Chaos Patch (#21)

(Open thread.)

Some bits and pieces, which everyone if of course free to ignore:

Commercialization of war (video). This trend seems to be huge.

The (first) Age of Unqualified Reservations has now formally passed: “I think it’s clear that UR has gone on de facto hiatus, so it seems best to adhere to my own philosophy and make it official. … UR will reemerge, of course. But not here, and not soon – and probably not even in this form. I’ll also try to do something non-lame with the archives.”

Nydwracu crafts a conceptual tool of great value.

Action at Reddit.

William Gibson and Hyperstition (or not): “… was Gibson just a smart reader of the way things were already going, or — as Jack Womack suggested in the afterword to the novel’s 2000 re-issue — has ‘the act of writing it down, in fact, brought it about?'”

Alain de Benoist interviewed.

Either an extraordinary techno-scientific breakthrough, or not. (This, I’m supremely confident, isn’t.)

Singularity won’t save us (a conclusion I share, for entirely different reasons).

My Russian isn’t good enough to understand what the hell is going on in this, but NYC looks spectacular even when it’s teeming with Slavo-fascists.


August 3, 2014admin 41 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , , ,

41 Responses to this entry

  • Alrenous Says:

    Two of the components needed for a good flying saucer: reactionless drives, and alien alloys.

    We’re also capable of some nanoengineering and even decorating the craft.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    I understand the skepticism since the theory still hasn’t been sussed out but now that NASA has helped confirm it’s real, it’s ripe for further experimentation. The thrust on the EmDrive is so far only comparable to ion drives aka force like the weight of a feather. What makes this exciting is that it’s basically serendipity, there isn’t a theory yet that fully explains what’s going on or more specifically, can make accurate predictions about design changes. So the EmDrive is ripe for Edison style tinkering by engineers while the physicists play catch up. It’s a simple enough design a hobbyist engineer could build one and conduct experiments by altering the design. Hopeful patent trolls may already be hard at work. Until the physicists catch up it’s impossible to speculate exactly what the full potential effectivity of the technology is. When it comes to effectivity, burden is on the researcher so wild eye speculation remains just that. What isn’t speculation is that probes to the outer planets just got a huge upgrade, enough that we should hear more talk about the oort cloud.


    Alrenous Reply:

    Does the UFO reference make me sound skeptical? Check the alien alloy links. (And play X-Com.)


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Sorry, the way I wrote that was bad, I was referring to the general controversialness of the drive. I recognized the X-Com reference immediately, that game gave me nightmares as a kid and I love it anyway. New material science is always great, but when I think alien alloy I think of something constructed out of monopoles.

    Alrenous Reply:

    Monopoles would be cool. Looks like real saucer cladding is easier to forge, though.

    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 4:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#21) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 6:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Zerg Says:

    It’s just not helpful to say things such as “Polyatheism is a Marcusean monoatheism”. It’s not even amusing. And a bit of in-crowd jargon is not a “conceptual tool”.


    soapjackal Reply:

    It is defintinley not helpful. It isnt some ithkuil exploration of weird concepts and not translating to English. Its purposefully generating semantic discord without significantly shortening the amount of text required to explain the concept.


    Piano Reply:

    Do we need a more perfect “philosophical language” to do proper neoreaction?


    admin Reply:

    New languages are hard. (Incremental semiotic drift is the most to be realistically expected.)

    Piano Reply:


    Then should we just use ithkuil for some things? E.g. translate some nrx into it as a thought exercise, and then use it to come up with novel english nrx.

    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 6:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    A few thoughts:

    1) I’m wondering about the relationship between religious form and the social-sensitivity allele (5-HTTLPR short allele) which is much more prevalent in Asia and collectivist civilizations than in the west. Could it be that westerners’ absence of this allele somehow led us to a more Christian type of religious structure? In other words, because westerners are genetically individualistic, perhaps we need an individual savior sort of figure more than Asians do? Perhaps there is no viable alternative to Christianity for the foreseeable future in the west (particularly since Christianity is actually based on pretty good philosophy)?

    2) With the lesbians and their ilk having taken over mainstream protestantism, does that not pretty much jam one into the Catholic Church, warts and all?

    3) Would there be any basis for a genetic differentiation between those drawn to Orthodox and those drawn to Western Catholicism? Watching that interview of Alexander Dugin, one thing I noticed was that the dude had zero sense of humor … and zero sense of irony. I liked him but he was all business all the time.


    Zerg Reply:

    How about a Christianity according to which God dies in each of us whenever we embarrass ourselves in public? (God’s dying right now, sort of (this is only sort of a public scene).) Why does God have to die — why can’t He just be embarrassed? (According to some Talmudic sage, when you embarrass someone in public you’re murdering him.) The suffering nerds are the collective Christ? (Wait, that’s Judaism.) Or, R. Crumb’s depressed older brother Charles who killed himself is Christ? Or maybe the Christ was someone completely ordinary who never thought he was anything special, and didn’t even suffer more than usual, and died of natural causes?
    On the genetic-religious thing — reading Walzer’s Revolution of the Saints made me think that the old English Puritans were so much like the Orthodox Jews I know that it’s natural that people who haven’t read Moldbug would blame Progressivism on the wrong group. But in any case it’s evident that Ashkenazim and the old English Puritans were very closely related, genetically. Since the Ashkenazim are half-Romans (see Westhunter), while Americans are the descendents of the old English Puritans, it follows that the American Empire is the true Roman Empire (which explains Russian jealousy).


    Kgaard Reply:

    I never made that connection between old English Puritans and Ashkenazim but now that you mention it I see the point. They even dressed sort of similarly. Ahab as Orthodox Jew? I can kind of see it … yeah. Certainly in the intensity. Though frankly I’ve never known any Orthodox Jews really well so I can’t make much of a comparison.

    On what are you basing the claim that they were closely related genetically? Any good sources?


    Zerg Reply:

    I was just playing with your idea that religious tendencies might express genetic stuff. But the British are a commercial people too, aren’t they. Maybe there’s some kind of parallel genetic evolutionary thing going on here — like Triceratops and Rhinoceros. Eliyahu questioned Ahab’s Orthodoxy, by the way, but seemed to think he was worth some time and effort.

    soapjackal Reply:

    The genetic basis for religion is def a fun avenue for HBD to explore.

    I’d say that all lines of reformation are tapped and now theyre going through leftist breakidown. Orthodoxy and Catholicism have maintained but Catholicism is next on the chopping block (just look at the Pope). I’m a gnostic with sympathies towards Gnosticsm.

    Although they mean slightly different things here. I’ve had personal experience. Whereas Gnosticism is a catchall for the competing Christianity before orthodoxy became orthodoxy. I have no idea if its possible to reinvigorate any old Christianity without necessarily requiring protestant style break down.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    *The genetic basis for religion is def a fun avenue for HBD to explore.*

    Yes, certainly. Also the religious basis for genetics. HBDchick has been really interesting on the subject. Then there’s Cochran on the Amish, who seem to be developing their own distinct genetics, and I suspect something similar, though more attenuated, is happening and has happened with the core Mormon population.


    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 7:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    Here’s a question about the European New Right, seeing as how the admin just put up an old interview with Benoist.

    Is the ENR populist or not?

    I recognize that the NRx seems to say “yes it is,” but I’m not getting how. There are plenty of ENR-influenced guys cropping up who are populist, but the original intent of the GRECE seems anything but.


    admin Reply:

    I’m not well versed in ENR, but Guillaume Faye strikes me as by far the best of the lot.


    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 9:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    It’s not Russian. I’m assuming Ukrainian, though I can’t confirm because I don’t speak it.


    Artemisia Reply:

    Yes, this is Ukranian, and the Right Sector is one of the parties that sit in the Ukranian government right now. They are not really Slavo-fascists, more like Ukro-fascists (if that can be called a thing).


    admin Reply:

    Thanks. I should have spent two-minutes Googling around it, but it was only posted for the city scenes (and provocation).


    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 9:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    I was thoroughly disappointed with the Alain de Benoist interview- it was so intensely tepid, surely any decent Reactionary, neo or otherwise, would spew him from their mouth.


    Izak Reply:

    It’s all about context, man. He realizes he’s talking to a bunch of angry American race-enthusiasts and (post-)conservatives, so he makes some lukewarm comments about how it’s important to be accepting of others and how terrible American capitalism is. At the NPI conference he openly claimed in the Q&A that he would have fought with the Indians against the American colonists if given the chance. I don’t agree with everything he says, but in an odd way I applaud the guy for having basically zero interest in winning new friends.


    admin Reply:

    He’s consistently anti-capitalist, so I don’t think that’s tactical.


    Posted on August 3rd, 2014 at 11:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    Methinks the point of hyperstition is you can never know for sure whether the words triggered the events or merely predicted them. (Those are mutually exclusive, since ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ is another way of saying ‘not prophecy’) And this is the whole point. The Basilisk is a great exercise in this–! Does talking about the Basilisk make it come into being? Or was it inevitable?

    A monk told a friend of mine the following: “When you’re being tempted by thoughts, do not react or show signs of response; the demons cannot read your thoughts, so the only way they can know if they are being effective is if you respond.”

    So maybe there is something to talking about the Basilisk after all!


    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    Hyperstition may be a very Wittgensteinian concept deep down. To the degree we can influence what potential for behavior (in the widest sense possible) people comprehend merely through words and without reference to object-level phenomena, that reorientation of the sphere of possibilities will inevitably have an influence on the direction coordinated behavior takes (since that coordination necessarily passes through the linguistic plane).

    Put another way, “Words influence action? You don’t say.”


    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 2:16 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Alright, might as well start this project now.

    To get an accurate and legitimate picture of NRx, I am going to read the following incomplete list(suggestions more than welcome)

    1) All of moldbug from start to finish alongside many of the books he recommends
    2) Read all of xenosystems
    3) Read all of moreright and then throw evola’s books into a fire and attempt to summon all the might that it would take for there never to be more quotes from his books
    4) Get up to speed on the majority of bayesian and probabilistic thought(Say from Kolmogorov’s system + feller vol 1/2 + EVT
    5)Much of curt dolittle’s
    6) Exercise
    7) Get up to speed on the end results from heuristics and biases program

    need more suggestions, pile them on as long as it’s reasonable. Then I will attempt to actually give a fair and comprehensive overview/summary of NRx type thoughts with their various different branches mapped out with cute visuals. I will attempt to do legitimate justice.

    At the very least after I’m done, i’ll reduce my chances of cardiac arrest.

    PIle them on folks, give me the relevant canon and I’m going to get through it all.


    Erik Reply:

    All the first year or two of lesswrong. (All of lesswrong is impractical now that it’s turned into r/ationality and has 500-comment threads on individual chapters of the harry potter fanfic.) All the posts by Yudkowsky. More Right was founded by self-described post-lesswrongians and is struggling to establish individual identity.


    Erik Reply:

    Index of a yudkowsky thread.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    I’m really seeing the utility of having an underground academy. Ambitious reading lists are great but while some of this stuff is easy reading like a novel other stuff is as dense as a calculus textbook. Context is king, a highly motivated genius could teach himself calculus with the aid of only textbooks but this is impractical. I managed to self teach economic basics like how the FED operates the monetary system and it made my head hurt like when I do real math, and I was just trying to follow it at a qualitative level! Having a group to discuss stuff like that together in a webchat similar to online classes would be very helpful.

    There’s also the factor that reading can be condensed. Context matters so much, that reading list included Clausewitz’s On War in addition to Jomini. Both authors fought in the Napoleonic wars and their writing was put into great effect by the West Pointers who had all read them during the civil war. The thing is Jomini focused on field tactics, unless your a historian or a civil war reenactor there isn’t much he has to offer, the book Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife would be a better choice and wasn’t listed. On War on the other hand is still relevant but much of it is as dated as Jomini, it’s treated in much the same way leftist Christians treat the Bible, focus on the “good” parts where it can be adapted for usefulness to contemporary times (the parts that are more geopolitics and less military strategy).

    So all you active types complaining about couch potato bloggers, go make a website, twist the arms of our “volunteers” who are competent in a subject matter to make a schedule of webchats and small book list that they will guide people on in conjunction with a forum with assignments so people get something out of it and don’t just read stuff without understanding. The webchat will help people form networks and hopefully draw in lurkers, people may find out there are other people like themselves in the same city.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    I accidentally replied to the main thread as opposed to you, my response is at the bottom.


    spandrell Reply:

    Don’t read Evola. And Yudkowsky has nothing to do with this.


    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 4:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    “Commercialization of war (video). This trend seems to be huge. ”

    War has always been commercial.

    Even when it’s “not”.


    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 6:47 am Reply | Quote
  • j. ont Says:

    Heartiste has been useful for some things, but I’ve felt for a while that the application of the “Machiavellian” mode to romantic/sexual interactions has run out of new things to say. If it was just Roissy making analytical statements about hypergamy etc. it would be fine, even desirable; but instead we have a swarm of bitter neckbeards championing the “red pill” and patting each other on the back, tons of confirmation bias etc. (not that the basic principles are necessarily false).

    What we need now is something like meta-game: someone who can articulate the Machiavellian/Moldbugian logic in a practical, instructive way. How can these ideas—which are largely theoretical, descriptive, of perhaps theoretically practical on a large scale—be mobalized on a smaller scale? How can each individual navigate the cathedral? What are some basic principles to be learned and reiterated? What are some hacks?


    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 7:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    I agree, in fact my goal to complete this was to start such an academy of sorts. However, very few people who currently write in this community have the ability to start such as thing from what I gathered. The ‘real list’ so to speak is going to be much harder than all of what I mentioned. and what is casually mentioned It is also important that the person who does such a thing does not give into too much of the excess of his prejudice. There are many pitfalls on the path “to the front”.

    Say, in LW speak, people who never got passed ‘traditional rationality’ in the sense of not getting passed naive falsificationism and the standard science tropes of occams razor, actually represent the majority of this community. However, there are much more. We need to start pushing every one to the front. NRx is not supposed to be a ghetto. However there are many pitfalls on the path towards the front end of knowledge.

    Such as holding strong against Cantor’s/Bourbaki’s seduction etc etc.

    There needs to be a compilation of a ‘hard list’ that a few of us will try to diligently complete to attempt to become what many of us profess, say…. aristocracy. With physical fitness goals, so we all have or heads on straight and are actually thinking correctly..

    It should also said that if this movement of sorts is going to attempt any chance of success, every one is going to need to hold off on the vehemence. As historically conscious as some people are. Many people have not been exposed to any sort of risk and probably could not handle the pressure they’re asking for.

    They don’t know they’re getting themselves into. I love what is possible here, but it seems that many people here are more than willing to post their information publicly, when they have no real idea how to….. “operate”. Right now it’s just a bunch of antsy kids who need to develop stronger security culture/OPSEC and pick up the books. There is no doubt in my mind say, that Land/Moldbug have already been evaluated by some intelligence agency keeping tabs on potential threats. There should be a proper warning to all the kids what they could get themselves into. However the only people who actually understand how information is gathered and then produced into actionable work for LEO’s are people who’ve had their foot into some type of criminal work.

    This is one of the reasons I’m trying to compile the “hard list” + physical requirements, so I can get myself into a proper position to evaluate things. This sort of thing worries me because most of the people here have not been in handcuffs or even a tense altercation never mind if they start to see the results they get when people discover the worst of their vitriol/violence posturing. Too much growth is cancer, especially if it starts to attract too much adversarial attention.

    Right now a proper understanding of the ‘front’ of risk management (Embrecht/Taleb/Ayache/Wilmott + Operations from Grugq/insert more) + The complete end game of cognitive science/heuristics and bias, a legitimate front and back understanding of convexity and antifragility and a technical marketable skills so we can get every one going. Even if we don’t get anywhere, at least we look good and are well read.

    This is also why I appreciate curt doolittle at propertarianism, he seems to have his head on straight in all of this.


    Posted on August 4th, 2014 at 9:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jack Crassus Says:

    I discovered recently that nearly all the world’s future population growth is expected to come from sub-saharan Africa, currently doubling every 35 years


    Posted on August 5th, 2014 at 7:09 am Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    The phrase “commercialization of war” inspired me to meander thusly:


    Posted on August 6th, 2014 at 10:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    This everyday way of stating what formalism is struck me:

    “my own philosophy [is to] make it official.”

    Here’s an example- the poem on the statue of giberty is commonly cited these days as expressing an informal law of our country usually as it pertains to immigration. There’s a phrase in it that I couldn’t have said better myself:

    “The wretched refuse of your teeming shore”

    Why don’t we make it official? Most of the immigrants that arrive from 2nd and 3rd world countries are wretched refuse.

    Lately this is being obfuscated with that language borne from maternal instinct, “the children”. Well, what are they likely to grow up to be? Are they not wretched refuse waiting to happen?

    Of course no matter what I say the maternal instinct will cover over the reality in lies, because “the children”. Ah yes, the children who will, some say possibly, others say plausibly, one day grow up to be MS-13 members and who we should through a leap of faith expect to become brain surgeons. Let’s make it official: the reason they’re trying to cross our borders is because for hundreds of generations they decided to live in squalor, and they want to bring that genetic code here for us to babysit for generations more. No thanks!


    Wagner Reply:

    You remember how the whole dog thing started, right? (No, I’m not a f*#&ing furry). It was because I said I can’t act like myself around my family (who are for the most part gasping liberals). Do you value fairness? Because this is the other half, the other side of things, that is systematically censored in our media and academy. This is the perspective of people like me that has to be concealed to maintain “peacefulness”. I respect the maternal side of things, it has its place, oops maybe that was phrased wrong lol, anyway, in the soft-matriarchy that I postulate we live in, the dialectic between the sexes is essentially abolished, and the viewpoint of severity is passed over in silence. I’m sure this will correct itself naturally over time, tho that doesn’t stop me from meddling.


    Posted on June 27th, 2019 at 10:06 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment