Twitter cuts (#104)

Discuss.

December 9, 2016admin 53 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Reason

TAGGED WITH : , ,

53 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    China is for the most part a functional state, although as always a paper tiger. Refusing to hand out free bennies to whoever comes wandering along may have a lot to do with that.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 9th, 2016 at 4:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • reactionaryfuture Says:

    This reminds me of an article I can’t find, in which a guy was complaining in the 1980s that the Economics magazine would happily claim in the opinion sections that Japan was enjoying the fruits of laissez faire capitalism and opening up to free trade, then in the news section, it would report on Japanese restrictive and protectionist policies.

    You are doing the same with China, and it is interesting that lassez fairets seem to move like locusts to claim any place which is not stinking mess as proof of free trade et al, while activity ignoring the evidence which contradicts them before them.

    Hong Kong, Singapore, China – these are places in which protection against government as per republican structures are not really taken seriously, yet you obfuscate that. Why?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You really don’t get the Patchwork / Exit-pressure thing, do you? Find it hard to imagine how I could bang-on about it any harder.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Exit? China is FDR with ethnic cleansing.Not saying its not working for now but its not moldbugia

    [Reply]

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    China has, and has had for some time, strict emigration controls, controls of economic markets, strict control of who can own (businesses require co-Chinese owners,) government directed investment. In short, open and active governance.

    In addition, my experience of China (living in Taiwan, and having a recent broad tour of Wuhan) makes it clear that Chinese are anything but “anarchocapitalists” their consideration toward government approximates to almost total acceptance. Government says jump, and everyone jumps. I was also surprised by the ubiquitousness of government iconography in rural areas.

    China simply hasn’t had acute and chronic division of governance as per the UK and US. Your solution – encourage them to have divided governance!

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m not encouraging them to do anything. The Anglosphere is my culture. My only engagement with others is detached appreciation (if merited), combined with an attempt to do what I can to defend them from foreign evangelical-demotist meddling (which is, of course, not much). Contributing to the breaking of the Cathedral looks to me like the best way to help (a little).

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    You are aware that when people criticized divided Power they meant as in representative democracy, and not to imply that undivided Power means Stalinism?

    [Reply]

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    “You are aware that when people criticized divided Power they meant as in representative democracy, and not to imply that undivided Power means Stalinism”

    You have done two things there. One is to apply a liberal interpretation to the criticism of divided power (leads to strict Hobbesianism – aka enforcement of your personal conception of liberalism) and then to engage the age old liberal game of decrying non-divided governance as oppression, using an example of a breakdown of divided governance (or divided governance meeting reality) as a slur for undivided governance.

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    No, I did not do either of those things. I am simply saying what people who you are misinterpreting actually wrote on the subject.

    Posted on December 9th, 2016 at 4:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ur-mail Says:

    Diversity is used sloppily in popular discourse and often conflates two very different things: (1) Diversity of ethnicity/race and (2) Diversity of ideas/viewpoints/skills.

    People often argue for (1) based on benefits reported by studies where diversity actually means (2).

    For example, this oft-cited paper: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1396&context=articles – which one has to actually read to see claims diversity of viewpoint/skills is the truly important factor in team success. This very research study was cited in a diversity training seminar given at my work. The seminar was, of course, geared towards (1) – we “learned” about our bias by taking the highly apocryphal implicit association test (IAT) – yet all the compelling research I could find seemed to argue and measure (2) as more important for achieving the promised outcomes.

    Take this experience report with a grain of salt, but my few hours of research seemed to pretty clearly bare this out. It also demonstrated that finding contrarian research in the area of unconscious/implicit bias is incredibly difficult. For example, try Googling “unconscious bias empirical evidence” and watch pages of results appear taking the reality of unconscious bias as a given and arguing / reporting from there. It seems the entire industry is built on citation trees that ultimately point to only a handful of studies conducted by a small group of individuals.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    —>”citation trees”

    Great concept. Anyway, as for diversity. You hit the spot. Also, through a sinister dialectic they are progressing towards the Homogenized Man through “diversity”.

    It isn´t necessarily diversification as much as homogenization.

    http://www.google.is/search?q=homogenous+state+kojeve+universal

    These rhetorical tricks. Speaking of colored people as minorities, when they´re ca 9/10 of the earth.

    War is Peace

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Diversity of Ideas seems to correlate with diversity of ethnicity in the near future.

    [Reply]

    Ur-mail Reply:

    They are partially overlapping sets, but by no means identical.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    I didnt even claim causation just sayin corelation

    Posted on December 9th, 2016 at 5:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • darkreformation101 Says:

    To be rich is to be glorious. Deng Xioping (misattributed).

    In China, they have three gods: power, wealth and family. (My subjective impression.)

    See:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caishen

    (I love the Cantonese version of a song that is sung at New Year.)

    The Cantonese (who I mostly spent time with) have a saying:

    “Money can move any mountain.”

    However, in modern China, a trope is that of a “barefoot billionaire.” In Chinese (forgive my mistake) they say he is a “Too How.” A “new rich”. (Admin can, no doubt, explain this better.)

    See:

    https://www.ft.com/content/9ddb3ffc-5734-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2

    Refugees = Muslims.

    The Chinese are not foolish. The Muslims of Xinjiang stepped up attacks when I was there (Yunnan train attack (the worst); Beijing was bombed, and Guangzhou was hit by knife attacks.

    The Chinese responded (I believe I have this right) by executing certain miscreants in Football stadiums.

    One time, my friend told me a story about how a Muslim raped a Chinese. The Chinese men beat him to death. Then, the Muslims rioted. This brought the heavy police in.

    China stamps down hard on Islam. No beards ( at University), force them to eat pork, appoint imams, and put Xinjiang separatists in jail.

    Time will tell if this will work.

    I think the Chinese are onto a winning strategy, though. It is game theory. Retaliate, and retaliate hard (strike back, strike hard, strike decisively.)However, reciprocate with those who wish to reciprocate. The leaders talk a lot about “win-win” solutions (double win.)

    Also:

    Billionaires can now join the Party.

    Women “must” get married by 27.

    Murderers are executed.

    Youth gangs, gang rapes, police killings are virtually unheard off. (Young Chinese spend so much time in school……..hmm….)

    China does not need Africans or Muslims. There is no left (high and low against middle).

    @Reactionary Future and @ Admin.

    I have to agree with Reactionary Future here (assuming we are working off on Moldbug).

    See this for a taste:

    http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm

    Moldbug cites Friedrich List (a cameralist) as his second chief economic influence.

    Moldbug does not necessarily endorse free trade as an absolute — or any policy as an an absolute. The question is one of prudent judgment — as determined by a prudent sovereign who is reasoning from the point of view of a state (as a state).

    All the best.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    Any links for the football stadium executions?

    Re: free trade as an absolute. I think you’re right that Moldbug, in spirit if not by the letter, is more interested in states as self-contained experimental zones more than anything else.

    And, indeed, one can find companies that are analogs of socialist, nationalist, or protectionist states, so the state qua corporation concept is not undermined here. In California, one of the most successful companies is a little fast food diner chain called In-N-Out. It has never gone public, it’s been owned by the same family for three generations, only hires employees who are enrolled in or have graduated from an American high school, pays them a living wage (even the fry cooks), and promotes all managers from within. It’s essentially a national socialist company! And it’s a great place to work.

    [Reply]

    darkreformation101 Reply:

    Here is the link:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-27600397

    (However, they only sentenced them in the football stadiums, but they still did it in front of a crowd.)

    As for economics and GDP (which a poster below brought up) and Moldbug see his post on Sam Altman. Also, Moldbug wrote a very revealing comment on Foesti’s review of free trade (Google can bring it all up.)

    Hat tip to Reactionary Future here because it was him who helped me see just how subtle, and fundamentally radical, Moldbug is with law, property, economics, political governance etc.

    The principle here is a rejection of any kind of replacement for human judgement with procedures, algorithms, protocols, numbers etc. Reactionary Future gets a unfair rap, but I think he really does get Moldbug.

    GDP is a number, and a transient thing. Now, and I paraphrase Moldbug, we can have the shiny shiny, we can have the all growth we want, but what exactly is the state of the country and people? Is it safe and stable? Are the people healthy, happy and virtuous or crack-heads, whores and bums? Is there more crime? Yes. But is there more shiny shiny? Yes. What do you want? A number or a life? A community, a polis, or an abstraction?

    On China:

    Now, I should say, that among the younger generation of Chinese I see evidence of Cathedral corruption. It remains to be seen how China develops and deals with Cathedral infiltration.

    The West, the Modern Structure is, in the final analysis, out of control. It thrives on conflict, chaos and disorder. In many ways, it is a creature of pure Darwinism, but not about race but about structure and ideology. It seduces, absorbs, and, in some cases, annihilates its enemies. It needs to feed, it needs to infect, it needs to control.

    Anyway.

    I commend Nick Land for wanting to protect other cultures from the Cathedral. Serious suggestion: he should consider trying to influence the Chinese government in how it understands the Modern Structure. Perhaps he should write an Open Letter To Xi Jinping. If Westerners have no idea about political reality, it seems even less likely non-westerners will. Strategic Autism (see Luttwak) affects every culture of course.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >The principle here is a rejection of any kind of replacement for human judgement with procedures, algorithms, protocols, numbers etc.

    So Moldbug is just “privatize everything” ancap with “might makes right” in lieu of NAP?

    Posted on December 9th, 2016 at 7:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Ever since I accused Dan Haines of being quaint I’ve been thinking, damn we’re the new progressives aren’t we. RE: the rectification of names – is there an injustice involved in not thinking of ourselves as progressive (all cyclical history LARPing aside)? Billionaires over refugees, optimize for intelligence, this trend is not bereft of a “progressive” edge. More than a few times I’ve heard neoreactionaries lament the “false” diversity of our time, as if “diversity” remains untarnished in itself (Freudian slip wrote “untranished” at first). And we know how positively apelike most of us are regarding Liberty. This liberty **** is pretty quaint imo–is NRx a strand of self-hating libertarianism? Whatever it is it wouldn’t be unjust to name it crypto-libertarian — yet I Freudian slipped again and began typing “crypto-totalitarian” lol I don’t think I’m projecting here. Neoreaction is literally Hitler because everyone can sense its authoritarian essence. So there is always this tension of wanting one thing (supposedly) but doing the opposite. Free speech–when it works for ME. Might is right–when it works for ME. Lambasting others for unwitting neochristianity–when it works for ME.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    I think you’re correct in several senses, some reactionary strains are pretty theoretical, some to my mind make assumptions I think contradict what HBD implies or tells us.[neither capital or consumers always act rationally or in the long term interest of themselves, markets, or civilization. for instance]
    So this seems similar to the hubris that gets progressives in trouble.
    The similarity isn’t hurt when considering that Progressives at the highest levels seem to be creating virtual authoritarian aristocracies complete with exit courts.So if you allow they have some reason we haven’t fathomed, or seen the wisdom in yet, regarding importing cromags, they may be a sort of reactionary.And we may be from some perspectives progressives.
    Liberty enlightenment etc worked for us, even under kings,There were limits, but there are always some limits. We dont have the highest IQs but i dont think it was a fluke we ended up on top. I think out capacity for a relatively Rough and tumble liberty that doesn’t completely devolve is real and gave us an edge. But that ability to maintain the flux in equilibrium degrades as various diverse influences are introduces.

    Would a reactionary King really be able to manage the diversity tensions in todays USA? I dont see that as possible or at least I dont see how it would look much different than apartheid or Tsarist Russia, Jim Crow, or something basically not sustainable.
    So I think white nationalist have a point, that a European society would be a solid foundation with a track record. It seems some reactionaries imagine instead Yale, where a multicultural aristocracy is the Ideal.
    This seems so absurdly ill conceived on so many levels I cant be bothered to innumerate.

    This self actualization does indeed seem to be one of the main internal handicaps when it reaches a certain frequency.I dont actually think it could be repressed in Europeans no matter who the king was, Europeans will never be Chinese. However we used to act, muck more like they do now. If there is a place in the future for Europeans Its finding ways to maintain that individualism v civilization balance. Monarchy certainly seems on the surface a simple patch, some wise guy with enough power to simply step in when things go to far. Im skeptical its practicable but its certainly simple in theory.

    Reaction takes history as a guarantee of future results, rather than a beta release;its as if its not possible for lessons from history to be incorporated into a future reboot that might dampen the very things we know created the most problems. Perhaps because it get so complicated so fast. Feminism comes to mind, and oddly we spend a lot of time on racial diversity but little on what might be a much bigger issue.After all an ethno state is a simple matter in comparison.
    Conversely I think far to much concern is spent on the intra racial distribution to the left side of the curve. Im sure we will soon see China for instance, free of Christian/leftist morality, and the white mans burden shorten its tail rather easily.

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    I don’t see how that is true. For the most part, I don’t feel a great deal of desire to impose authoritarianism upon the world – simply to allow a diversity of societies to exist so that more solutions for societal problems can be found.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 10th, 2016 at 4:11 am Reply | Quote
  • izvirk Says:

    I hope China maintains its seemingly steadfast bulwark against the rot of Progress, as I fully expect a 1,000 year long second Dark Age to come to pass over the Occident. I noticed even in Sailer’s commentariat, many were quick to say; “gee, adopting these types of governmental policies would sure help save White people, but it just seems too brutal for me!” — this is a perspective I cannot abide. I fully agree with the notion that ethnicity is nationality.

    At any rate, China seems always to be stable but rarely to be moving forward. Maybe stability just seems to move forward very slowly, which seems an obvious enough point. Maybe we’re at such a point in time where “1,000 More Years” of stability coming from the Middle Kingdom would be a great boon from a species perspective. Assuming they continue launching things into space while White people are busy hurtling back into the age of bludgeonry.

    Of course, this also hinges on my assumption that when China did “Communism” with its Chinese characteristics and all, it wasn’t actually doing “Communism” at all. If China actually is susceptible to Western memetics on such a scale, then we’re probably all doomed to this rock forever. Sad!

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 10th, 2016 at 5:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Salger Says:

    I wonder how the China worshipers address how low its GDP per capita is when put up with Whiter countries.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s only had four decades since radical Maoism.

    Also, this “worshipers” bullshit is trying. Idiot WNs only have two modes: vulgar race hatred or ‘worship’. It’s exactly how their rhetoric on the Jews works too.

    As Churchill said about the Germans: “They’re either at your throat or on their knees.” Works for Hyperboreans in general.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Oh Volk off, Poseidon’s gonna drown the UK just like he did Atlantis.

    “Anarchy, a white wave, waits
    Big and patient as death. Already its drops
    Are wetting your shoes and watering your lawn.”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Butt he workd for ol´ England whenne he drownd the Spanish armada?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Doesn´t make him less real, but the Powers of the Sea are universal.

    FromTheNewWorld Reply:

    4 decades? China has had a lower GDP per capita compared to western European countries for something like 800 years now. Skim through an economics history book sometime, you might learn a thing or two (like how deep the roots of the great divergence really are).

    For someone who claims to be interested in intensive growth you make some pretty bizarre remarks. (You’re also still in dumb ape mode over the ‘white nationalists’. Is this just an attempt at being ironic? Post-ironic?)

    [Reply]

    Salger Reply:

    > It’s only had four decades since radical Maoism.

    You look like those muds or their apologists who blame all dysfunction or lack of accomplishment on slavery/colonialism/capitalism/whatever.

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    Chinese living in cities such as Shanghai are already richer than European countries such as Italy. Chinese are literally colonizing Vancouver, and maybe all of Australia. In another 10 years (or 15-20 if they have their depression) there will be 300 to 500 million Chinese with enough wealth and savings to outbid Westerners for their homes.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    Oh, they’re doing the same in California. It took my sister three years to purchase a home because every time she came close to closing, a Chinese would swoop in and pay cash.

    [Reply]

    FromTheNewWorld Reply:

    Here’s a little hint: it’s called capital flight.
    (Pertinent example: Japan in the second half of the 1980s.)

    FromTheNewWorld Reply:

    You’re stupid. Did anyone tell you that before? They should have. (Did you even bother to do some basic fact checking before you posted that crap? Of course not.)

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    These are Chinese nationals. I’m sure a non-trivial amount of money they make from flipping houses ends up flowing back to China.

    FromTheNewWorld Reply:

    Doubt it. If I have learned one thing about the Chinese over the years it’s that they’re not very patriotic when it comes to money (who is, anyway?). That’s why they’re buying property outside China with all the money they made inside China by flipping houses in the first place.The preferred destination a few years ago was Hong Kong. But Hong Kong’s real estate market is over-saturated and has a very, very high barrier to entry as a consequence.

    China is not safe for private capital. You don’t even need to know a lot about China when it comes to it. You only need to ask the market. Why are foreign billionaires buying property in London and not Beijing?

    Posted on December 10th, 2016 at 5:13 am Reply | Quote
  • darkreformation101 Says:

    The Chinese are good, very good, but they have blinkers. See Luttwak for example.

    How could the Chinese fix this problem of strategic autism?

    In all seriousness, recruit a bunch of High IQ western educated Joo Joo.

    A good sovereign should have control groups Teams A B C………

    Keep them isolated. Make them study and report on a problem or question. The Sovereign reads the reports, perhaps gets the team-leader of each control group to engage each other. Then, make a determination.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 10th, 2016 at 6:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    — « The S.I. can thus be seen to echo some of Marx’s contentions in the Grundrisse prior to its French translation (Marx: “For real wealth is the developed productive power of all individuals. The measure of wealth is then not any longer, in any way, labour time, but rather disposable time” »

    Wealth is disposable time? That´s too reductionist. Wealth is power. Which obviously includes the power to have time for one´s disposition.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 10th, 2016 at 6:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @Salger

    You all got Nick rolled

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    *Moldbug voice*

    Nicholas is a communist person.

    NIACP

    [Reply]

    FromTheNewWorld Reply:

    If by “Nick rolled” you mean “made witnesses to Nick’s shooting himself in the foot” then I agree. I’m standing by my initial diagnosis: Landian NRx is so uncannily close to the alt-right that the only way admin can get himself some wiggle room is by persistent screeching. The necessity is evident in that the screeching has reached a point where it makes no bloody sense any more, from a factual standpoint. What is the evidence of east Asian exceptionalism? Why, in Singapore and Hong Kong, of course. What is the metric? Why, ignoring damn near every other city state in existence, of course. You wouldn’t want to wrinkle your “data” by including Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, or San Marino in the “analysis”.

    What happened to the key techno-commercialist insight that the city-state is the optimal scale of a polity, anyway? Obviously, the alt-right has a white fetish, so counter-signalling with an asian fetish is more important.

    (It’s becoming increasingly obvious that someone needs to rescue techno-commercialism before Land destroys the brand completely with his inane fights with the alt-right. At the very least get the man banned from twitter. He’s growing sillier by the post in that environment.)

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This is Nick Land himself writing.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    As Nick Land myself I have to say that even if the discrepancy between the alt-right and neoreaction is frivolous it’s productive to exaggerate it for reasons of dynamism. *insert reference to Gnon to anchor my claim here* Stagnation is the death of thought.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    le grande
    de lande

    FromTheNewWorld Reply:

    “Atlantean”, “Hyperborean”, ‘Anglo’, ‘German’, ‘Chinese’, ‘white’, ‘yellow’ — nigger, who gives a shit!? Shouldn’t you have your eyes on the prize? What a bunch of horseshit.

    I disavow Landian NRx.

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    I believe this is an overreaction given that he’s mostly looking for a real-world model and noting its functional elements. I highly doubt he’s trying all that hard to counter signal as much as to look for an example of success outside the Cathedral. The entire point is to demonstrate that viable alternatives to the Cathedral exist, in which case, it is fatal to the univeralist notions of the Cathedral.

    [Reply]

    FromTheNewWorld Reply:

    I believe that you’re grossly mistaken. Hot collectivism is easy to discern. I believe that admin believes the same. Unless his purported allegiance to cold collectivism is nothing but hot air.

    Is it?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ???

    collen ryan Reply:

    I have always thought pretending the dark enlightenment is not like those racist alt righters is a subtlety no one to the left of alt right will appreciate. So fine, critique the altright if they are socialists, but really what the point is there to critique that they dont discriminate against non whites properly.
    I have also thought that land seems to favor a multicultural reaction, rather than reaction for a multitude of cultures. He seems to favor IQ over culture or race. I really dont see this as practical. He cant exit his race, multiculturalism is what reaction is mainly critiquing, has he got a secret recipe for a multiculturalism that works and is sustainable? He seems to think its IQ,but thats what we have.
    He seems to think it will be different without democracy. Because what?, we can vote the mean reversions off the island? because we can stabilize non white outlier intelligence? Theres so much easier ways to get civilization that works.
    This is not to say intelligent is not probably the most important trait, But that its not the only trait.

    No I simply meant admin was trolling you guys for his amusement.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Land is in the 21st century.

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    The animals are growing restless. Admin, you need to get that Bitcoin book finished and on Amazon so you can return to the fray in long(ish)form.

    People are “disavowing” you! Wat do?!

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 10th, 2016 at 9:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • darkreformation101 Says:

    @darkreformation101

    @Michael

    I would put forward the claim that we can analytically distinguish three doctrines in Moldbug that make up a complete package:

    1: a doctrine of law and justice. (Formalism.)
    2: An economic doctrine. (Neocameralism.)
    3: A doctrine of governance (Neo-Royalism.)

    You can 1 without 2 and 3, and you can have 3 without 2 and 1, and 2 without 1 and 3.

    What’s missing is an ethical theory (as in a virtue ethics). Reactionary Future has been plowing that field. I would like to see him, however, develop a virtue ethics (both for epistemology and ethical (moral) conduct) of a potential sovereign. For instance, who is his model ruler? What habits and routines would they have? What would their education consist off? How do they acquire their virtues?

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    But Moldbug didn’t advocate virtue ethics. Moldbug is a socially liberal Jewish atheist who quite explicitly voiced his support for same-sex “marriage”. Furthermore his theory could hardly be called reactionary, it’s just French School Classical Liberalism (some of them used to be quite big on believing in eastern despotism i.e. absolute monarchy as the only way toward limited government, of course, they weren’t the only ones, after all, in his Mr. Jones is rather concerned he quotes David Hume).

    [Reply]

    darkreformation101 Reply:

    Of course he didn’t.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 10th, 2016 at 9:31 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment