Chaos Patch (#84)

(Open thread + links)

Sys-req. for a functioning nation. SF from Amerika (relevant). Dear pagans. On entropy. NRx-WN debate. Private cities (part 3). Faye > > Benoist. French new reaction (and NRx in the Kremlin). The weekly round (of doom).

War in cyberspace (and beyond). The limits of peace. Fascism and fantasy.

Popcorn politics (US and UK).

Virtue signals. Facts don’t matter. Where did colleges go wrong? What PC is for. On telescopic morality. Pathological altruism. Non-pathological autism? Scary majorities. Unknown Thelema.

European migration chaos overview and link dump (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Immigration economics. A sense of perspective.

Plantoid (techno-aesthetics). Why all the zombies? Yogic evil. The psy-op theory of Christianity. The sanity trade-off. Spider Mouth Girl (some background).

Four evolutionary laws, and a meta-law. Genes and brains. The social module. Cosmology degree-0. Alien engineering? The hell-planet next door. Motherships. Good luck, Winter-Chan!

October 18, 2015admin 48 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Chaos

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , ,

48 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#84) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 10:30 am Reply | Quote
  • OLF Says:

    Why is 1IW’s blog protected? WasEnlightened disappeared after the witch-hunt, but I have no idea what’s happening with 1IW.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Hm, it seems to be unlocked now.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 10:37 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    Putin reads neoreaction

    Putin keep saying all that same things for last 15 years. not sure, how it connected to NRx.

    [Reply]

    Yvjrolu Reply:

    Better to say neoreaction reads Putin, and both read other sources. That title was pretty cringeworthy.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    Putin reading Dugin, Dugin reading Carl Schmitt. and all together drifting to the left.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 10:41 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Great lists of links, and I appreciate Amerika’s inclusion. One interesting factor of this time is that we seem to have run out of really competent leftists. It is perhaps like a business: in the early days, it attracts the competent, but as it becomes more rote and less responsive to reality, those are driven away. There is nothing worse than a business where nothing has changed for so long in such a way that it is entirely unresponsive to market and other forces.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 1:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#84) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 2:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Exfernal Says:

    The article in Sunday Express about a “HISTORIC DISCOVERY” blows it out of proportion. First, that notion was considered in the past already and more than once to boot, second, it is not ‘PROVEN’. A theoretical paper by itself doesn’t prove anything about reality. It could propose the most plausible explanation for a phenomenon, but it’s far from even provisionally ‘proving’ it. If that were so, the theory of evolution would be toted as to be proven, not merely as to be the best available explanation for related observable facts.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    In case you didn’t get the memo, this week’s theme is ‘sensationalism’.

    That EU migration article is dank as hell though. If only my hunger strikes could net me 2000 euros a month.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    A question for IIII, if he is still around: could the same chain of logic also be applied to economics? 🙂

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    ‘Economics of desire’ – hahaha

    [Reply]

    ||||| Reply:

    I’m the type to lurk for some time then post huge walls of mostly nonsense out of the blue, rinse, repeat.

    And yes, definitely, after all it goes for just about anything, starting with arithmetic. Why I try to stick to theories with some empirical backing and experienced authors.

    Not quite sure why the question is directed at me.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    I make fun of the economical premise that wealth could be created from nothing. Well, economical value of an object corresponds to someone’s desire to possess it. Is there an infinite number of desires to fulfill? That’s the boundary of ‘value creation’ in economics, an unsurmountable ‘wall’ to economical growth.

    Exfernal Reply:

    ^ It’s rather “I’m making fun”.

    It seems I my question wasn’t clear enough. I was referring to the chain of logic that was presented in the press article, not to my grumbling about its tone.

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 2:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    I fail to see how Faye is anything other then confused and making public wish after wish after wish. Benoist however displays significant intelligence and bases his assertions and thinking on solid foundation. He is correct in that money is not neutral, and neither is technology.

    As for this “Thus social virtue is discredited, and private vices are supposed to support the general good (this is the idea of ‘the natural harmony of selfishness’ under the effects of the ‘invisible hand’ of ‘free and fair competition’, the new avatar of Providence). Nothing must be allowed to obstruct the quest for profit. Economic activity justifies excess and becomes our very reason to live.”

    I am in complete agreement. Just look at utilitarian ethics. In this vein, the lockstep expansion of market liberalism and the expansion of markets to the whole of society (I would use the word capitalism, but no one actually can define what it means) and leftism are beginning to look to me as if they are both expressions of a breakdown in ethics and decay in coherent formalised political control. The idea that Capitalism (whatever that actually is) is reactionary is in my view ultimately an ungrounded, and ungroundable claim.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_malorum_est_cupiditas – look how Benoist misses the mark spectacularly, conflating the desire for money with money itself. I don’t see a problem with measuring the monetary value of any commodity. You could measure (or at least estimate) the physical mass of every material object in existence. Does that pose a problem as well?

    “Positions” of Faye, on the other hand, are valid issues to be addressed separately and not reduced to an oversimplified, one dimensional view.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    “The idea that Capitalism (whatever that actually is) is reactionary is in my view ultimately an ungrounded, and ungroundable claim.”

    But of course, Agrarian Communism is the One and Only True Reactionaryâ„¢ Economic System.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 4:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @Chris B The pro- “capitalism” position is every bit as unhinged, confused, deluded and downright wrong as the anti-“capitalist” position. Capitalism is never defined properly, or is given a specific definition which makes little sense and is then contradicted by another definition. Pre-“capitalist” societies were not agrarian communism, and to slur them as such as well as any questioning of “capitalism” is pretty squalid.

    Taking the definition that seems to be claimed as common sense (which is not a good definition) capitalism is free market, private property and trade. Of course this runs into issue when question are raised as to why capitalism as a defined phenomena only gets labeled as such in France in the 18th century. Admins definition of the self-valorization of capital is also problematic and seeks to conflate it with propagation in biological and social fields.

    Normal human society was such that the majority of society was not subject to markets or monetary intermediation (the family for example) whilst modern society has broken all of these links (the essence of leftism.) Just take the case of slavery and feudalism (non-monetary relationship destroyed) or the rise of, and prevalence of, utilitarianism – ethics as a market, or any example of leftism that asserts voluntary atomized relationships (social contract, equality etc) it is as if leftism and “capitalism” really are just names for aspects of decay.

    As for Faye, Western society is superior…we should do A…we should do B…etc etc. This is all wish.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “The pro- ‘capitalism’ position is every bit as unhinged, confused, deluded and downright wrong as the anti-‘capitalist’ position.” — ‘NRx’ decay into ‘altright’ third-positionism.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    @Chris B
    I’m against slavery and serfdom for exactly the same non-utilitarian consequentialist reasons that I’m in favor of Laissez-faire. That being said, from the proposition Capitalism doesn’t follow that therefore everything should be commodified. These days we don’t have Capitalism, but we do have overcommodification (even things such as parenting have been commodified). Things are obviously not good, not good at all, but from here, we can go with thoughtful analysis à la Tom Woods, or go with full wackadoo analysis à la Christopher Ferrara.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 5:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    Re: psy-op theory of Christian origins. Fascinating as a thought experiment, but I think the most important point he makes in the interview is that he has no training in history or theology. If he were to be that skeptical about historical source material in general, he could make even Napoleon’s existence a point of contention.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    At least it makes a change from “Jesus was a Jewish hoax to trick the Romans”.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    To be fair, there are no direct contemporary accounts written within 30 years of his death, most of the “historic accounts” are from the 2nd century. It’s much more like examining the King Arthur than Napoleon.

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    Someone already did that, tongue in cheek: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nappy.php

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 6:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    Someone needs to ask Caplan if he thinks building a beautiful bubble is possible in, say, rural Egypt, Afghanistan, Moscow circa 1920, Germany circa 1940, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo circa its entire history.

    Then that same someone needs to ask Caplan if maybe—just maybe—the possibility of beautiful bubble building relies on exogenous factors that can be completely altered if certain peoples or ideologies are let loose on a nation state.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Right. The Caplan piece is pretty damn infuriating. A couple of people in the comments call him on it, but not many.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 18th, 2015 at 6:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • chris b Says:

    @Chris B “‘NRx’ decay into ‘altright’ third-positionism.” Just insults around here then. Left, right, third position – all modernism.

    There are many aspects of the whole tradition that MM raises that are inconsistent with neo-liberal market economics or whatever is being described as capitlism or non-true capitalism (the parralel with leftism /communism is interesting in regards to the no true scotsman thing.)

    Take the dire question – lock them up in VR? This is not free markets. So anti capitalist?
    Take the defence of slavery – non-monetary relationship. So anti-capitalist?
    Or how about the desire for non atomising central power? This would (if it let people fall back on natural inclnations) decommodify vast swaths of society. But this is an aspect of MM which reveals giant contradictions. The idea that you could set up a Sov corp as a safe zone for libertarian society is rather silly, and I wonder if he is fully aware of this and is happy to promote it as a trap.

    When you go from Mises to Carlyean ethics, you don’t get to keep liberal economics.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Just insults around here then.” Did you even read your own sentence — “unhinged, confused, deluded and downright wrong” –? (Which that diagnosis responded to.)

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    What is exactly is non-monetary about slavery and serfdom? I mean they [slaves and serfs] brought money to their masters, in fact, that was the entire point! Many things paraded around as non-monetary relationships are monetary relationships par excellence and sometimes especially so. Take the entire religion enterprise for example. If it wasn’t monetary, why did the medieval church get so rich, and why are american “pastors” rolling in buck today? Formalism is a program for radical honesty “everyone is doing it for money and babez, so let’s just admit it”. Not to mention that Capitalism existed not only before [classical] liberalism, but even before Feudalism, so if we’re going to toss ‘reactionaryness’ around, Laissez-faire ideas precede Feudal ones by a couple hundred years.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @OLF that in no way illuminates what capitalism is. And the “formalism is extreme anarcho-capitalism/ neo-liberalism” idea is intellectually barren.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    And the idea that Formalism is Distributism isn’t?

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    So questionin g a concept which is not clear, and which no one can clarify means you advocate communism or distributionism? Best fit I can find for a definition of Capitalism is that it is a kind of utopia in which voluntary exchange is the source of paradise and the solution to all problems.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Capitalism is the guiding of the social process by automatized maximization of productive capability (catallactic control). Its complete actualization is therefore inconsistent with the perpetuation of political governance, but modernity closely converges upon capitalism, as the limit of an asymptote. The mechanism of converges is punishment of deviation (through economic crisis), and thus indirect meta-control of political processes.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Idiotic strawmen seem to be a speciality of yours these days.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    “automatized maximization of productive capability (catallactic control). Its complete actualization is therefore inconsistent with the perpetuation of political governance,” what your saying is that control is not possible and the process must be submitted to. How this fits in with having an executive with a fitting level of power is escaping me. This is just extreme anarchism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 19th, 2015 at 3:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Skilluminati Says:

    Re: the society / sanity tradeoff, a Howard Bloom riff on neurogenesis as socialization
    http://reactor-core.org/reality-hallucination.html

    “An infant’s brain is sculpted by the culture into which the child is born. Six-month olds can distinguish or produce every sound in virtually every human language. But within a mere four months, nearly two thirds of this capacity has been sliced away. The slashing of ability is accompanied by ruthless alterations in cerebral tissue. Brain cells are measured against the requirements of the physical and interpersonal environment. The 50% of neurons found useful thrive. The 50% which remain unexercised are literally forced to die. Thus the floor plan underlying the mind is crafted on-site to fit an existing framework of community.

    Cramming themselves further into a common perceptual mold, animal and human infants entrain themselves to see what others see. A four-month old human will swivel to look at an object his parent is staring at. A baby chimp will do the same. By their first birthday, infants have extended their input-gathering to their peers. When they notice that another child’s eyes have fixated on an object, they swivel around to focus on that thing themselves. If they don’t see what’s so interesting, they look back to check the direction of the other child’s gaze and make sure they’ve got it right. When one of the babies points to an item that has caught her fancy, other children look to see just what it is.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 19th, 2015 at 5:43 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    @ChrisB

    Most people have some decent idea of what capitalism is, at least via negative knowledge what it isn’t. I don’t really see how you can say that there are “contradictory definitions of capitalism” maybe at the top end it gets fuzzy, but we can definitely say what something is NOT.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 19th, 2015 at 7:20 am Reply | Quote
  • Huh? Says:

    I think the critical insight is that you don’t have a choice about “capitalism”. This is confusing if capitalism is taken to be a specific historical system, but not if “capitalism” is simply used (misused?) as a stand-in for competition writ large.

    The amusing thing then is that people think competition needs advocates.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    The more it’s understood as a special case of Darwin the better.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 19th, 2015 at 7:55 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    seems quite relevant to ongoing capitalism discuss

    ***

    “Capitalism is an extraordinary thing. There has never been a force as productive, innovative or as liberating as capitalism, a fact well recognised by Marx. Capitalism has chewed up the old world and transformed the life of humanity: at least, for the most part. The release of productive energy, both physical and mental, accomplished by capitalism has unleashed the potential for scientific and technological development, as well as radical social change, on a global scale. That has never before been possible. ”

    http://the-electric-philosopher.blogspot.co.uk/
    Accelerationism talk at the Catalyst Club

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    Alternatively – technological development is the result of the brilliance of individuals through history and not the result of capitalism. Not only do most inventors not do it for gain, but they tend not to be a part of the monetary gain. Capitalism here is sounding like a stand in for provedance/ progress or the zeitgeist, which in Carlyean terms is merely societal and ethical decay and collapse.

    The ejection of Carlyle really has degraded NRx to a confused nothing.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    for some reason you just sound arbitrarily for sake of arbitrariness. Me alone against all BS in the world.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Please stop talking about economics until you learn economics.

    You will save us time and yourself some embarrassment.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    ‘Please stop talking about economics until you learn economics.’

    One could say the same to most professional ‘economists’.

    OLF Reply:

    More Marxist than Marx is now a thing apparently.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 19th, 2015 at 1:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Seth Says:

    My attempt to provide perspective on the migration issue is not in any sense a push-back against the generally skeptical attitude towards immigration one finds in these parts. The vast majority of migrations did not entail an indigenous population going out of its way to be swamped by newcomers. One can imagine tactical obeisance but there must be only one or two historical examples in which a stable host population wittingly and gleefully allowed its stability to be tested by migrating hordes. Migration is not a novel phenomenon, and we’d do well to remember that; what is novel, however, is migration qua socio-political fetish.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 19th, 2015 at 11:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Cosmology:
    When physicists like to prove they are very, very bad philosophers by demonstration.

    The matter can come from nothing. Well, no shit, obviously.

    Where did the laws to describe matter come from?

    Where did the space the matter occupies come from?

    That said I think the answer is still ‘nothing.’ Or more precisely, Chaos.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 20th, 2015 at 6:05 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment