGBT of its day. Nowadays, even to know much about the place is rather suspicious.

    The latency between cause and effect is a real killer. Many parallels can be drawn with Europe’s present and future: How long between when Germany stopped believing it had a border and the current invasion? If everything the most dire alt-right prophets of doom predicted came true, would anyone even notice?


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Communism has been a vehicle for racialism since Marx.

    We just missed it – that’s all.

    Racialism won – and mass murdered – in the USSR until Stalin won and put the brakes on it.


    Jefferson Reply:

    Can you expand on this, VXXC? My framework for the USSR is woefully limited.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    “The prog belief that, once the foul taint of Western civilization has been washed away, the world will finally prosper must be one of the dumbest beliefs of the Cathedral.”

    It’s the mind boggling totalitarian false sense of security that progs have lulled themselves into that’s so stunning—they continue to live in la la land.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 2:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Dangers of Libertarian Nazism- From THE GUARDIAN UK.

    [Dear Guardian: WHO ARE YOU? ]

    “The state is for the recognition, endorsement and protection of rights, which means creating the conditions under which rights can be recognised, endorsed, and protected. When states are absent, rights – by any definition – are impossible to sustain. States are not structures to be taken for granted, exploited or discarded, but are fruits of long and quiet effort. It is tempting but dangerous to gleefully fragment the state from the right or knowingly gaze at the shards from the left. Political thought is neither destruction nor critique, but rather the historically informed imagination of plural structures – a labour of the present that can preserve life and decency in the future.”


    “States are not structures to be taken for granted, exploited or discarded, but are fruits of long and quiet effort.”

    “Political thought is neither destruction nor critique, but rather the historically informed imagination of plural structures – a labour of the present that can preserve life and decency in the future.”


    Lefties for Traditional Government and "fruits of long and quiet effort….he historically informed imagination of plural structures – a labour of the present that can preserve life and decency in the future."
    Someone senses an impending fate methinks.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 5:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Admin you must have glossed over that Guardian article.

    Any Guardian article ending in “but are fruits of long and quiet effort.” has more meat to it than Libertarian Nazi.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 5:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    With things continuing to unfold the way they are in the E.U., I’m looking forward to Nick’s next Islamic Vortex installment.

    Stefan Molyneux’s videos are starting to coming off more and more NRx. Here’s one of his latest on the death of Germany:


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 5:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Frog Do Says:

    The Imgained Conservative article contrasting postive and natural law displays the conservative failure mode of equating natural law with sacred law, then contrasting it with absolutist positive law.

    From Evgeny Morozov: “This was the famous social democratic compromise that made Europe such a comfortable place to live.” This is surely a joke, right? The idiot Russian longing to be European? And then he talks about our ability to “reason collectively”.

    With respect to the mircoagressions debate, there is also this response. Apologies if it has alraedy been posted.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 7:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    The Atlantic, which once had pretensions to political Centrism and a “moderate” reputation, has gone hard-left over the past few years. Particularly over the past year. (Perhaps it’s trying to fill the void left by the dramatic implosion of The New Republic?) This section from that article you link to is worth repeating:

    “Advocates of colorblindness, like Friedersdorf, tend to claim that emphasizing whites’ group identity as whites (rather than as individuals) is counterproductive. Rejecting colorblindness and encouraging whites to see themselves as members of a distinct racial group, they argue, will produce nativism. They will cling to, rather than critique, the privileges that whiteness affords, which are jeopardized by a more multiracial society. Friedersdorf calls it naïve to believe that upon focusing on their status as members of a racial group and the privilege and power that affords them, “masses of white people will identify more strongly with their racial tribe and then sacrifice the interests of that tribe.”

    This is, in the abstract, a compelling point. The trouble is that the weight of the scholarly evidence directly contradicts this argument. Sociologists like Karyn McKinney, Eileen O’Brien, Joe Feagin, Hernan Vera, and Matthew Hughey, who have studied the pathways and trajectories by which whites become involved in antiracist activism, show that contrary to Friedersdorf’s beliefs, moving away from colorblindness can actually serve as a pathway towards antiracism. In many of these studies, as whites came to understand themselves as members of a racial group which enjoyed unearned privileges and benefits, this compelled them to forge a different sense of white identity built on antiracism rather than simply supporting the status quo. Moving away from the colorblind ideology that sociologists critique—the idea that it’s admirable to profess not to see color, that it’s problematic to see oneself as a member of a racial group—is, according to the research in this area, actually an important step to antiracist activism.”

    -Unearned privileges and benefits? Unearned?
    -A white identity built on antiracism? (In other words, a self-effacing slave mentality. A mind virus for a subjugated white race.)
    -Doesn’t the status quo already enshrine benefits for the purportedly disadvantaged? What more could they possibly want? A South Africa-style system?

    Appalling stuff. Besides, I’d bet dollars to donuts that this research (which they mention in passing but fail to cite) is of the poor and shoddy kind, designed to push a pet agenda. To base policy on such things is actually insane. To take such things seriously at all is asinine.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 7:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tom Says:

    How can you have a post on climate ‘discrepancy’ right next to one about dying oceans? If there is one thing I find utter bullshit its climate skepticism, especially since it’s always such bullshit no name blogs spouting the bile. You don’t have to be a hippie to know something is wrong.


    admin Reply:

    It’s not a list of endorsed arguments, but a selective sample of Internet conversation, for grown-ups. Caveat emptor.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    It’s not so much climate science that gets under people’s skin—it’s the hijacking and interweaving of the science into sjw-ish totalitarian progressive-social/political pursuits that rankles.


    useablecrania Reply:

    It’s disheartening to see climate denial given the same credence as HBD and anti-social-justice in new-right circles. I understand how the touchy-feely metaphysical variety of environmentalism can turn right-thinking people against the whole idea, but the underlying science is undeniable if we’re being intellectually honest. We pride ourselves on seeing reality as it is, not as we’d like it to be.

    Instead of entertaining denialists who have the twin disadvantages of being wrong and harmful to the credibility of anyone associated with them, let’s come up with realistic solutions to the climate problem. These realistic solutions rely mostly on nuclear power and geoengineering (particularly industrial-scale direct carbon removal). The feelings-based community loathes these solutions because they don’t fit the narrative of technology as a demonic force, but our response should be to push these solutions *harder*, not pretend we don’t have a climate problem. Denial is stupid and self-defeating, since anyone can look at polar ice cap time series and see that yes, we do have a climate problem.


    admin Reply:

    Tribal epistemology is a problem, but it’s not as if the mainstream climate narrative is without its dubious features. Pan-dimensional skepticism seems realistic, in the absence of trustworthy information sources.

    Dogmatic stories are by definition non-scientific, so when we’re told “X is unquestionably happening” we have a cognitive duty to start questioning, unless “X” is formulated with such extreme abstraction that it merits acceptance. What are the realistic probability distributions for climate outcomes across time? That’s a reasonable way of asking about things, but the record of accurate prediction from all sides has been considerably less than impressive.


    useablecrania Reply:

    What evidence would convince you of the actuality of the problem?

    admin Reply:

    First, you have to specify what exactly is being claimed. If it’s as vague as “industrial civilization effects the terrestrial climate” then no one’s going to disagree. If it’s a firm prediction of a given temperature level, or arctic ice coverage, or what have you at date X, then let’s have that set out clearly. There’s a record of predictions that have not panned out. That inevitably discredits the models they were based on. Anything other would earn the (tribal epistemological rightist) denunciation of religious fanaticism.

    I don’t have a dog in this fight. Musk is great, in my book, and if climate panic helps to drive a new electrical revolution that’s to be celebrated. On the other hand, the amount of Cathedral-endorsed arm-twisting and incredible dishonesty on the alarmist side is a thing of wonder. Also, the term “denialist” reeks of the most stupid authoritarian dogmatism. Science is supposed to be skeptical. When it sounds like Cotton Mather, people naturally recoil.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    The confidence which is placed on their models, is like human confidence in general, heavily overblown. That’s after ignoring the outright lies, deception, and generally bad scientific practices. Emerging scientists with integrity are staying away from earth climatology. Some divert into other specialties while a few others can at least do honest work studying the climate of non-politically charged worlds.


    Erebus Reply:

    Bad form to call something “bullshit” without going into more detail. Why not show us all where Al Fin’s claims and arguments are wrong? Go ahead, we’ll wait.

    Note that Al Fin’s position is essentially Freeman Dyson’s position as well. “It’s a problem of very complicated ecology, and to isolate the atmosphere and the ocean just as a hydrodynamics problem makes no sense… it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model [the climate]. And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is.”

    Dyson’s a great man and a tremendously eminent scientist — one can’t simply dismiss what he says as coming from a “bullshit no-name blog.” And his criticisms of the model are precisely what Al Fin is repeating. I think that they’re a lot closer to the truth here than you are.


    useablecrania Reply:

    One eminent scientist’s opinion doesn’t mean anything. Roger Penrose seems to believe that consciousness is somehow connected to quantum mechanical effects, but there’s no evidence to support this view and most neuroscientists discount his theories. Dyson’s opinion doesn’t count for much against the tremendous weight of evidence behind an entire field.

    Read the IPCC report here: Inside you’ll find plenty of justification for the consensus view of climate, including error estimates for models, empirical measurements of CO2-caused forcing, predicted changed in precipitation, and comparisons with historical data. But you don’t have to trust the models: look at how the US plant hardiness zones all have shifted over the past few decades. Look at the opening of the Northwest Passage. Look at Lake Mead. Look at record heat waves and droughts all over the world. Look at the measured sea level rise: we have levels going back to 1880, when sea levels were a foot lower than they are now.

    There’s good reason for doom and gloom. We’ve measured how weight yields change with temperate and CO2 content by experimenting with actually growing wheat under locally changed conditions. Even after taking CO2 fertilization into accounts, yields in the tropics will decline by 30-40% by 2100 according to _conservative_ models, which consistently under-predict actual warming.

    While it’s true that many scientists have made their career studying climate change, I don’t think it’s fair to conclude from this fact that climate science is overestimating the danger or that we’re enmeshed in some collective hysteria arising from over-reliance on models. Climate change is probably the most thoroughly-studied, most-challenged and most-upheld fields in the history of human inquiry, and it’s achieved this rigor mostly because a lot of influential people would prefer it be the climate isn’t changing, or at least that humans have nothing to do with it. If the broad conclusions of the field were wrong, you’d expect people to be able to make names for themselves by rigorously showing that to be the case.

    Given the extreme scrutiny behind every climate claim and the almost-universal consensus that we’re investigating a real phenomenon, I don’t think it’s reasonable to doubt the overall conclusions expressed in consensus reports like the IPCC one: 1) we’re changing the climate and ocean acidity through the introduction of large amounts of CO2 (and smaller amounts of other substances) into the atmosphere, 2) these changes will result in higher temperatures, reduced precipitation in currently-important agricultural areas, and 3) that these changes will be very expensive to mitigate, and 4) there is a course of action we can undertake now that will be significantly less expensive than mitigations later.

    That the left cares much more about climate than the traditional right does, possibly out of a misplaced belief in the spiritual benefits of mother nature, doesn’t mean that climate science is wrong. That climate science is an artifact of the cathedral doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong. That the traditional right has consistently denied climate change (for entirely understandable short-term economic reasons) doesn’t make it wrong. We’re supposed to be above tribal epistemology.

    Skepticism is healthy, but I honestly don’t see how someone without an axe to grind can remain skeptical after reviewing the literature.


    Erebus Reply:

    What do you mean by “we”, as in: “we’ve measured,” “we’ve investigated”? Are you implying that you’re a climate scientist?

    Anyway, I’m a busy guy; it’ll take me a few days to get around to reading that report. How about we focus on Dyson’s argument in the meantime?

    1. The climate simulations currently being run do not adequately reflect reality, and may be misleading. (This argument has been summarized by Al Fin in the link Admin provided.)

    2. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will not bring about the end of the world, and are in fact associated with certain positive effects, as well as negative ones. The latter may be blown out of proportion, as the former are ignored.

    #1 seems like a compelling argument to me. I’m a scientist myself, but I stick to the small stuff: atoms, molecules, crystals. Material composites especially. Although I’m no biologist, I have a fairly thorough understanding of molecular biology. What’s said here is accurate:

    “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.” – Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985
    (…A really good passage from a pretty bad book.)

    The truth is that it’s impossible to model a single cell to any degree of accuracy. Protein-protein interactions are a black box; we get bits and pieces here and there, but they’re far from understood. There are a half-dozen competing models attempting to explain how the Golgi Apparatus works — and none of them seem to be a perfect fit. Hell, there’s no way to accurately model the turbulent flow of a liquid, either, and this has implications if you’re studying a bacterial cell which likes to form biofilms. In light of this, arguments which state that we don’t have a complete understanding of the climate and that our models are incomplete, and likely slipshod, are persuasive to me. The climate is, after all, a chaotic and open-ended system, and the list of variables one would likely need to take into account is very long.

    As for #2, you’ll find that most people here are suspicious of governmental attempts to combat climate change. (Al Fin in particular!) The cure may be worse than the disease. The rational thing to do is invest in nuclear energy — but I’m not seeing a whole lot of work on this. I’m seeing, instead, calls for new taxes, more onerous regulations, and investment in “green energy” crony corporations. You must admit that this is rather odd.
    …If I’m a “lukewarmer”, it’s out of a sense of (perhaps misplaced) optimisim — mitigation probably isn’t going to happen, so we’d best prepare for whatever’s coming, and hope that it ain’t too bad.

    But I’ll get around to reading that report eventually. I’m open minded about this. Time will tell, anyway.

    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 7:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    This is a great who’s who of quality reading on the alternative right/neoreaction, and I am thankful to be included in it.

    It seems to me that election ’16 in failing democracy USA might be ready for the idea of segregation by community, which enables those communities to hire the kind of private mercs we see in gated communities worldwide. With some business savvy this could include the sensible among the lower middle classes as well.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 9:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    That Ishmael character is almost absurdly lucid until he starts talking about economics.

    Thus, I will nitpick.

    “Just imagine what would happen to our economy if overnight the high schools closed their doors. Instead of having fifty million active consumers out there, we would suddenly have fifty million unemployed youth. It would be nothing short of an economic catastrophe.”

    It would be fantastic. Imagine fifty million more people making useful things, instead of sitting on their asses learning how to be unpleasant.
    Perhaps, given all that free time, some of them might even develop initiative, and try something interesting. Certainly at first, the economic shock might be a little destabilizing, but, well, creative destruction.

    “We want them to have to grab the lowest rung on the ladder. What sense would it make to give them skills that would make it possible for them to grab the second rung or the third rung? Those are the rungs their older brothers and sisters are reaching for.”

    Curiously, it seems this kind of thing is genuinely believed. Of course the traditionally schooled have no chance of understanding how supply and demand work… They do certainly understand how kicking the underdog works, though.


    Exfernal Reply:

    Doesn’t the first world drift toward automation-fueled, consumer-driven economy?


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 9:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    I do like Corbyn’s communist naming scheme – People’s Railway, People’s Quantitative Easing – you know exactly what you’re getting with him.


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 10:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dots Says:

    @ the UK has hi employment and serious contributions in recent cancer victories, as well as a serious malaria vaccine. UK economy/employment has grown amid public rejections of fiscal expansion. UK parliament was the first to reject attacks on Assad. tuition fees have risen in the UK and Apple gives us ad-blocker; Gnon stalks the talking-cure disciplines and the crybaby press

    for me the most annoying thing about Cathedral is the whining and business regulations

    the economist ran a story about Rubio’s plan to privatize the student-loan business. this would presumably crunch low-EV liberal arts disciplines


    Posted on September 20th, 2015 at 11:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    Cryptic aliens.

    comparing cosmic noise to encrypted messages is a funny thing to hear from some one, who suppose to be an expert in encryption. Encrypted messages does not contains repeating fragments (same as compressed messages). Cosmic noise has a lot of repeating fragments.


    Posted on September 21st, 2015 at 4:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anomaly UK Says:

    If I could take climate alarmism seriously, it would be one of the best arguments for the sort of societal change I would like to see happen. It’s just the sort of threat that would make obvious the requirement for adult supervision over government and the economy.

    But I can’t. I’ve tried, and I just can’t.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    Lol…but, but, but, climate alarmism dovetails seamlessly with the progressive narrative.

    Coincidently, Slavoj Žižek’s solution to the migrant crisis could be the solution to anthropogenic climate change too—two birds, one stone.

    “Fourth, most important and most difficult of all, there is a need for radical economic change which would abolish the conditions that create refugees. Without a transformation in the workings of global capitalism, non-European refugees will soon be joined by migrants from Greece and other countries within the Union. When I was young, such an organised attempt at regulation was called communism. Maybe we should reinvent it. Maybe this is, in the long term, the only solution.”

    I guess once you’ve spent a couple of generations lubing-up the masses they’d be receptive to anything.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    Call it a multigenerational “progressive” lube-job.


    Scharlach Reply:

    Fourth, most important and most difficult of all, there is a need for radical economic change which would abolish the conditions that create refugees. Without a transformation in the workings of global capitalism, non-European refugees will soon be joined by migrants from Greece and other countries within the Union.

    So is Slavoj saying he doesn’t want to be enriched with diversity, and that worldwide communism is necessary to stop the migrant deluge? What a racist cracker!


    admin Reply:

    The Left have no antibodies to apocalypse-level trolling yet — result: Zizek.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    “It’s just the sort of threat that would make obvious the requirement for adult supervision over government and the economy.”

    So you mean, to place a government over and above the government?


    Posted on September 21st, 2015 at 5:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    Thanks for linking my article. Important to note, Golden Dawn gained two seats in Greece on Sunday and remain the third political force in Greece. Just wait till the memorandum hits.


    Posted on September 21st, 2015 at 10:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ossipago Says:

    The politicization of Taylor Swift is fascinating. This Africa freakout doesn’t arise in a vacuum. The SJW’s hate her on identity grounds and have since the beginning, as Kanye’s outburst at the Grammy’s a few years back illustrated so entertainingly. A white girl from a red state singing country music just can’t be that pretty, that classy, and that intelligent.

    (Obviously, I have all of her records.)


    Posted on September 21st, 2015 at 10:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    Assuming religious trust is a social tech worth engineering we might break down a few of the ways to go about trying to achieve it. First, what we’ll need is a complete reversal of the separation between church and state, which we may, for arguments’ sake, model along the lines of Christian Reconstruction (specifically the Ironized Rushdoony Division). More abstractly, we’re attempting to formalize ethological purism as traditional Supreme Authority, provoked by both the tribal right-wing insight of the modern secular order as a disguised totalitarian theocracy, and also Moldbug’s imperative to formalism. Take the idea of confession for example, it’s surely an old-style tech which purpose was to engineer trust within a religious community by accomplishing a transparency of conscience (especially between a priest and his congregation). If we blend the idea of confession with contract government and tech surveillance we might imagine a discipleship that includes some form of shared data collection between priest and parishioner. For example, I imagine a young church-goer is going to be a lot less inclined to lie to God in confession when his priest has him hooked up to an unbeatable lie detector. If a disciple refuses to be surveyed on grounds of unconditional trust in individual conscience they shall be outcast as a puritan witch. Trustless decentralization can not mean one trusts oneself above all else, for that is the metaphysical equivalent of egalitarian centralization. There might be an argument to suggest that an alignment of incentive is enough to create trust, that if each member of a church is seeking salvation and redemption through grace, then it can be trusted to each man to go about liberating his soul according to divine revelation, but the NRx insight is that holiness alone doesn’t cut it. Even Mass Murder Memes are seeking redemption.

    Taking it to a further extreme, we might imagine an extremely distrustful mad scientist CEO who insists that to work with him his employees wear a mobile lie detector and have their vital signs monitored at all times with the info sent to his cloud storage. Or, in the cold frontier of space technological surveillance will permit explorers to record and share vital signs and symptoms of psychological integrity, possibly allowing for early intervention and treatment of stressed-out astronauts. Or perhaps an AI would monitor vital signs and could decide whether to make concerning data known to other members of the team. So there’s many options, and all slowly building up to the ideal tech-comm fantasy of an SI who has total access to your life as a simulation and judges you based on unknowable criteria.

    But, until we have these sort of trustless tech in place, we’re going to have to be content with virtue signalling, which when combined with Epiminedes paradox, is really not so trustworthy. But really, if you structure a society as an automatized agora do you even want or need trust beyond the bare minimum required to exchange commodities?

    Final note, this ties in rather well with supervised/unsupervised machine learning, and also the (slightly heretical) idea of love and forgiveness as a conditional potentiality.


    Posted on September 22nd, 2015 at 2:04 am Reply | Quote
  • freihals Says:

    “In an era of climate change, the rightwing version of anarchy, economic libertarianism, may pose the more pertinent danger.”

    Dear Lord, save us from those bow tie wearing, gun toting libertarians. No thanks, everybody is doing a damn fine job of burning it all to ashes without us. We’ll just be here to pick up and go forward after everything( and everyone )burns to soot.


    Posted on September 23rd, 2015 at 12:35 am Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    Nick Steves posted a link to Jonathan Haidt’s gem of a paper, which is entirely relevant to the compatibility of Climate Alarmism with the liberal progressive narrative:


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    duh!, just noticed Admin already linked Haidt’s paper [back to sleep i go….Zzzz].


    Posted on September 27th, 2015 at 2:11 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment