Twitter cuts (#75)

Rallying the futurist constituency for a change of direction. (Any positive Trump expectations are the part of this that will age least well.)

ADDED, bonus —

ADDED (one more):

August 4, 2016admin 90 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Collapse

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

90 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Instead of working four hours a day, we have a welfare state.

    [Reply]

    4K Reply:

    Here. (If you want to go over there?)

    NRx is neither for nor against 4 hour days or welfare states (remember?). I’m also struggling to find where you saw the p@!!y a$$ CLint EAstwOOd reason to signal such a concern based on such an heroic post on Spacemen? We have better shit to do.

    Something about Burning Shit to the Ground … then eating Oysters off Titan.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Gnon opposes the welfare state.

    [Reply]

    Lucian Reply:

    More parsimonious: Gnon opposes.

    grey enlightenment Reply:

    Gnon is indecisive. Gnon knows too muh welfare will make the entire system fail , along with gnon

    frank Reply:

    There’s no such thing as a little welfare state. There’s no such thing as a little cancer.

    Henk Reply:

    Gnon opposes the welfare state.

    Really? Let’s see.

    In (The Mythical Man-Month)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheMythicalMan-Month#Themythicalman-month], Fred Brooks basically tells us that in his profession you can’t replace one guy working eight hours by two guys working four. If you’re unlucky, you can’t even replace one guy working eight hours with three guys working four. Communication overhead kills productivity.

    His profession was developing IBM mainframe operating systems, but the insight generalizes to other brainy activities.

    In other news, Gnon hates you if you don’t optimize return on capital.

    Since we’re all hip to the HBD, we know this means Gnon opposes this idea of brainy White (and Asian, dropped for brevity) males with brainy jobs working just four hours a day. Because supply of brainy White males is limited and fixed (on the relevant time scales), replacing one guy working eight hours with (say) two-point-five guys working four hours would mean the market would be driving up cost even beyond the Brooks multiplier.

    Remember, Gnon hates you if you don’t optimize return on capital.

    Therefore, in Gnon paradise White guy works to the limit of his ability, welfare mama consumes that which would otherwise have allowed White guy to reduce his workload, and Capital’s Willing Executioners make sure it stays that way.

    admin Reply:

    If libertarians could even imagine putting an argument together on the moral plane of this one, they’d sweep the planet.

    Henk Reply:

    Oops, link fail.

    Hawk Spitui Reply:

    @admin If libertarians really hated the state as much as they hate the nation, they’d actually be good for something.

    Erebus Reply:

    @4K

    The opening paragraph to that book:

    >”From predictions of new worlds of leisure, to Soviet-era cosmic communism, to afro-futurist celebrations of the synthetic and diasporic nature of black culture, to post-gender dreams of radical feminism, the popular imagination of the left envisaged societies vastly superior to anything we dream of today.”

    Hah… “Vastly superior.” That made me laugh.

    The book, although poorly written, isn’t wholly worthless; it touches on interesting themes which should be familiar to all of us. It had, for instance, a paragraph on Exit which is worth reading:

    >”Other movements argue for an approach of withdrawal, whereby individuals exit from existing social institutions. Horizontalism is closely linked to this approach, being predicated on the rejection of existing institutions and the creation of autonomous forms of community. Indeed, the recent history of activism has tended towards such approaches. Often these approaches are explicitly opposed to complex societies, meaning that the ultimate implied destination is some form of communitarianism or anarcho-primitivism. Others suggest making oneself invisible in order to evade detection and repression by the state. At the extreme, some argue for what amounts to a left-wing survivalism: civilisation is in catastrophe, and we should therefore become invisible, retreat to small communes, and learn how to grow food, hunt, heal and defend ourselves. If left at the level of survivalism, these kinds of positions, while perhaps unappealing, would at least have some consistency. They at least have the virtue of being open about their implications. However, arguments for withdrawal and exit too easily confuse the idea of a social logic separate from capitalism with a social logic that is antagonistic to capitalism – or, in an even stronger claim, that poses a threat to capitalist logics. Yet capitalism has been and will continue to be compatible with a wide range of different practices and autonomous spaces. The Spanish town of Marinaleda offers a useful example of this. Over the course of three decades, this small community (pop. 2,700) has built up a ‘communist utopia’ that has expropriated land, built its own housing and co-operatives, kept living costs low, and provided work for everyone. Yet the limits of such an approach for transforming capitalism are quickly revealed: housing materials are provided by the regional government, agricultural subsidies come from the European Union, jobs are sustained by the rejection of labour-saving devices, income still comes from selling goods on wider capitalist markets, and businesses remain subjected to capitalist competition and the global financial crisis. Marinaleda is but one example of how the project of withdrawing, escaping or exiting from capitalism is still contained within a folk-political horizon, within which defending small bunkers of autonomy against the onslaught of capitalism is the best that can be hoped for. Yet we would argue not only that more can be hoped for (and achieved), but that, in the absence of broad and systematic contention, even those small pockets of resistance are likely to be swiftly eradicated.”

    The (shallow) insight here lies in how the Left views Exit. It should go without saying that the author’s argument is against it. “Valuing withdrawal or exit rather than building a broad counter-hegemony” is a bad thing. This is not surprising, it is simply textbook Leftism.

    On the whole, the book is Hegelian nonsense. (In the direction of history, the implicit overbearing role of the state, etc. Capital “P” Progressive.) That it contains the occasional interesting paragraph does not make it worthy of serious intellectual consideration. In fact, its economic and scientific arguments are incredibly stupid. For instance, the “four basic demands.”

    >”1.Full automation
    2.The reduction of the working week
    3.The provision of a basic income
    4.The diminishment of the work ethic

    “While each of these proposals can be taken as an individual goal in itself, their real power is expressed when they are advanced as an integrated programme. This is not a simple, marginal reform, but an entirely new hegemonic formation to compete against the neoliberal and social democratic options. The demand for full automation amplifies the possibility of reducing the working week and heightens the need for a universal basic income. A reduction in the working week helps produce a sustainable economy and leverage class power. And a universal basic income amplifies the potential to reduce the working week and expand class power. It would also accelerate the project of full automation: as worker power rose and as the labour market tightened, the marginal cost of labour would increase as companies turned towards machinery in order to expand.”

    How this set of demands would go catastrophically wrong for the lower classes should be trivially self-evident.

    I liked the book’s last passage, though: “Neoliberalism, as secure as it may seem today, contains no guarantee of future survival. Like every social system we have ever known, it will not last forever. Our task now is to invent what happens next.”

    …Which is the entire point of NRx. To do the same, but from the (outer) Right.

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    How this set of demands would go catastrophically wrong for the lower classes should be trivially self-evident.

    Not really, considering that the prefered NRx alternative seems to be automation leading to a massive dieback of the obsolete workforce. This, after all, is how you optimize for intelligence.

    Erebus Reply:

    That “not really” doesn’t quite follow.

    In any case, a massive dieback is certainly preferable to a permanent underclass of infantilized and obsolete sub-humans. Preferable for all — objectively better. More compassionate, more humane, obviously much more eugenic… and the sooner it can be brought about, the better!

    Speaking of optimization, what’s the left trying to “optimize for” with all this? Besides decadence, ennui, and a thoroughly enfeebled and dependent populace, that is…

    NRK Reply:

    Preferable for all – the subhumans in question, i.e. the lower class you think should be wary of a basic income, would certainly beg to differ. The only reason you don’t is that you wouldn’t possibly count yourself among them, which is to say that you have trouble imagining the places intelligence-optimization might go.

    Prepare to get triggered: the left, whereever it’s still worth its salt, doesn’t care much for optimization; what Marcuse called the ‘performance principle’, i.e. the capitalist mode of involvement with reality, it intends to overcome.

    NRK Reply:

    @hypnosifl
    You’re absolutely right about that, the maintenance and refinement of a, say, professional hierarchy is part of the deal.

    Regarding Zizek’s point, I can’t help but think that we have a proper leftist dilemma right there: on the one hand, I see how an anarchist/direct democratic socialist order would involve way too much discussion and the general terror of being part of a community. On the other, a specific political class could quickly run into coordination problems or turn stalinesque.
    The lazy, unsatisfying, but nonetheless orthodox answer seems to be that we can’t really imagine how society works once the spell of commodity fetishism is broken. Doesn’t help, but then again, what does?

    @a

    the 10.000.000 distributed nailbombs in the face of functional-order that Leftism is.
    Ok now you’re making it sound way cooler than it actually is.

    a Reply:

    ▬ “the 10.000.000 distributed nailbombs in the face of functional-order, that is Leftism.
    Ok now you’re making it sound way cooler than it actually is.”

    > the essence of Leftism: the fascination with the violation of the good.

    a Reply:

    But really tho, I am an ex-Leftist. I´m not against a welfare state even. Who could? ‘Welfare’ is obviously a thing of welfare, a positive thing. How it is explicated, i.e. designed in details, re incentive and such, is another.

    I am though against Statism-as-banning Uber, e.g. Statism-as-banning unpasteurized milk. Statism as pseudoaffirmative-action. Statism-as-denying-others needlessly, e.g. denying them out of pure machismo-feminismo (the two-wing chauvinismo) to form states.

    And what does the pseudoliberal semi-Communist USGOV allow, only one type of police or taxi service?

    There´s a 5.000 year tradition of calling the right things ‘right.’ You put the components in right order otherwise the machine won´t work, or it will half-work (e.g. the VCR won´t play any sound).

    No need for me to reinvent the wheel, but I can reinvent the right, indeed, restore it like a broken car, which requires functional parts & work to work.

    Being ‘alternative’, ‘left not right’ may sound cool for the first 3 decades of your life, but it really ain´t cool unless you´re an alternative that works, unlike the Soviet Union, which what, provided dozens of millions of people with only one type of toothbrush?

    Zizek et al is a cool intellectual-dreamer, but he´s a half-philosopher (he said he despises wisdom, ‘sophia’ means wisdom).

    There isn´t statecraft being done in his name, and the statecraft that´s been tried through Marx were human history´s greatest terrors & catastrophes.

    Simplex sigillum veri, yo.

    Because you´re neither superior, nor inferior; nor equal Reply:

    ▬ „the left, whereever it’s still worth its salt, doesn’t care much for optimization … the ‘performance principle’, i.e. the capitalist mode of involvement with reality, it intends to overcome.”

    Involvement with reality is always what they have (consciously or not) wanted and attempted to overcome.

    Got anything new?

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    Not quite, the left is biased towards those aspects which provide opportunities for human self-actualization and social change. The right demonstrably has the opposite bias.

    Because you´re neither superior, nor inferior; nor equal Reply:

    ‘Social change’ just means ‘social change.’ E.g. the social change from the political change of Stalin for those who died in the famine.

    I asked you for something new though.

    Anyway, so what we´ve done here is to provide alternate de finitions of dia metrical oppo sites. I spewed one, you an other.

    You defined ‘Right’ as ‘bias against self-actualization and [i´ll put here social emancipation rather than the vague “change”‘.

    This is not how ‘Right’ is defined at this site.

    ‘Right’ here is the emancipation of man & beyond-man. It is his emancipation through his freedom to build, and to trade with his fellow man.

    What are you going to do now, tell us that we can´t define right as we see fit?

    According to which Bureau then?

    NRK Reply:

    You seem to assume that I was trying to answer your question when in fact I was trying to correct your assumption that the left is against reality in general. In shrugging this off, you are helping political currents you claim to oppose.
    Your poor reading comprehension doesn’t stop there though, since you claim that I defined the political dichotomy in terms of the respective biases, which I didn’t, I merely pointed those biases out.
    Anyway, on to the juicy bits:

    ‘Right’ here is the emancipation of man & beyond-man. It is his emancipation through his freedom to build, and to trade with his fellow man.

    What are you going to do now, tell us that we can´t define right as we see fit?

    Are we even reading the same blog right here? Emancipation of man & beyond-man? Because they do productive labour? Sure you’re not thinking of oldschool marxism?
    No, it just sounds like that, because you left out something crucial here: emancipation – from what?
    Include that, and suddenly it all makes sense: emancipation, not of man, but of those who, through natural talent, diligence or augmentation (that’s the beyond-man part) end out on top of the competition in building, trade etc, from…the demands of those they outcompete. Why do they need to be emancipated? Because social change took place and placed the winners in uncomfortable proximity to the losers. The right-wing project is to undo this social change and restore the natural (in this case) meritocratic hierarchy, because that’s the only way we can ensure the existence of white people/law and order/the heavenly kingdom/face tentacles/a universe full of paperclips/intelligence.

    And of course you can define the right any way you want, but that wouldn’t save your definition from being wrong.

    Because you´re neither superior, nor inferior; nor equal Reply:

    You start with a morass. Poor communication & accusations. “You did, you did, you did but i dinni du nuffin, so nothing can save you from being wrong because I [me and my ideological international] define right.”

    How you are paraphrased, after being seen-thru, you will attempt to excuse yourself from, with >uh that´s a non sequitur” “uh you must have poor reading skills.”

    Maybe you just missed the lines between the dots? Or maybe you are intellectually uncharitable to hide your 3rd grade rational-abstractional-equational ability?

    Your inner Authoritarian shines through, disguised as “improving the situation.”

    Equality, like any abstraction, is ultimately a lie. A legend on a map that will never be what it´s supposed to (re)present. It does not make it not real, it does not even make it not true. Like feelings, they´re true lies. And not divorced from ratio. Feeling can be measured (blood pressure, heart pulse, skin colour, etc, etc, et cetera), and equality can be abstracted, agreed upon, felt (in Western-Europe equality was very much felt as well as ‘actually taking place [comparatively]’ for the 90´s middle-class). It´s just that the value abstraction system of ad-hoc capitalist systems is more accurate an abstraction-equational system than the abstraction-equational system based on over-planned ideological projections.

    To think that there is not capitalism within “Leftist” society is utterly erroneous. The choice is rather between economics obscured by a nonpracticable ideology or economics that it´s admitted is ad-hoc (‘for the task’) rather than ideal.

    Leftism really is the gospel of poverty. But Christ never called for materialist Communism. He called for communal feeling of the group when eating together, where the red vine symbolizes the common humanity (experienced if you drink a bit of the vine and focus on agape). Thus materialist communism is the inversion of Christ´s joyous feast of feeling equality with your loved ones, where instead of red vine flowing freely there flows the blood of executions & torture.

    If you want to be charitable to those who are not able to support themselves and their projects, please do that. But don´t make things worse by meddling with people who are building improved things and trading utilities for that purpose.

    NRK Reply:

    Ok so I’ll just ignore the insults -remember, I meant to trigger the other guy, not you, you’re collateral- and try to make sense of what you just wrote.

    Equality, like any abstraction, is ultimately a lie.

    Yes, materialism, good start. I never mentioned equality, but that doesn’t matter right now.

    Like feelings, they´re true lies. And not divorced from ratio.

    Mmmmhm, you go girl!

    and equality can be abstracted

    Wait I thought it was already an abstraction what happens when you abstract it

    It´s just that the value abstraction system of ad-hoc capitalist systems is more accurate an abstraction-equational system than the abstraction-equational system based on over-planned ideological projections.

    That’s a weirdly convoluted way of saying that the free market is more effective than a planned economy…at being what, accurate? And only if the planned economy makes its decisions on the basis of ideology?

    To think that there is not capitalism within “Leftist” society is utterly erroneous.

    The scare quotes ruin that statement, as they suggest that such a society, precisely because there is still capitalism, wouldn’t really be leftist at all.

    The choice is rather between economics obscured by a nonpracticable ideology or economics that it´s admitted is ad-hoc (‘for the task’) rather than ideal.

    Nice example for the right-wing bias I mentioned: the economy, a system of human interaction, is presented as an immutable fact of nature. We’d rather splice our genes to adapt to it than attempt to change it.

    Leftism really is the gospel of poverty. But Christ never called for materialist Communism.

    Now religion has entered the picture…are trying to publish your manifesto in this comment section? Slow down, take your time, you’re all over the place. And since you apparently take me to be a hardline leftist, what are you even hoping to achieve in appealing to my religious sensibilities?

    If you want to be charitable to those who are not able to support themselves and their projects, please do that. But don´t make things worse by meddling with people who are building improved things and trading utilities for that purpose.

    Who, me? Alright, I won’t increase anyone’s taxes, but only this year. After that…well how am I suposed to support the poor without the money of the rich? You tell me.

    Because you´re neither superior, nor inferior; nor equal Reply:

    How you take a message a part to miss what it delivers, rather than trying to summarize the senders meaning as best you can, is utterly pathetic.

    NRK Reply:

    Summarize your meaning? That’s asking a bit much. Also, stop insulting me please it’s not nice.

    Because you´re neither superior, nor inferior; nor equal Reply:

    You see when you read a message, there was a specific meaning the senders had in mind. If your desire is to mutilate the message rather than do a favorable heuristic, you will have done just that.

    NRK Reply:

    Sorry, but the most favourable summary of your little rant I can come up with is still “Here, let me derail our conversation real quick with a list of things I find objectionable about leftism, none of which has anything to do with what we’ve been talking about so far”.

    Aryan hell services ltd. Reply:

    Ah, the “non sequitur” complaint, and what did I predict?

    Aryan hell services ltd. Reply:

    Come on buddy, now you´ve phrased what I´ve said as a ‘rant’ opposed to your?

    Aryan hell services ltd. Reply:

    Would you be able to show how the economy, a system of human interaction, is not an immutable fact of nature?

    Aryan hell services ltd. Reply:

    Equality, like any abstraction, is ultimately a lie.

    Yes, materialism, good start. I never mentioned equality, but that doesn’t matter right now.

     

    You never mentioned equality? It´s one of the main topics of this site.

    It´s one of the main topics in math.

     

    Like feelings, they are true lies. And not divorced from ratio.

    “Mmmmhm, you go girl!” in response

     

    Utterly pathetic. One of the missions of this site is to divine intelligent behavior.

    And do you think emotions do not factor in that?

    In predicting behavior?

     

    Equality can be abstracted

    Wait I thought it was already an abstraction what happens when you abstract it

    Equality is a phenomenon. It factors in measurement. When you abstract it you have a new sum.

    “It´s just that the value abstraction system of ad-hoc capitalist systems is more accurate an abstraction-equational system than the abstraction-equational system based on over-planned ideological projections.”

    the free market is more effective than a planned economy…at being what, accurate?

    Yes, and meeting the people´s demands.

    And only if the planned economy makes its decisions on the basis of ideology?

    No, as to capitalize predates what you postulize as ideology.

    To think that there is not capitalism within supposedly a completely non-rightist society is utterly erroneous.

     

     

    Aryan hell services ltd. Reply:

    winging in the backyard
    Pull up in your fast car
    Whistling my name

    Open up a beer
    And you take it over here
    And play a video game

    I’m in his favorite sun dress
    Watching me get undressed
    Take that body downtown

    I say you the bestest
    Lean in for a big kiss
    Put his favorite perfume on

    Go play a video game

    It’s you, it’s you, it’s all for you
    Everything I do
    I tell you all the time
    Heaven is a place on earth with you
    Tell me all the things you want to do
    I heard that you like the bad girls
    Honey, is that true?
    It’s better than I ever even knew
    They say that the world was built for two
    Only worth living if somebody is loving you
    Baby now you do

    NRK Reply:

    Good morning mate, are you done yet?
    You need to calm down, you’re even getting mad at the parts where I’m agreeing with you – e.g. what you said about abstractions and emotions.
    Aren’t right-wingers supposed to be dispassionate and calm, presenting those starry-eyed leftists with the Cold Equations and laughing with gnon at their horrified response?
    Anyway, some of your points are still worth adressing:
    Claiming that economic relations of any kind are an immutable fact of nature stands in contradiction with the fundamental assumption (of said relations) that the interactions in question are deliberate, i.e. they could take place differently, or not at all.
    Furthermore, you appear to be framing the left/right divide entirely in terms of unregulated trade vs centralized planning, which, while extremely common, is in more than one way a false dichotomy: neither are the two necessarily mutually exclusive, nor are they the only ways of providing people with goods.
    Now the part about equality, what is it? An abstraction? Abstracted from what? And also a phenomenon (the things abstractions are usually abstracted from)? At the same time, in the same sense? Is it some abstract horror entity, a noumenon with fangs? A platonic form? Is it right behind right norkgkrkjgjrjfjfjfid

    Apotheotic Monkey Business Ltd. Reply:

    Hey hey, whoa there pilgrim!

    >[Proceeds to ignore much of what he´d been asked and shown, instead makes passive aggressive remarks, erroneously projects behind-the-screen behavior, then proceeds to nitpick inanely and almost ad nauseum]. What is abstraction? What is equality? What color is the sky? Hey hey calm down, I thought I thought I thought I thought ….

    Are you done? Because either you really are this much of a pseudo-intellectual, or you´re being disingenuous. I think it´s a mix of both. Either way, the most boring commentator I´ve so far engaged on this site (but I´ve met your verily common type, quite often elsewhere).

    hypnosifl Reply:

    “You never mentioned equality? It´s one of the main topics of this site.”

    That may be true, but mainly as a cartoonish strawman of how leftists think. The left tends to be more relatively egalitarian than the right on a sliding scale, but for the most part they aren’t radical blank-slaters who think everyone’s potential talents are exactly equal at birth. Steven Pinker is a pretty popular author among intellectual leftists in the U.S., and he wrote a whole book titled “The Blank Slate” that was one long argument against this sort of idea, for example.

    The most plausible attempt I’ve seen to propose some kind of “root” difference between left and right was in a post by Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex where he suggested leftist values tend to arise out of a sense of a world of greater abundance where we don’t have to struggle as much for basic survival needs:

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/04/a-thrivesurvive-theory-of-the-political-spectrum/

    I also posted some thoughts on this, along with a link to some research that seems to support it, on this thread in the slatestarcodex reddit forum: http://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/4wasxu/a_thrivesurvive_theory_of_the_political_spectrum/

    Arian´s Apothecary Reply:

    As someone who likes to read biobehavioral reports, I´d like to point out that man´s ability to consider some thing equal to an other, is his “math” ability.

    Man thinks through symbols. Images. Characters.

    These are ab-stractions of phenomena.

    Drawing. Simulacra. Concepts.

    Say a lion crossing a path, in which a big boulder is blocking a straight trajectory. The lion compares the rock with the rest of the surroundings. It navigates geometric space. It does not do this “perfectly”, but typically, well enough (which is, as it were, ad-hoc perfection).

    You only have to observe the family cat to see how it navigates its environment, and then depending on the ability to abstract (this means ‘make a representation of’) the situation accurately enough to act on. It sometimes decides to cancel a jump it had obviously calculated & posturized for. It might recalculate and finally decide, act and fail.

    These sort of descriptions are in natural sciences reports, as well as in more popular or popularized reportive materials.

    Man, building on his prehuman organism, does the same. And he does it with more subtle ideas too. Ideas about other humans, & abstractions beyond the scope of animals which results in technologies. The specifically human high comparisational ability and acting mobility.

    E.g. the valuation (abstraction) of “is this guy [an object] as weighty [able] in abilities as that guy.”

    This phenomenon may be abstracted as »Observe, Orient, Decide, Act«.

    You can feel equal but there are infinite ‘equalizations’ changing every moment, to adapt to forces which are by logical necessity always beyond abstracted/measured ratio altho not divorced from it. The most interesting ‘Right’ vs. ‘Left’ difference is to realize this or not (as always there´s an index, a scale, a spectrum of what is differentiated) — and especially to be able to nonsentimentally see how this applies to humans. To believe that humans are equals can get in the way of positing them on the index. Plato referred to this as ‘the Great Chain of Being’, but it´s more commonly known now as hierarchy. That is not to say that men´s trajectories, their class mobility is utterly static, but that they are always where they are not without reason (i.e. a reason for it, a bad move, bad fate, fatalistic or fortuitous moves).

    In the art of operating & navigating emotion informs you. Mere sentiment or hope, as tradition classifies it, does not.

    This site is anti-political, it is science oriented & willing to learn from history.

    The history of the concept of right, is very stable for almost all of our history.

    It´s virtually coterminous with justice. It´s only very recently that this was splintered. But it´s all still here, never dead. In our language, in our customs, in our institutions.

    If you are born in a slum, it is in most (all) cases because your parents made some non-smart moves vs. their countrymen who live in more secure or more productive places. We start where we do because of family history (linage), and if your grandpa lost in business vs. somebody else´s, that might be (is) one of the significant reasons why you and your dad live in X neighborhood (if that´s what you´re looking for, but it applies to anything: e.g. a father was a shoemaker who had an influence on his son so that he too became a shoemaker; or just any fortunate or unfortunate scenario). Nobody got where they are out of a vacuum or for ‘no reason.’ Even lying, however pathetic it is, is a natural ability. Nobody guarantees anything perfectly in the world. The rich didn´t just pick up a Coke can and start selling it.

    Yes, injustices are suffered and neither the state nor “God” doth correct them all. But Gnon does, in his fortuitous manner. And to me, Gnon is god. But he values virtues because they work for your own experience and for communities far better in the long term than vices (lying, cheating, & other disinfo).

    There´s a science of running a society that works for centuries with order and cleanliness on the streets, rather than it being likely that a bomb or an assault rifle might go off at your face whenever.

    Running a state has always properly been about establishing, maintaining and increasing the security, & liberty of its citizens.

    That´s why they´ve been called ‘reich’, ‘ríki’, ‘rig’, (realm), etymologically cognate with dozens & dozens of indoeuropean concepts of Right, Order, Richness & Justice. Of course, if it becomes e.g. too luxorious, it might start to decline on the military side. Indeed, and if it becomes too unfair to its people, it is not right anymore, and not a reich. In fact, there never was a second Reich, and the Third is firstly an idealization by a few authors, and then a notorious propagandazation by anti-Germanicists.

    ▬ Reich „German, “kingdom, realm, state,” from Old High German rihhi, related to Old English rice, from Proto-Germanic *rikja “rule” (source also of Old Norse riki, Danish rige, Old Frisian and Middle Dutch rike, Dutch rijk, Gothic reiki), from PIE *reg- (1) “move in a straight line,” hence, “direct in a straight line, rule, guide” (see regal).”
    ▬ „The term rta is based on the Sanskrit verbal root r (“go, move”), which itself reflects the Indo-European verbal root *ar (“fit together properly”).”

    Pretty fucking physical (systemic) stuff, like all the religious concepts are, I find, after having studied them for 15 years. Even ‘economy’ refers to the same, cf. tfd.com/economy #6, in where ‘economy of God’ means the same thing as ‘karma’ for the Vedic derived civilization, and Fortune & assorted concepts for the Romans. All concepts, systems of concepts, to describe how one move, for virtue (e.g. bravery) or vice (e.g. greed) increases your traveled trajectory on one type of vector (path) or another.

    I´m not some pretentious historical re(en)actor, I´m ready for the bleak dystopia too.

    But the above is right.

    Arian´s addendum Reply:

    Plato summarized this (the hallmark of any genuine intellectual is his summarization skill) as « mèdeis ageômetrètos eisitô mou tèn stegèn » — and, as they say, political science begins with Platón.

    And science starts with Aristóteles.

    (Of course both had started before them.)

    There is one submittal I would predict the left would chew on, and that is that „if you are born in a slum, it is in most (all) cases because your parents made some non-smart moves vs. their countrymen who live in more secure or more productive places.”

    This is still right. The moves of the parents (and their parents, and so on) do influence that much. The more we learn, the more this theory (view) is supported (I recommend the BBC, haven´t seen the Nova).

    It would seem like I am being, as it were, completely deterministic.

    As if individuals don´t have autonomy over their life´s trajectories.

    That is not what I have shown or stated. I even think there is a relatively free will.

    The concept is misunderstood. There isn´t an absolutely free will, nor an absolutely free market, but a relatively free one. It´s a vector of independence vs. an opposing vector of dependence.

    I still live where I do because of my father´s choices. And my grandfather´s and so on. Just not merely, only or absolutely because of them. But because of a convergence of effects from multiple choices with varieties of significance within multiple scenarios.

    a Reply:

    To summarize all of the above: “equality is the relationship between expressions that represent the same value” but the human organism valuates differently from moment to moment.

    Equality over-applied (it´s an applied concept, isn´t it?) occludes valuable differences.

    To over-apply the concept of equality out of a desire for its realization, that is the Achilles´ heel of Leftism.

    a Reply:

    ▬ „but the human organism valuates differently from moment to moment.”

    Is nothing that isn´t described in thousands of scientific reports.

    Leftism is ultimately pseudo-science made politics.

    NRK Reply:

    To summarize all of the above: “equality is the relationship between expressions that represent the same value” but the human organism valuates differently from moment to moment.

    Look, even if this actually was a reality that the leftist quest for the abolition of social hierarchies necessarily ignored (even the old hat of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” takes it into account), then you would still only have provided an example of precisely the leftist bias that I myself pointed out in my very first reply to you.

    a Reply:

    Look, yes, the abolition of hierarchy necessarily ignores hierarchy, which is in other words what I´m saying: it ignores the valuable differences.

    You´ll probably never get this, you just don´t have the soul/brain for it.

    Yes, the Left mixes it with great sounding stuff, some version of “everybody free, according to his abilities” but that doesn´t take out the totally absurd and unrealistic demands for the lowest working class to somehow be able to have the same status as those who have different abilities & interests.

    This isn´t even merely my theory, it´s featured in other terms in multiple posts at this site.

    It is also documented in hundreds of books, about Leftist politics.

    ‘Bias’ has come to mean simply a ‘view’, because it´s supposed to specifically refer to an especially skewed view, but it´s overused by people so that they call everything they don´t agree with bias by now.

    Incidentally they do the exact same thing with ‘social construct.’

    https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/social-constructs/

    hypnosifl Reply:

    @NRK – “even if this actually was a reality that the leftist quest for the abolition of social hierarchies necessarily ignored”

    Do you really think the leftists want to abolish all social hierarchies? As a leftist myself I think this sounds like nonsense on the surface, unless you are speaking narrowly only about particular forms of hierarchy. For instance, communists do want to abolish hierarchies of wealth (and while liberals don’t go that far they at least want to reduce gross inequalities of wealth and perhaps guarantee everyone a certain minimum share of society’s wealth), but I think very few would want to eliminate other types of hierarchies based on talent, for example even in a communist society wouldn’t only people who have showed proficiency in engineering be allowed to run engineering projects? Of course most leftists would also be for trying to eliminate or greatly reduce class-based hierarchies of opportunity at birth–any child should have the educational opportunities that would allow them to develop whatever talents they might have–but significant difference in talents will still inevitably emerge by adulthood, and this will lead to hierarchies in all sorts of fields.

    Incidentally, this would probably have to include hierarchies in political-decision making, since actually getting sufficiently familiar with the nitty-gritty of political issues requires at least a greater-than-average interest in devoting time to learning about such matters, if not greater talent than most other educated people. Here’s a little quote on this from everyone’s current favorite commie intellectual, Slavoj Zizek:

    Yes, there are moments of intense collective participation where local communities debate and decide, when people live in a kind of permanent emergency state, taking things into their own hands, with no Leader guiding them. But such states don’t last, and “tiredness” is here not a simple psychological fact, it is a category of social ontology.

    The large majority – me included – wants to be passive and rely on an efficient state apparatus to guarantee the smooth running of the entire social edifice, so that I can pursue my work in peace. Walter Lippmann wrote in his Public Opinion (1922) that the herd of citizens must be governed by “a specialised class whose interests reach beyond the locality” – this elite class is to act as a machinery of knowledge that circumvents the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the “omni-competent citizen”.

    NRK Reply:

    the abolition of hierarchy necessarily ignores hierarchy

    This is not how abolition works.

    which is in other words what I´m saying: it ignores the valuable differences.

    No, it does not consider them valuable enough to justify a hierarchical social order. The claim is normative, rather than ontological.

    […]but that doesn´t take out the totally absurd and unrealistic demands for the lowest working class to somehow be able to have the same status as those who have different abilities & interests.

    Status in the relevant sense is not dependent on ability or interest, but ultimately on the recognition of others. Are you saying that if someone differs from you in ability or interest, you become unable to sympathize with them? Otherwise, I don’t see what’s unrealistic about the demand. Wether or not it is fatally misguided to apply this as a political imperative is an entirely different question, though.

    You´ll probably never get this, you just don´t have the soul/brain for it.

    Oh you.

    a Reply:

    Leftism is an endless morass of twisting-asunder and misunderstanding, which is why even the factionalism of the Right is not much compared to the 10.000.000 distributed nailbombs in the face of functional-order that Leftism is.

    Some of the nails, even splintered themselves, to the minutest shards of confusion, have now come to our once fair web-realm, Xenosystems, disguised as “learning & exchange.”

    a Reply:

    A piece of machinery that reduces (local) disorder has value. It might be a functional police force, a catallactic economic arrangement, or a sociopolitical mechanism implementing dynamic geography (or Patchwork, 1, 2, 3, 4). Others might be listed. Any complex adaptive system works like this (until it ceases working). Since Schrödinger, it has been taken as an abstract definition of life. In certain strands of philosophy, it has also been taken as the complete, rigorous meaning of a machine (as counterposed to a ‘gadget’ – which works only within a larger machinic assemblage). Only by exporting entropy does anything of even minimal complexity get to continue its existence. The production of order is functionality in its most elevated, teleological sense.

    A piece of rhetoric which merely celebrates order, as something nice to have, is worth nothing in itself. “We want order” is the “give us free stuff” slogan of intellectually degenerated reaction. When examined closely, it is indistinguishable from political pan-handling. (Democracy has taught everyone how to beg.) It is unlikely that even the most radically degraded libertarian would be shameless enough to consider “wealth is good, poverty is bad” anything more than an expression of sub-comic emotional incontinence. “Order is good, chaos is bad” is a slogan of exactly equivalent merit. “We want order” is just “we want money” at a superior level of generality. Monkeys want peanuts, but we are reluctant to dignify their hungry hooting with the label ‘political philosophy’.

    Entropy dissipation is a problem. It might quite reasonably be considered the problem. Any serious social theory is respected insofar as it elicits the question: So how is entropy dissipated? The main current of Anglophone intellectual culture focuses tightly upon it, in a broad lineage from Newtonian mechanics, the Scottish Enlightenment, the science of heat, classical economics, and Darwinian naturalism, into theories of complexity, distributed systems, dynamic networks, and productive multiplicities. Spontaneous order is the consistent topic. ‘Spontaneous’ means only: Does not presuppose that which it is tasked with explaining. If the genesis of order is not being theorized, order is merely being assumed, and then consumed. The difference is between a supply side problematic (“how is order practically produced?”) and an empty demand (“we want more order”). The former is industrial, the latter simply tyrannical, when it is anything at all beside vacuous noise.

    Posted on August 4th, 2016 at 9:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • illegal Says:

    What would happen if neoreactionaries held political and cultural positions?

    I really am curious. Would that have a significant effect on how everyday situations take place for people? Would it make it easier for those individuals of potential to rise? Would we be able to effect a change to society which allowed for healthy hierarchy simply by expressing cultural thought?

    What would happen if a neoreactionary held a position at an advertising firm? Right now we have the cultural marxist working for say, Coca Cola. Imagine if that position was replaced by a neoreactionary minded person. Expand this in the general. What would happen? Would this have a significant effect on society? How so…

    I’m just wondering if this is even a worthwhile thing to think about. I think we could completely change the planet. And we could ensure the future was more welcoming to like minded thinkers.

    [Reply]

    Lucian Reply:

    If neoreactionaries do things, are they still neoreactionaries?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If they build Exit technologies, yes. If they protest, no.

    Organizing a coup d’état is a gray area.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    ;]

    Tentative Joiner Reply:

    The category of “Exit technology” needs illumination.

    CY designed Urbit to make it easy for sovereign entities, present or future, to filter (“censor”) and block parts of it. For a federated system this is the most obviously adaptive choice, and a long-term bet on overt planetary takeover (an r-strategy). Does it affect Urbit’s Exit tech quality? If it does, then in what direction?

    Anonymous Reply:

    @TJ

    I’m skeptical about exit technologies working by themselves, could obviously help but I doubt they would offer much without either people in general getting “better” (Opposite ongoing) or better people getting more powerful. (Hard when they get tricked into complacency, worship, fetishization, etc.)

    Even if they work “perfectly” (Like the cryptography stuff) they would just become part of the ecosystem. Or worse, they end up feeding / enabling “cancer”, and there’s no way out of that.

    a Reply:

    Evola said the exit was to either be as a rock (be yourself, state the truth, don´t meddle in demotic affairs), a “stone watcher” he phrased it as, no doubt with reference to the grigori and gargoyles.

    Or, he said, alternatively, to let go of any attachment to what was or could be, and face the system of speed & fever, modernity.

    Hypermodernity. Enjoying it. Hasting it.

    The faster it goes the sooner it will “end.”

    Or will it?

    grey enlightenment Reply:

    aren’t thiel and andreessen close enough to that

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    I have tremendous respect for Andreessen, but his political tweets are insufferable. He’s basically a julie borowskiite cuckbertarian.

    [Reply]

    John Reply:

    Yep…I second this. I had to unfollow it was too triggering 🙁

    Aryan hell services ltd. Reply:

    Exit technology at base

    is what ever get us

    out of this situ.

    [Reply]

    Aryan hell services ltd. Reply:

    To expand on that, it would be a convergence of effects. From deployed techno-logies.What to deploy then? What is verb but a tech?

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 5th, 2016 at 12:37 am Reply | Quote
  • S.C. Hickman Says:

    I think we should revive the Glanton Gang of ’49 and let ’em at it the whole sloppy bunch:

    In the morning the rain had stopped and they appeared in the streets, tattered, stinking, ornamented with human parts like cannibals. They carried the huge pistols stuck in their belts and the vile skins they wore were deeply stained with blood and smoke and gunblack. They’d entered the city haggard and filthy and reeking with the blood of the citizenry for whose protection they had contracted. The scalps of the slain villagers were strung from the windows of the governor’s house…

    -Cormac Mccarthy, Blood Meridian

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 5th, 2016 at 2:58 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    How long ago was it the clintons were selling military surplus to ” chinese junk dealers ” , have we known about the floppy discs, when did the niggers and nigger lovers strt to shut down the space program, outsourcing became passe invasion a cheaper route. We dont upgrade those floppy discs because we dont even make thumb drive anymore so we would have to buy it from the chinks i can just see ww3 faggot hipster trannys waiting on the chinese to send them some more arms

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 5th, 2016 at 3:46 am Reply | Quote
  • NRK Says:

    Now, if it was true that islamism will cause more damage than global warming, wouldn’t that make for a strong case that we should invade the middle east even more, screw Mars?
    And before someone points out that the essence of NRx is that you don’t solve problems but run away from them, does Mars really look like a good candidate? Place looks like the middle east with less air, haven’t you read Dune?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The dark point here (IMHO) is the persistence of zero-sum considerations. If you’re cooking yourself, but cooking the other guy even slightly more, that counts as a win. (Islam is the other guy.)

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    Given that the readiness to be cooked is Islam’s most famed and lasting achievement, I’m not sure you should go down that path, if only because even if you succeed, it will be due to that fact that you’ve come quite close to being a muslim yourself.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Defining “Islamic” as “good at chicken games” could prove woefully self-defeating.

    NRK Reply:

    Well you can’t really out-chicken a prospective shahid, can you? So maybe the intention of playing chicken games is already misguided and self-defeating.
    Then again, it is possible to imagine a scenario where optimizing for intelligence goes hand in hand with encouraging the martyrdom of those left in the dust – there certainly is some moment of ego death in that ambition. But even then, it’s not clear if you could outlast the opposition, whose willingness to die doesn’t in principle end at some performance threshold and which also consolidates itself around a doctrine of unity that isn’t an option for (non-leftist) rootless cosmopolitans.

    admin Reply:

    “Well you can’t really out-chicken a prospective shahid, can you?” — You’ve lost already if you take that route.
    When they say “We love death more than you love life” the strategic answer isn’t, “Yes, yes, you do! [gulp]”, it’s “let’s see.”
    (I’m entirely confident that chicken games can be won against prospective shahids, and their source cultures. Pressing forward at maximum speed with malevolent AI capability would be the best way to demonstrate willingness to take the game to its limit.)

    NRK Reply:

    Let’s see…can a society that values exit, independence, liberty etc really say that with any confidence? Can you simultaneously sell that you can and should leave that demands more than you’re willing to give, and that dulce et decorum est pro patria mori?
    Individualism doesn’t conquer collectivism through demonstrations of superior discipline, but by weakening the opposition’s coherence until it falls apart. In order to do that, it must obviously still bear some credible promise.

    admin Reply:

    If you think it’s about “dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” you’re not getting it. It’s about viable game-theoretic postures.

    If the state can’t play serious games in the wild, then private actors will have to. Unless death is your girlfriend, you’re just cluttering up the combat zone.

    NRK Reply:

    Even if we could succesfully fake the willingness to burn everything down (the point you were addressing was directed against that possibility), what good could it be against someone who’s not only not faking it, but considers it a win state?

    admin Reply:

    If the Islamics had really achieved fusion with the thanatonic plane, don’t you think their recruiting exercises would be quite a lot more successful than they are? They understand the game, but their claims to have reached the state of blessed submission to martyrdom is overwhelmingly bullshit (= game-theoretic signaling). Take them at the word (as you seem to), and you’re handing them everything.

    NRK Reply:

    The lazy answer to this is that jihad in the20th and 21st century isn’t a feature of a still-exisiting distinctly islamic civilization, but a glitch that emerged when the globalizing entity from the void came in contact with the vestiges of the former. Thus the jihadists aren’t recruiting people who have no aspirations besides shahada to begin with, it’s much scarier: they’re out-competing western-brand egoism in the minds of people who know what that is, with a sizeable portion of the recruits even having a decent shot at obtaining some its promised goods. That they’re still a minority even in the muslim world doesn’t mean they don’t mean it, or won’t be able to go through with it – the majority surrounding them certainly wins the award for silence.

    admin Reply:

    Commitment (in its chicken game sense) is always going to win against non-commitment. The glacial historic identification of liberalism with non-commitment is an implicit losing strategy. Whoever fails to answer the question “What’s our (total) commitment?” has no future.

    NRK Reply:

    Framing the conflict in too strongly in game theoretical terms assumes that western civilization and jihad can be compared as if they where both rational subjects, when the relationship is better characterized as virus vs t-cells (which is which is a matter for debate though.

    admin Reply:

    Game theory recommends rationality (strategic optimization), which is not at all to presuppose it.

    NRK Reply:

    Attempting to out-self-sacrifice someone who has nothing to bring to the table but self-sacrifice…does that really sound like strategic optimization to you?

    admin Reply:

    Sacrifice as little as possible, and as much as is necessary.

    NRK Reply:

    Can’t really argue with that mother of all truisms, but what is possible and what is necessary -or even useful- changes considerably depending on wether you’re an islamist or a liberal.

    Apatheos Reply:

    If this were Thiel’s game, I don’t understand why he connects it with Make ameriblah blah blah blah.

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    Maybe he counts on Donald “We have nukes, why don’t we use them?” Trump making everything so great that going to Mars will become the most attractive thing to invest in?

    [Reply]

    Apatheos Reply:

    Right. At least made as great as 1986. Challenger.

    Posted on August 5th, 2016 at 7:18 am Reply | Quote
  • tothemoon Says:

    ‘we are not going to mars, we are going to go out of our minds’ – ennis

    bleak theory

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 5th, 2016 at 3:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    when powerfull demon Samba was born, Gods pointed their weopons on each other. it ended with Indra peeling potatoes in Ravana’s kitchen in Sri Lanka?

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 5th, 2016 at 6:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Melanie l'Heuremaudit Says:

    Everything that’s wrong with America, in one photo:

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/everything-wrong-with-america-in-a-photo/

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 5th, 2016 at 6:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Melanie l'Heuremaudit Says:

    off topic, just for fun….

    JEAN BAUDRILLARD WAS HERE

    Phrase written on the face of an abandoned military bunker in Bnaider, Kuwait, August, 2010)

    Whiskey Pete’s blackjack tables and McDonald’s. Fast money and fast food.

    In November 1996, Jean Baudrillard traveled to Nevada for the Chance Event at Whiskey Pete’s Casino.

    For Baudrillard the apocalypse has already occurred…The real has imploded and the subject has disappeared….History, culture and truth have been absorbed by the simulated image…

    Nowhere motels….discarded oil drums in a sprawling garbage dump…On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair

    we have been (over) exposed & rendered transparent, disconnected from but nostalgic for the past, we inhabit a future that has no future

    humanity is like a spaceship where all life, except vital functions, has ceased

    Hear the endless loop of musak in the dentist’s waiting room. See the ripped-out pay phones…Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light

    Driving endlessly through the Nevada desert, aiming for the point of no return….the extermination of meaning…

    Baudrillard is the narrator of the end of the end….in “suicide-moi”…he recites poetry, backed up by an all star band, recorded live, ….music to read Nietzsche to…

    Dwarfed by Chance Band vocalist Amy Stoll, in her cocktail waitress outfit, Baudrillard in his gold lame jacket reads the following (more or less):

    “Every set of phenomena, whether cultural totality or sequence of events, has to be fragmented, disjointed, so that it can be sent down the circuits; every kind of language has to be resolved into a binary formulation so that it can circulate not, any longer, in our memories, but in the luminous, electronic memory of the computers. No human language can withstand the speed of light. No event can withstand being beamed across the whole planet. No meaning can withstand acceleration. No history can withstand the centrifugation of facts or their being short-circuited in real time (to pursue the same train of thought: no sexuality can withstand being liberated, no culture can withstand being hyped, no truth can withstand being verified, etc.).”

    “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.”

    The Chance Band took the stage with Baudrillard and he repeated fragments of his lecture but the only words that anyone can recall are: “Suicide … Suicide Moi…”

    For a grand finale, one of the Chance Band members found a box of betting chips backstage and hurled them at the audience

    (from Whiskey Pete’s Chance Festival, Stateline Nevada, 1999)

    [Reply]

    Aryan hell services ltd. Reply:

    Why?
    Who me?
    Why?

    Feet don’t fail me now
    Take me to the finish line
    Oh my heart it breaks every step that I take
    But I’m hoping at the gates,
    They’ll tell me that you’re mine

    Walking through the city streets
    Is it by mistake or design?
    I feel so alone on the Friday nights
    Can you make it feel like home, if I tell you you’re mine?
    It’s like I told you honey

    Don’t make me sad, don’t make me cry
    Sometimes love is not enough and the road gets tough
    I don’t know why
    Keep making me laugh, let’s go get high
    The road is long, we carry on
    Try to have fun in the meantime

    Come and take a walk on the wild side
    Let me kiss you hard in the pouring rain
    You like your girls insane
    Choose your last words
    This is the last time
    ‘Cause you and I, we were born to die

    Lost but now I am found
    I can see but once I was blind
    I was so confused as a little child
    Tried to take what I could get
    Scared that I couldn’t find
    All the answers honey

    Don’t make me sad, don’t make me cry
    Sometimes love is not enough and the road gets tough
    I don’t know why
    Keep making me laugh
    Let’s go get high
    The road is long, we carry on
    Try to have fun in the meantime

    Come and take a walk on the wild side
    Let me kiss you hard in the pouring rain
    You like your girls insane
    Choose your last words,
    This is the last time
    ‘Cause you and I
    We were born to die [3x]

    Come and take a walk on the wild side
    Let me kiss you hard in the pouring rain
    You like your girls insane

    So don’t make me sad, don’t make me cry
    Sometimes love is not enough and the road gets tough
    I don’t know why
    Keep making me laugh
    Let’s go get high
    The road is long, we carry on
    Try to have fun in the meantime

    Come and take a walk on the wild side
    Let me kiss you hard in the pouring rain
    You like your girls insane…
    Choose your last words,
    This is the last time
    ‘Cause you and I
    We were born to die

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 6th, 2016 at 4:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Melanie l'Heuremaudit Says:

    @ Aryan hell services ltd.

    +1 !!

    [Reply]

    Aryan hell services ltd. Reply:

    > +9

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 6th, 2016 at 4:57 am Reply | Quote
  • Melanie l'Heuremaudit Says:

    “To challenge and to cope with this paradoxical state of things, we need a paradoxical way of thinking; since the world drifts into delirium, we must adopt a delirious point of view. We must no longer assume any principle of truth, of causality, or any discursive norm. Instead, we must grant both the poetic singularity of events and the radical uncertainty of events. It is not easy. We usually think that holding to the protocols of experimentation and verification is the most difficult thing. But in fact the most difficult thing is to renounce the truth and the possibility of verification, to remain as long as possible on the enigmatic, ambivalent, and reversible side of thought. ”

    (Baudrillard, playing blackjack at 4 AM, still downing shots at Whiskey Pete’s Casino, and speaking to Amy Stoll, in her cocktail waitress outfit)

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 6th, 2016 at 10:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#17) Says:

    […] Olympics. Mars. The End. RIP USA. BLMUK. Vanity. Oxen. Order. Deflection. Elites. Communism. Devils. Trump […]

    Posted on August 7th, 2016 at 5:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Dick Wagner Says:

    That’s how it’ll end, with your whimper, and you’ll be forgotten.

    [Reply]

    arian node Reply:

    >> The modern dominium of Capital is the maximally plastic instance — state-compatible commerce code pre-setting the econometric apparatuses that serve it as self-monitoring centers, organizing its own intelligible existence in a co/de/termination of economic product and currency value: a tax base formatted in legitimate transactions medium. White economy; an iceberg tip.
    Modernity discovers irreversible time — conceived as a progressive enlightenment tracking capital concentration-integrating it into nineteenth-century science as entropy production, and as its inverse (evolution). As liberal and socialist SF utopias are trashed by schizotechnics or spontaneous synthetic anti-politics emerging from rhi­zomes, the modernist dialectic of right-wing competition and left-wing co-operation retreats into the core security structures of capital oligopoly and bureaucratic authority. ‘Production as process overtakes all idealistic categories and constitutes a cycle whose relationship to desire is that of an immanent principle’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 9th, 2016 at 11:15 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment