Quote note (#116)

Towards an analysis of the Social Justice Industrial Complex:

To perceive the group dynamics at work which is the Complex is first to distinguish between those forms of cooperation which are and are not taking place. Is there some evil mastermind pulling the strings from the shadows? No. The impetus in this case is nothing but the aggregation of personal interests aligned to a collective interest. The actions taken by these individuals are spontaneous, in the sense that the actions taken by soldiers on the battlefield are spontaneous, but behind this spontaneity the order is derived of the motivation which we variously call ideology, purpose, or religion. There is less agency at work in the camp of the Social Justice Industrial Complex than might be presumed from a precursory glance, reflecting that human tendency towards over-attribution of agency. No less, though, are we able to dismiss the notion of an agenda taking place; it is no grand conspiracy, but rather, very small conspiracies united by a vision of utopia which sees all present social structures as oppressions to be destroyed, the far side of which shall inevitably emerge their egalitarian eschaton.

(The focus upon the “tendency in human nature to over-attribute agency” is an excellent starting point, building immunity against some of the most toxic inclinations to radical ideological error into its foundations. If this is aspiring to the status of an authoritative position, it certainly deserves to be nodded through so far.)

ADDED: A brief vacation into the conspiratorial mind.

ADDED: Xenosystems is tempted to propose a (non-exclusive) definition of NRx as the systematic dismantling of conspiracy theorizing — in all its richness — into the tradition of spontaneous order.

October 6, 2014admin 30 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

30 Responses to this entry

  • Chris B Says:

    It would be desirable if we could work out an authorative political compex systems analysis synthesising intergroup power politics and feedback systems, for example the media/ public anti violence PR mechanism of 4gw, or the positive stimuli feedback loop of white ethnomasicism and leftist singularity, as well as propaganda via media, HBD and international relations (hyperborea and atlantis) amongst other things.

    It seems auspicious that I have been drawn to Chaos theory, Hayek and Gregory Bateson independently. Will look into cybernetics and complex systems analysis in relation to politics in the near future.


    Posted on October 6th, 2014 at 3:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    This is important work from Bryce. There certainly is a place for Foucaultian/Althusserian anti-humanistic/non-agentic analysis. It’s really of central importance ot any analysis of the Cathedral. Rasputin got me thinking about this months ago.

    I remember doing a module on sociology of the holocaust… Zygmunt Baumann, althought clearly to the left-of-centre, was criticised and in danger of being eaten by his own because of the structural emphasis he put on the possibility of modernity-charged mass-murder. By just reducing these interlocking phenomena to ‘Hitler”, ‘Eichmann’ ARE EVIL AND THEY DID IT OK? Guilt and blame are salvaged, their lucidity maintained, but at the expense of a serious study of how any of it happened in the first place.


    Rasputin Reply:

    Scott Alexander also explains the process very well in his ‘Nutshell’ post:

    “Reaction isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s not suggesting there’s a secret campaign for organized repression. To steal an example from the other side of the aisle, it’s positing something more like patriarchy. Patriarchy doesn’t have an actual Patriarch coordinating men in their efforts to keep down women. It’s just that when lots of people share some really strong cultural norms, they manage to self-organize into a kind of immune system for rejecting new ideas. And Western society just happens to have a really strong progressivist immune system ready to gobble you up if you say anything insufficiently progressive.

    And so the main difference between modern liberal democracy and older repressive societies is that older societies repressed things you liked, but modern liberal democracies only repress things you don’t like. Having only things you don’t like repressed looks from the inside a lot like there being no repression at all.”


    Mark Warburton Reply:

    Yup, that’s the one! ‘Social Matters’ is now bookmarked.. this is very Goulding-esque. Exciting really.


    Posted on October 6th, 2014 at 5:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    “NRx as the systematic dismantling of conspiracy theorizing — in all its richness — into the tradition of spontaneous order.”

    I’d say the combination of this with the occult tendencies of NRx constitutes a 4th occluded wing of the trichotomy.


    Posted on October 6th, 2014 at 6:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nathan Turner Overdrive Says:

    I remember Gore Vidal doing his National Security Act-of-1947-was-the-watershed-we-became-then-a-formal-empire shtick on the BBC and getting pushback in the subsequent interview. Michael Ignatieff said it was just a conspiracy theory. Vidal, if I remember correctly, replied:

    “No it was no conspiracy. The deciding groups in elite circles all went to the same schools, were all imbued with certain ideas and philosophies, and all had material interests in burying the Republic. It was a tropism, not a conspiracy.”

    Ignatieff had trouble processing this.


    Posted on October 6th, 2014 at 7:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#116) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on October 6th, 2014 at 7:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    Personally, I like “heralds of the Darwinian Revolution.”


    Posted on October 6th, 2014 at 7:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • ||||| Says:

    “Xenosystems is tempted to propose a (non-exclusive) definition of NRx as the systematic dismantling of conspiracy theorizing — in all its richness — into the tradition of spontaneous order.”

    Not sure about the first part as processes functionally indistinct from conspiracies can emerge spontaneously in systems but I guess I agree with the motivation. As for spontaneous order, talk about an understatement. I quite enjoy the four C’s (cybernetics, complexity, chaos, catastrophe, maybe think of them as the New Horsemen heh).

    Moore’s law (among other developments) has granted access to practical analysis of many discarded perspectives. I kind of envision some of this stuff as the corpse of tradition rising from the grave in necromantic supremacy. A sort of massive and surreptitious invasion of ” revolutionary” ideas and disciplines by traditional skeletons cloaked with empiricism, mathematics and computation.

    There’s attacks from all sides and what is best is that it’s going to happen mostly unimpeded since progs almost by definition are incapable of understanding the consequences of allowing these mathematical heresies in.

    Stuff like category theory and the Curry-Howard isomorphism suggest ways to very deeply connect physics, computation and mathematics – http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf
    Mathematics by itself is already immense
    so arriving at computational foundations for its practice could be huge.

    It’s really easy to just dive around in

    http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gmas20 or http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS.html

    and find a whole bunch of stuff that would get progs screaming bloody murder if they were expressed in natural language.

    Studying complex networks and other types of models allows a whole bunch of insights or at least more rigorous ways to examine one’s intuition as far as many social phenomena and structures are concerned. Things like

    Scale-free correlations in starling flocks – How come some types of groups seem to respond so rapidly and be so organized without having any kind of explicit command structure?

    Collective Cognition in Animals

    Small Worlds and Cultural Polarization – How does the radicalization of attitudes and groups work? Very relevant when you think of the impact of the internet in people’s social network topologies

    A Novel Private Attitude and Public Opinion Dynamics Model for Simulating Pluralistic Ignorance and Minority Influence – How can a minority influence a group into adopting their opinion?

    Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities

    And then there’s the evolutionary approaches

    War, space, and the evolution of Old World complex societies

    Modelling Society’s Evolutionary Forces – I had to laugh at “The UN claimed that 58% of all modern human deaths were caused by effects of starvation. However, this 2001 starvation figure appears not have been supported, challenged or followed up by subsequent research.” – http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/17/3/3.html


    Life as Evolving Software

    Evolutionary genetics: The economics of mutation – Pay EXTREME attention to this if you want to understand why the left ratchet exists and how it relates to technology, if you only read one paper from this list make it this one.

    I could go on and on and on all day with this since there’s still plenty of stuff in cognitive neuroscience, machine learning, social psychology, and honestly mountains and mountains of information that no one has really put together into the mind-crushing insights some of it deserves to be.

    Some stuff I like overall that I think is related (I’m going to try and keep these simple but not too much):

    Learning Deep Architectures for AI – Yoshua Bengio

    Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain – Glimcher et al

    An Introduction ot Statistical Learning – Hastie et al

    Graph Theory and Complex Networks – Maarten van Steen

    Convex Optimization – Stephen Boyd

    The Political Economy of Destructive Power – Mehrdad Vahabi

    Evolutionary Game Theory – Weibull

    Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning – Bishop

    Fundamentals of the New Artificial Intelligence – Munakata

    Social and Economic Networks – Matthew O. Jackson

    Homotopy Type Theory – IAS

    Programming Collective Intelligence – Segaran

    And quite a lot more stuff.

    And I’m looking for more, mainly on mathematical/computational sociology, evolutionary/complex economics and stuff like Chaitin’s metabiology.

    Sorry to admin for the immense, ugly, unwieldy post, it’s just that “spontaneous order” is the kind of expression that probably connects some 3/4 of information in my brain.


    Chris B Reply:

    @||||| I will comb through these. Some of them look extremely interesting.


    ||||| Reply:

    If you really want to get your juices flowing try to interpret all of these simultaneously:

    Again – Evolutionary genetics: The economics of mutation – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982299802309

    A mixability theory for the role of sex in evolution – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/50/19803.long

    Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors – http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580

    HBD Chick on outbreeding – http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/whatever-happened-to-european-tribes/

    Evolving Culture vs Local Minima – http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2990

    Knowledge Matters: Importance of Prior Information for Optimization – http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4083

    (Optional) – Causal Entropic Forces – http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf

    A much more rewarding list overall but less intelligible without the proper background.
    I understand some of this requires quite a bit of specialized knowledge so I could try and summarize if anyone’s interested or at least provide further references or explain something. And if you do try to read all or some of these try to let it stew for a while, it’s the sort of stuff you can recognise almost everywhere if you’re perceptive.


    Chris B Reply:

    Don’t know about anyone else but as far as I’m concerned – yes please to all of this – ” I could try and summarize if anyone’s interested or at least provide further references or explain something.”

    I’m busy digesting lots of other stuff I’ve been reading in the past and now so that I can formulate a number of articles. It’s all fitting together really naturally. Spontaneous order, price signals, common law, cybernetics, chaos theory, complex systems etc.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Anyone who isn’t interested wouldn’t be here.

    ||||| Reply:

    “It’s all fitting together really naturally.”

    Similar thing happening here but with somewhat different areas.

    Keep in mind these are my irresponsible speculations/extrapolations, not authoritative statements. I’ll refer to the papers in the order of appearance in my previous post.

    [1] Shows some of the subtleties in the interaction between mutation and fitness. Too much instability and you get a bunch of harmful ones, but too little and you can’t get any good innovative ones. Mutation in specific circumstances helps but in others it has diminishing returns. This sets up ground to think deeper about this relationship of optimality and variation in the context of biology.

    [2] Tries to give a plausible theory of how sexual reproduction can improve fitness. If your father has excellent genes but your mother has awful ones you could end up with many awful genes out of luck, so how come sex ends up being adaptive? This theory says it’s basically because it helps select not genes which are good (but only in the presence of particular genes), but genes which are more likely to make good combinations with other genes. In other words, sex makes selection go from trying to get one good set of genes to trying to get a set of genes which if mutated would also be a good set of genes, so gene sequences which are in a neighborhood of other good sequences.

    “Why the reduction in variance has this effect can be understood intuitively by analogy to finance. To diversify a portfolio (13) among various investments and thus average its growth rate over time, an investor must keep rebalancing the portfolio at regular intervals (14). Otherwise, the portfolio will soon be biased toward the investments that had the best individual returns so far. The investments here correspond to the genotypes that share an allele, the portfolio corresponds to that allele, and by analogy, it is the persistent rehomogenization by sex of frequencies of genotypes carrying each allele that shifts the focus of natural selection over the generations from the individual performance of genotypes to the average performance of alleles.”

    It also contains a deeply reactionary insight.

    “The mechanism enabling the selection for mixability operates on the multigenerational time scale. It has been out of the purview of previous theory, which often focused on single-generational changes and the equilibria that could be calculated from them. This mechanism shows that, while at any one generation natural selection operates on genotypic fitnesses, over the generations and in the presence of sex, it is particularly efficient not in increasing population mean fitness but in increasing the ability of alleles to perform well across different combinations. Thus, in this mechanism, natural selection and sex operate interdependently and need to be understood in the context of each other.”

    A little background on [3]. Geoffrey Hinton is a researcher in machine learning, specially in neural networks and deep learning (wiki “artificial neural network” if you’re not sure what they are, ask me about them if you need help). He was originally an experimental psychologist and has a lot of interest on and knowledge of the brain. Also, a curious hereditary trivia (reactionaries tend to like this sort of thing); he’s a descendant of George Boole.I think he’s at Google now. So perhaps inspired by [2] his team discovers “dropout” which is a very useful technique.

    Imagine you have to train a classroom full of kids to accomplish a particular task in the aggregate (that is, one mark for the whole class, a joint project). They get tested at the end of every lecture and there’s also a final exam which uses problems they’ve never seen in the coursework but aren’t more difficult and still the same general task. This can go bad in a few ways. First, the kids might just be stupid, but assume this isn’t the case. There’s another, much more subtle way things can go wrong. The students can do very well on coursework but a LOT worse in the final exam.

    How come? Well, what can happen is a case of overfitting (there is such a thing as overthinking a problem). The students learn not the patterns in the data you gave them, but just the data itself. Think of it like a plastic glove that fits so snugly that as soon as you move your hand it rips apart. Models have to be flexible and generalize, not just fit a particular set of data well. You observe the class and get an idea. You’ll randomly pick half of the class at the start of each lecture and the rest leaves. Why would this improve things? Because of co-adaptation. Think of free-riders or cliques which only know how to work with each other. This way you force the kids to focus on the data, not each other, and to make independent interpretations, conclusions and to learn how to work well with anyone, not just their friends.

    Breaking co-adaptations to increase adaptivity is the important lesson here.

    I’m going to skip [4] for now and go back to it a bit later.

    In [5] and [6] Bengio articulates several hypotheses relating machine learning and in particular neural networks to human brains and behavior, mainly related to difficulties inherent in some of the learning processes that might be going on in the brain.

    From [5],

    “[…] and (5), language and the recombination and optimization of mental concepts provide an efficient evolutionary recombination operator, and this gives rise to rapid search in the space of communicable ideas that help humans build up better high-level internal representations of their world.” – Remember [2]?

    “These hypotheses put together imply that human culture and the evolution of ideas have been crucial to counter an optimization difficulty: this optimization difficulty would otherwise make it very difficult for human brains to capture high-level knowledge of the world. The theory is grounded in experimental observations of the difficulties of training deep artificial neural networks. Plausible consequences of this theory for the efficiency of cultural evolutions are sketched.”

    In [6] he outlines a task that is actually quite simple but which nearly all algorithms fail spectacularly at. He then shows that if you have decent enough priors the task can be learned perfectly and stipulates that this might be the origin of forms of supervision, guidance, curricula, etc. Think of riddles, puzzles and other kinds of moments where you were struggling to solve something then went “D’oh! How did I not see THAT!? It’s so simple!”, hints in our environment or institutions help us solve many such problems without even being aware of them or their solutions.

    In [4] hbd chick looks at what happened to european tribes and what impact the catholic church might have had on them. Tribes, you know, those highly co-adapted forms of living like in [3] where you can rely on your clan or family? Maybe you can see where I’m going with this since I’ve tried to set up the proper priors before [6]. You have the catholic church, a more structured and rigorous culture [5] imposing forms of selection that break co-adaptation [3] on the population and giving them hints [6] like “hey, maybe don’t fuck your cousin?” for forms of organization which are more versatile in the long run like in [2].

    Now, Bengio doesn’t ask some questions which should come quickly to a reactionary (his first name is Yoshua and he’s canadian, so…) like “is there a co-evolution of psychology and culture? “, “if culture is a matter of massively parallel searches and solution retention, recombination and selection, doesn’t this mean some cultures really are better than others?”, “what about informal institutions and structures? do they unwittingly pass on solutions too?”, “if you get rid of them, what happens?”, “are different sets of solutions (that is, different cultures) compatible?”, and so on.

    So in short, these papers help explain my perspective that mental, cultural aspects of human civilization are soft reflections of evolutionary processes that exist to provide greater adaptivity, organization and complexity to them, and that many of the processes and institutions in human society can effectively be considered sets of interacting virtual superorganisms, like supra-rational software operating on more local human hardware.

    The optional paper comes up with an interesting way to define adaptive behavior. It’s mainly lead to me thinking of intelligence more in terms of a peculiar property of certain types of systems rather than an interior characteristic of intelligible informational processes, but there are probably a lot less technical papers out there by now that make clearer definitions like this, so it’s not too important aside from the conceptual interest.

    Hopefully I’ve managed to make a decent summary without mangling the ideas too much and that this at least has been a somewhat stimulating post. In retrospect perhaps it’s best to start with the two papers from Bengio, specially Evolving Culture vs Local Minima because it is much more readable, cogent, less technical and overall a much more pleasant read, then going on to read the others with a better idea of what I have in mind when posting some of this stuff.

    My view on these sorts of matters is fundamentally mathematical, in practice computational and universally evolutionary. But like I said, this is mostly my own irresponsible mind wandering, so don’t go with just my word on anything.

    For a minimal set of references to serve as an introduction to this stuff I guess it could be these 6 papers above plus

    An Introduction ot Statistical Learning – Hastie et al – free @ http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~gareth/ISL/

    Evolutionary Game Theory – Weibull

    Social and Economic Networks – Matthew O. Jackson



    This way you get the stats, the ML, the game theory, and generally the most informative stuff as far as this perspective is concerned (there are still plenty of others, most of which I’m trying to get some kind of grasp on) and enough references to continue looking if you’re so inclined.

    Oh, also there’s another paper which shows pretty well why I have an interest in mathematical sociology. Some of this stuff sounds like it comes straight from the mouths of reactionaries.

    The Economics of Social Stratification in Premodern Societies – http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0022250X.2012.724488 , it’s filled with historical goodies and other stuff – : “We present a microeconomic model of social stratification, which includes an endogenous fertility component. In the model, egalitarian and stratified societies coexist. The latter are divided into 2 hereditary classes: a warrior elite and a productive class. The model entails that the extra cost warriors must incur to train and equip their children for war determines the relative sizes of both classes and the degree of economic inequality. Higher costs of warrior children imply a greater economic advantage for warriors and a smaller ratio of warriors to producers. These results are consistent with the historical evidence. Finally, we explore conditions under which the social contributions of the warrior elite could discourage a revolution.”

    It ends with : “The spread of social stratification, despite its social injustices, may have been an endogenous evolutionary response to intersocietal competition.”

    Chris B Reply:

    You’re giving me an insane amount of resources here. Will take time to process. What I will say from a cursory review is that this – ““Why the reduction in variance has this effect can be understood intuitively by analogy to finance. To diversify a portfolio…” strikes a chord. I’m busy studying MPT and finance at the moment for the CFA level one (NRx seriously gets in the way) and the concept of genetics operating on the level of reducing standard deviation/risk, and reduction of risk of catastrophic collapse (e.g. investing everything in Enron because it’s return is 27% in contrast to the market of 13%) makes a lot of sense.
    Similarity of mechanisms across complex systems should be expected. Things like K waves, Elliot waves & Fibonacci ratios in technical analysis give me goosbumps (along with the ever present golden ratio).

    Posted on October 6th, 2014 at 7:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • soapjackal Says:

    the analysis of the SJW doesnt make any sense unless one contextualizes the usage of sex in it.

    an sjw sees monogamy has some form of ancient terror and that any limitation of the passive sexuality is wrong. The main signs of power are attention. Sex and attention. Its no wonder that a push for all to be queer and women and queers being the top of the sjw pyramid is what is happening now.

    Looking forward to further discussion from social matter, it looks like its probably going to be a series.


    Posted on October 6th, 2014 at 11:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • derecho Says:

    NRx as “the systematic dismantling of conspiracy theorizing”? How about starting with the Cathedral?


    admin Reply:

    That remark shows you’ve understood nothing of this entire discussion. You’re wasting your own and everyone else’s time here.


    derecho Reply:

    Isn’t the Cathedral “a perfectly distributed conspiracy, a la H.G. Wells, with no central structure at all”?


    Jatli Reply:

    More like “Izquierda” amirite.


    Posted on October 7th, 2014 at 6:08 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Brilliance by Bryce. Should be required reading for the young and ambitious.

    Cuz they’re gonna need a paycheck, and it will come from the Cathedral.


    Posted on October 7th, 2014 at 10:34 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Brilliant. Should be circulated through the young DC complex. At least they could understand what they’re part of, for they must toil for this machine no matter what they believe.

    Problem being even the Right needs to eat = paychecks.

    Conquest’s Second Law has never been you know a bar or shield. An organization can be as explicitly rightist as it wants, over time their control of Finance – Finance being the most consistently Radical element in the West for a Century – over time their control of ambitions of the young and public policy/Academically/Philosophically minded and all those who won’t toil in business or labor quite moots Conquest’s Second Law. If you want a job you have to work for the Cathedral. Oh they control all the other organs we attribute to the Cathedral and Social Justice, but they’ve had Finance for a Century.

    If you want a check you go to them, one of their creatures such as the Saudi’s or some foreign element, or the Chinese. Only the Chinese being a break from the Cathedral.

    My point being we cannot continue to pretend their dominance of Finance, indeed Finance has dominated the Left since Wilson. It’s wishful thinking [or an ulterior motive of gain] that makes Finance that whose name is never spoken in NRxn land.
    – See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/10/06/social-justice-industrial-complex/#sthash.Wk6DmBnD.dpuf


    Posted on October 7th, 2014 at 10:36 am Reply | Quote
  • orlandu84 Says:

    Stand Alone Complex! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stand%20Alone%20Complex

    The ability to understand the contemporary or modern world coherently requires that one grapple intellectually with the Stand Alone Complex Regardless of what you want to call it, an explanation is needed to elucidate how the contemporary world actually operates. No vast conspiracies, but disconnected millions who have been infected by a though virus so subtle that you can only detect it with the greatest of difficulties. As my use of jargon and my avatar show, I first started thinking about the matter thanks to Ghost in the Shell, a Japanese anime. NRx has allowed me a place to gain much deeper insight into this matter, and for that benefit, I am very grateful.


    Posted on October 7th, 2014 at 3:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Puzzled in Peoria Says:


    ‘Nick Land may be the quintessential machinic philosopher; but he’s still a person. And I think he misses his old friends.’

    Expect missionaries.


    Posted on October 7th, 2014 at 8:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:


    Fantastic list of links. I love Turchin’s work, he’s quality.

    @Chris B

    “It’s all fitting together really naturally. Spontaneous order, price signals, common law, cybernetics, chaos theory, complex systems etc.” Intriguing. Will you be flesh out this convergence at New International Outlook?


    Chris B Reply:

    Will take a couple of weeks I think, but either there or at social matter if they will have me.


    Posted on October 8th, 2014 at 12:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    The ideas of a IQ-measured or literacy-based democracy are the stupidest of all, and dangerous insofar as they target the ‘cognitive elite’ with lures of greater privilege. Democracy sells itself to discontented inferiors, as priests prey on the sick, promising a ‘voice’ in accord with a supposedly more powerful self-valuation (the desire for equality rather than inferiority). In this way, it second-guesses natural order, and in its ambitions of revolt is an explicit act of aggression. I trust literate readers will share a knowing smile at the idea that somehow the collectivized command over one’s person and property becomes more enticing when it is a hypothesized community of genius-level machiavels who are scheming for votes and popularity.

    Democracy replaces thought with a newly-castrated voice and a body shared by all. Left-singularity is its destination.


    Posted on October 8th, 2014 at 5:33 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Great list. Love me some Turchin.

    Chris B, will we be seeing your synthesis, ” It’s all fitting together really naturally. Spontaneous order, price signals, common law, cybernetics, chaos theory, complex systems etc.” made into a post at New Internation Outlook?


    Posted on October 8th, 2014 at 10:06 am Reply | Quote
  • iParallax Says:

    Just wanted to chime in here on yet another attempt to define NRx. The following chain of thoughts have been on my mind these past few weeks:

    1) From a contradiction, anything follows. It is insanity all the way down.

    2) Post-Modernism is the philosophy which undergirds all the contradictions and insanity.

    3) NRx is primarily concerned with undoing this insanity in *all* its forms.

    4) Therefore, NRx is, at its base, nothing more than the rejection of post-modernism.

    5) That NRx seems much larger than this is only due to the extent that post-modernism has infiltrated every single facet of our society.


    Posted on October 9th, 2014 at 1:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Nota de Citação (#116) – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on September 6th, 2016 at 8:27 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment