Chaos Patch (#36)

(Open thread, links)

Burning in the brains of the reactosphere this week: Complexities of caste, media hysteria, where reaction begins, ambiguities of narrativization, Google on the slide, the American era comes apart. The language of recovery. The meaning of property (previously linked). Rituals of disintegration. The masters of meta. The Mitrailleuse secession round-up is always worth catching.

Some comet thing happened, but far more importantly: Did you see that guy‘s shirt?

The Internet’s SJW cannibal holocaust continues. Meanwhile, in the UK (Brendan O’Neill has been doing Miltonic work). Some additional notable commentary. Oh, and Obama wants to reclassify the Internet as a ‘utility’ (always comforting rhetoric from a communist). It’s a global trend.

Conspiracy and extravagance.

An interesting series of posts on China and the world (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). (No considered response from this end to its conclusions, yet, but much sound sense apparent.)

Limits of parenting (but there’s this).

Comedy of errors.

The druidic case against capitalism intensifies. (This strange document has also been passed around.) Also (vaguely) relevant.


Two pieces of enduring value recently recalled from the memory banks.

November 16, 2014admin 46 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

46 Responses to this entry

  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Thoughts on the new consent law in California?

    Students will get to feel like a virgin again – repeatedly.

    Here is what it will look like in motion (yes, cringe-tastic).


    Izak Reply:

    That’s probably the most retarded internet video I’ve seen since “Dear Woman,” except that “Dear Woman” was at least funny enough that I could actually finish it.

    Well, hopefully the young people will revolt and stop giving their (parents’) tuition dollars to CA schools.

    That probably won’t happen, though, so we can only imagine the likely outcome. If all state-funded schools adopt this legislation, you’ll basically see a huge, massive legal onslaught against awkward white guys who manage to push past their awkwardness and get laid. All of the studly dudes who banged a lot of broads in high school won’t get in any trouble, and nerds will. I can easily imagine a scenario where the awkward nerds get increasingly afraid of women, increasingly sexually frustrated, and become increasingly furious and politically radicalized. The wild card in this whole scenario seems to be internet porn, which assuages the frustrations of nerdy dudes, but which has also become increasingly bizarre and whose output seems increasingly driven by masochistic fetish (the reason why is complex, but I think it’s because the only people who actually pay for the product are getting off partly on how stupid and counterintuitive it is to pay for porn, so they wind up being more likely to watch warped stuff where guys get their balls crushed by black, muscular former womens & gender studies majors).

    There is also the very faint hope that young women who aren’t stunningly beautiful will slowly begin to piece together that they’re not getting much male attention because feminists — the kinds who push for affirmative consent laws — are disincentivizing, even demonizing male flirting and traditional courting behavior. But given the track record for women thinking in such abstract, causally-oriented ways, the likelihood of such a reaction seems dim.

    It’s an interesting time to be young in America!


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Sounds like deja vu from the Air Force Academy. I arrived there in the aftermath of their rape scandal. They had established that “the victim is always right” aka presumption of guilt and there was much talk of consent among cadets in exactly the same way we see now. My reaction was strict “don’t do blue” due in part to the climate of fear that was created. I remember an incident as a freshman where I essentially ran away in fear from a female cadet who was forward in her interest in me. Of course the cads continued to have their fun unabated.


    Tripletap Reply:

    Will you make me a sandwich?


    Posted on November 16th, 2014 at 5:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    On the “shirtstorm” thing:

    I’m beginning to think that all of these articles are being written because internet social justice outrage is actually addictive, almost like repeatedly checking your email/facebook or watching internet porn or whatever. I think it releases little shots of dopamine in people’s brains and everything, and when you keep reading internet outrage articles, it slowly starts to fuck up your whole limbic system and fry your synapses. So you keep trying to get an ‘outrage fix’ by finding new and increasingly novel and inventive ways to get angry at something. Part of the whole basis for the addiction is that you feel like a very good, morally upstanding person when you’re getting mad, so it’s kind of like being addicted to moral superiority. And because morals play such a central role in the whole process, it’s very easy to rationalize.

    We talk a lot about how SJWs are awful and everything, and no doubt they are. But the flip-side of the whole scenario is that in addition to being awful, they might also be unwitting slaves to their own compulsions.

    There’s surely a way to profit from this state of affairs.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    This sounds plausible.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    On pp. 86-8 of _The Righteous Mind_, Jonathan Haidt describes an experiment by Drew Westen using fMRI to study the mental processes of political partisans. Westen showed his test subjects slides that threatened their beliefs (in Haidt’s terms, putting the partisans in mental “handcuffs” of having to believe something they didn’t want to believe), followed by a slide that countered the threat (releasing the “handcuffs”). The final slide resulted in a dopamine release in the ventral striatum, a major reward center in the brain.

    Haidt writes:

    “Heroin and cocaine are addictive because they artificially trigger this dopamine response. Rats who can press a button to deliver electrical stimulation to their reward centers will continue pressing until they collapse from starvation.”

    “Westen found that partisans escaping from handcuffs (by thinking about the final slide, which restored their confidence in their candidate) got a little hit of that dopamine. And if this is true, then it would explain why extreme partisans are so stubborn, closed-minded, and committed to beliefs that often seem bizarre or paranoid. Like rats that cannot stop pressing a button, partisans may be simply unable to stop believing weird things. The partisan brain has been reinforced so many times for performing mental contortions that free it from unwanted beliefs. Extreme partisanship may be literally addictive.”


    ||||| Reply:

    From Neuroeconomics – Decision Making and the Brain, pg.25:

    “[…]A sequence of early experiments initially led neuroscientists to the conclusion that dopamine played a crucial role in behavior by mediating “ reward. ” Essentially, the idea was that dopamine converted experiences into a common scale of “ reward ” and that animals (including the human animal) made choices in order to maximize this reward (see, for example, Olds and Milner, 1954 ; Kiyatkin and Gratton, 1994 ;see also Gardner and David, 1999 , for a review).

    The simple hypothesis of “ dopamine as reward ” was spectacularly disproved by a sequence of experiments highlighting the role of beliefs in modulating dopamine activity: whether or not dopamine responds to a particular reward depends on whether or not this reward was expected . This result was first shown by Schultz and colleagues ( Schultz et al. , 1993 ; Mirenowicz and Schultz, 1994; Montague, Dayan, and Sejnowski, 1996) . The latter study measured the activity of dopaminergic neurons in a thirsty monkey as it learned to associate a tone with the receipt of fruit juice a small amount of time later. Initially (i.e., before the animal had learned to associate the tone with the juice), dopamine neurons fired in response to the juice but not the tone . However, once the monkey had learned that the tone predicted the arrival of juice, then dopamine responded to the tone, but now did not respond to the juice. Moreover, once learning had taken place, if the tone was played but the monkey did not receive the juice, then there was a “ pause ” or drop in the background level of dopamine activity when the juice was expected.

    These dramatic findings concerning the apparent role of information about rewards in mediating the release of dopamine led many neuroscientists to abandon the hedonic theory of dopamine in favor of the RPE hypothesis: that dopamine responds to the difference between how “ rewarding ” an event is and how rewarding it was expected to be*. One reason that this theory has generated so much interest is that a reward prediction error of this type is a key algorithmic component of reward prediction error models of learning: such a signal is used to update the value attached to different actions. This has led to the further hypothesis that dopamine forms part of a reinforcement learning system which drives behavior (see, for example, Schultz et al. , 1997 ).[…]”

    *-“The above discussion makes it clear that reward is used in a somewhat unusual way. In fact, what dopamine is hypothesized to respond to is effectively unexpected changes in lifetime “ reward: ” dopamine responds to the bell not because the bell itself is rewarding, but because it indicates an increased probability of future reward. We will return to this issue in the following section.”

    Now start thinking about welfare and the insatiable dissipations of demotist frenzy.


    ||||| Reply:

    Oh yeah, I had forgotten what goes on in the next page, haha:

    “The RPE hypothesis is clearly interesting to both neuroscientists and economists. For neuroscientists, it offers the possibility of understanding at a neuronal level a key algorithmic component of the machinery that governs decision making. For economists, it offers the opportunity to obtain novel insight into the way beliefs are formed, as well as further develop our models of choice and learning.

    However, the RPE hypothesis is far from universally accepted within the neuroscience community. Others (e.g., Zink et al. , 2003 ) claim that dopamine responds to “ salience, ” or how surprising a particular event is. Berridge and Robinson (1998) claim that dopamine encodes “ incentive salience, ” which, while similar to RPE, differentiates between how much something is “ wanted ” and how much something is “ liked.”

    Alternatively, Redgrave and Gurney (2006) think that dopamine has nothing to do with reward processing, but instead plays a role in guiding attention. Developing successful tests of the RPE hypothesis which convince all schools is therefore a “ neuroeconomic” project of first-order importance. Developing such tests is complicated by the fact that the RPE model hypothesizes that dopamine responds to the interaction
    of two latent (or unobservable) variables: reward and beliefs. Anyone designing a test of the RPE hypothesis must first come up with a solution to this quandary: how can we test whether dopamine responds to changes in things that we cannot directly measure?”

    Will stop before I end up quoting the whole book.

    Izak Reply:

    OK, these are some excellent quotes from |||||| and P Taylor.

    If what ||||| is saying about the RPE hypothesis is true, then let’s try to apply it to the scenario I’m postulating.

    It seems like most of the SJW outrage articles aren’t signaling a direct reward: the whole purpose is to signal a “problem,” with the very clear expectation that it will be “solved,” usually through either institutional punishment or the cathartic act of complaint. So in a situation like that, for my theory to work, we’d have to draw up the analogy of, internet SJW : monkey :: outrage : tone signalling juice. And if we chase the analogy down, there’d have to be some sort of cathartic “correcting” moment (like complaining or whatever) that corresponds to the juice.

    The situation doesn’t seem directly comparable to Taylor’s quote from the Haidt book, because the slides being shown in Haidt’s example actually did challenge the person’s thinking, and the person couldn’t possibly think of a good response until the next slide. So there’s no real equivalent to a “tone” signalling “juice.” But the whole nature of SJW outrage articles is such where the problem automatically presupposes a solution and no other expectation is possible. I think SJWs actually get excited when they see sexism and racism because they’re so well-conditioned to realize that any sexism or racism will automatically be met with either institutional punishment (which is a reward), or finger-wagging and ideological affirmation from critics (which, again, is a reward unto itself because it bolsters identity). So if you’re being singled out as a “threat” from an SJW blog in some outrage piece, you’re not actually a threat at all. You’re actually just a pseudo-antagonism — a very necessary component within a self-augmenting process of political identity-formation.

    Izak Reply:

    Or maybe the “sexism” and “racism” in an SJW outrage article is like the confusing part where the person is “shackled” to the “handcuffs,” but the part of the article where the writer is like, “We totally don’t like that guy!” is the part of the article is where the person is “freed” from the “handcuffs.”

    Either way, my main point here is to suggest that although SJWs are horrible and should probably be kicked in the head (metaphorically of course), they’re also probably quite easy to manipulate and have very little control over what they’re doing. The way 4chan trolls these sorts of people is pretty good, but you could probably multiply it to an unbelievable degree.

    ||||| Reply:


    I think a little bit differently, that is, mostly similarly. There’s another comment down the pipeline but I use too many damn links. SJW are more like the Erinyes but with a twist of dishonesty in that our “oaths” (socially enforced expectations, really) are ambiguous so they always go for the more uncharitable interpretations of them by exploiting a vulnerability in social coordination (renormalization, Jim’s sinister holiness spiral brought about by environmental/technological metamorphic uncertainty, possibly corrigible through formalism but who knows). Glimcher’s book is organized in 33 chapters touching on neurological, game theoretic, evolutionary, psychological, social aspects of economics. Quite the jewel. A chapter perhaps more relevant to this discussion is Chapter 19. Responses to Inequity in Non-Human Primates. A taste(I changed my mind about quoting) (pg. 292-293):

    A recent study indicates that responder behavior in the ultimatum game is highly heritable ( Wallace et al ., 2007 ), evidence which supports the presence of a genetic mechanism through which these reactions can be passed on. It is likely that personality, genes, and culture interact to create the range of responses that any one individual is likely to display.
    Reactions to Disadvantageous Inequity

    Eighty years ago, a comparative psychologist named Otto Tinklepaugh examined macaques ’ responses to violation of expectation ( Tinklepaugh, 1928 ). Monkeys were shown a food, which was then hidden. Later, the researcher uncovered it and gave it to the monkey. Sometimes, he switched the food with a less desirable one without the monkey’s knowledge. In these cases, the monkeys responded by becoming upset and refusing the less valuable foods. This demonstrated that these monkeys had expectations about what they should have received.

    What Tinklepaugh did not do was investigate how they responded to a partner getting a better reward. Would the monkeys then form expectations based on what their partner received, and respond negatively if they got a less good reward than their partner?
    Our group has now performed this experiment. Our studies have investigated whether primates would be willing to complete an exchange interaction (return a token and accept a food reward) if their partners got a better food for the same “ price, ” an exchange (see Figure 19.4 for a sketch of the test set-up). We tested capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees in pairs, with members of their social groups as their partners.

    In each case, one member of the pair, the partner, received a good reward (in this case a grape)for completing an exchange with the experimenter, while the subject received a reward which was less valuable, but nonetheless typically desired (a piece of cucumber), for the same work – the exchange. These results were compared to a control in which both individuals exchanged to receive a cucumber, as well as several other conditions discussed below. We measured subjects ’ willingness to complete the exchange interaction and their willingness to consume the cucumber once they had received it. It turned out that subjects responded in each way about half of the time, so for the following analyses, unless otherwise noted, these categories are pooled and willingness to complete the interaction (return the token AND consume the food) is reported.

    In both species, subjects completed virtually all exchanges when both individuals got cucumber (the equitable situation), but failed to complete the interaction in as many as 80% of trials in which their partner got the (better) grape ( Figure 19.5 ; Brosnan and de Waal, 2003 ; Brosnan, Schiff, and de Waal, 2005 ). Thus, both the ape and the monkey appear to be responding negatively to receiving less. However, a few possibilities must be eliminated before this can be considered a reaction to inequity.

    For instance, it may just be “ greed, ” or a desire for a better food that is available, rather than “ envy, ” or a desire for a better food that another individual currently possesses ( Brosnan and de Waal, 2004a ; Wynne, 2004 ). To take this in to account we did an additional control, in which subjects were shown a grape, following which they exchanged and received only a cucumber piece. With the capuchins, this was done in two different ways. In the first, the subject was isolated, rather than being tested as a member of a pair, and grapes were placed in the partner’s side of the testing chamber prior to each exchange. In this way, subjects saw the grapes pile up while they continued to receive only cucumber ( Brosnan and de Waal, 2003 ).

    Subjects discriminated between this and the situation in which a partner received the grape, becoming more likely to accept the cucumber over time when no other monkey received a grape ( Figure 19.6a ). However, in this situation subjects were tested alone, while in all other conditions subjects were tested with a social partner. Although it seems minor, for a gregarious species such a change in the social environment may have large effects.

    Thus, we used a second method with the capuchins, as well as with the chimpanzees, in which subjects remained with their partner and each was shown a grape immediately before their exchange. Again, individuals were exposed to grapes in this testing situation, but no other subject received one. As when subjects were tested alone, subjects in both species discriminated between this and the situation in which a partner received the grape, becoming more likely to accept the cucumber over time when no other individual received a grape (see chimpanzee data and capuchin data in Figures 19.6b and 19.6c , respectively; Brosnan et al ., 2005 ; van Wolkenten et al ., 2007 ). This indicates that the partner receiving a grape is much more important than the presence of grapes alone.


    The chapter goes on to explore different circumstances of inequity while also relating peculiarities in each primate’s behavior and associations with effort, social context, altruism, cooperation, games and other such things.

    Down, be still thy cursed wolf – Trichotomy as Cerberus, anyone?
    The master scorns its name
    Dive to the next plain
    The sullen and the vain
    Suffer for their greed
    The prodigal they bleed
    For all eternity
    Plutus holds the key”

    Thinking of starting my own blog so I can howl my foolishness without clogging admin’s comment section.

    ||||| Reply:

    There are also videos on Youtube referring to some of this (you might have even heard of or seen some of it before), though typically this is interpreted as egalitarian notions of fairness being objective without mentioning further subtleties, oh well.

    ||||| Reply:

    Possibly the same structure eversed.

    ||||| Reply:


    ||||| Reply:

    “[…] Applied over different time periods, this framework reveals strong correlations between the excess of negative emotions and the evolution of communities. We observe avalanches of emotional comments exhibiting significant self-organized critical behavior and temporal correlations. To explore robustness of these critical states, we design a network automaton model on realistic network connections and several control parameters, which can be inferred from the dataset. Dissemination of emotions by a small fraction of very active users appears to critically tune the collective states.”

    Hatred is more binding than merriment.

    Consider roman decimation, fustuarium, scapegoating, etc. Maybe it’s a renormalization procedure or a spectre of it. In times of uncertainty or turbulence a scapegoat or sacrifice is chosen to be made an example of collective norms, either to herald new ones or restate and reinvigorate old ones. Also consider retroactive legislation, amnesty and other such circumstances. Also consider the sublimation and appeasement of mob justice and similar behaviors.


    John Reply:

    > There’s surely a way to profit from this state of affairs.

    There is already a social justice rage profiteering racket in full operation, starting with professional feminists and anti-racists, and filtering back to Gawker-like websites, and finally all the way down to the mainstream media.

    > We talk a lot about how SJWs are awful and everything, and no doubt they are. But the flip-side of the whole scenario is that in addition to being awful, they might also be unwitting slaves to their own compulsions.

    And writers and publishers have their own profit driven compulsions fueling the fires of socially conscious rage. Yet another instance of capitalist forces driving the promotion of leftist ideology.


    scientism Reply:

    Shirtgate has created a lot of outrage against feminists, so a good way to profit, and keep the backlash going, would be to set up some kind of “SJW Watch” website that would ferment addictive outrage among conservatives and free speech liberals. You could also encourage people to send in stories of PC horrors in the workplace, insider accounts of how the media and civil service operates, etc. Expose the Cathedral.


    Izak Reply:

    Not a bad idea. I was thinking of something along the lines of confidence games, espionage, and #AAA, but this is a very simple and doable suggestion. Add another loop into the recursive samsara that is internet rage.


    Posted on November 16th, 2014 at 6:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#36) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 16th, 2014 at 7:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Izak — Funny that you post on SJWs and compulsive behavior, because I was just about to write on something very similar, but from the opposite perspective: i.e. anger and fixed neural pathways on the political right. I have been wrestling with the issue of knowing I am right about nearly everything and yet still recognizing that I am spending a little too much time feeling indignant and huffy about the latest idiocy from the left. Being right is not, in itself, ball-advancive. A person only has so much time on earth. There simply is not enough time to hate all the things that need to be hated and still love all the things and people that need to be loved.

    So I’m trying to work out a sort of threshold level, and then change certain behaviors. Every day I encounter incompetence, and it’s not a stretch to trace it back to generations of dysgenic reproduction in 4 cases out of 5. But if I seethe anew at every instance of incompetence caused by this one dynamic I will never do anything else but seethe.

    Something must change. Been working on this problem …


    Izak Reply:

    Just turn off the computer!

    Honestly, if you dropped entirely out of “the loop” (ie, the internet rage feedback loop of zany posturing and political finger-wagging) for five years, you’d miss basically nothing.

    One of my friends did an experiment where he stopped using the internet for several months and only bought magazines. He’d just go to the 7-11 or whatever, but some energy drink and a bunch of magazines. Then he’d just sit there in his living room cross-legged and read magazines and get all of his info from that. You should try that and see what effect it has on your thinking. At the very least, you could write a good essay about how print media conveys itself in an age where it’s becoming obslete. I’d read that, for sure.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Well you know the past week was largely just that for me. Was at a retreat in a foreign country. Upshot was something like this: I really realized how much CRITICAL info I had absorbed with real-world implications. Saw other people struggling with issues and being crushed by forces that they did not understand — but I did. So it’s not like I’m not learning anything critical by being a human vacuum cleaner vis a vis neoreaction and related blogs. The issue is, as you say, balance. I have probably hit a point of declining marginal utility, frankly. Have been scaling back sharply in recent months. Read a far lower portion of links at Elusive Wapiti and Free Northerner, for instance.

    I find I get in a totally different (and better) zone after spending a couple days in the mountains or on a road trip.

    But still, hard to emphasize enough how important neoreactionary concepts are to internalize BEFORE going off the drip-feed. If you don’t, you just get ground up into dog meat. Preaching to choir here, of course …


    Hurlock Reply:

    So, Kgaard, what are your thoughts on that Japanese triple dip rece-, whoops, I mean triple dip recovery…

    Kgaard Reply:


    It’s totally overblown, Hurlock. Here’s a link for you.

    Unemployment is still at rock-bottom levels. How can you have a recession when unemployment is falling? Sumner calls it a growth pause and I agree. His take on it matches what I see coming through on the quarterly earnings at the company level.

    Here is Ambrose Evans Pritchard, also with good commentary on Abenomics.

    It really is important to think about what Japan is doing and stack that up against the travesty unfolding in southern Europe. We are in new era. Two generations of sub-replacement fertility in the west is really effing with traditional economic models.

    Posted on November 17th, 2014 at 3:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Reactionary Expat Says:

    John Michael Greer’s replies to objections in his latest offering were fairly weak and pretty obviously wrong. His last couple of articles have been fairly weak, actually. He seems to make some pretty fatal basic assumptions. One person noted that gold would be pretty useful in buying passage on an escape ship, to which JMG essentially said that that assumes that there would be somewhere to escape to. Well, yes, there probably would be, though there is no guarantee of successful escape, of course. The Dark Ages in Europe could be contrasted with the Tang Dynasty of China. Likewise, the fall of Constantinople occurred during the height of the Venetian Republic, or a Spain about to burst upon the world scene.

    This brings us to the second, and more basic, incorrect assumption on his part. He seems to offer a world that is incredibly backward and basic absent the availability of fossil fuels, one in which there wouldn’t be a highly complex web of intermediaries, market economies and currencies. This does not in anyway square with historical fact. Many parts of the world pre-1750 had all such things without fossil fuels, and there did not have to be centuries long complete decline and collapse between one dynasty or hegemon and its eventual successor. Sometimes, the transition was relatively short and smooth.

    Finally, JMG is big on encouraging people to acquire useful skills, rather than acquiring “stuff”, suggesting that doing so would be more likely to keep one alive. Of course, that ignores the fact that any group of barbarians or bandits would not necessarily have the foresight to kidnap a craftsman, or at least keep him alive so that they could steal from him next year, or even that said craftsman (or community) might starve to death after such a raid. However, I just about laughed out loud when, after JMG had patronisingly dismissed gold hoarders, he encouraged someone for being interested in learning book binding. Obviously, the barbarian hordes would also recognise the value of such skills and their practitioners…


    Brother Nihil Reply:

    John Michael Greer is a crackpot Burkean eco-occultist with asperger’s who uses his undeniable talents and erudition for the purpose of propaganda and romanticist delusion. If you want to turn neoreaction into an intellectual joke, start emulating Greer. The guy is incapable and/or uninterested in engaging in serious debate; what he does is repeat mantras, use sophistry and wield the banhammer as well as any leftist. His claims are so grandiose and slippery that there’s really no way to falsify them within any of our lifetimes.

    The most interesting about him is his rather novel combination of (archaic) ideological influences, which can’t be pigeonholed into any modern left/right paradigm. The dude is a freak reactionary, who, like Mullah Omar, can be admired for his stubborn will, knowledge and unfashionableness, but not taken seriously as a man with useful answers to the questions of our time.

    A good indication of Greer’s lack of rigor is his refusal to address serious criticisms of his post dealing with race. He simply deleted them and told the critics to “put away the white sheets” like a good leftist. Not impressed…


    admin Reply:

    Greer has his intellectual no-go zones, but that just makes him part of the 99%. He’s extremely smart, and consistent (if ultimately wrong). Far more active thought-process evident in his writing than in most anti-capitalist reactionaries.

    I agree with all of your specific criticisms, though, FWIW.


    John Reply:

    > His claims are so grandiose and slippery that there’s really no way to falsify them within any of our lifetimes.

    > Greer has his intellectual no-go zones

    This is what ruins him for me. I can’t bring myself to invest the cognitive resources require to follow his epic speculations and analyses, knowing the foundations are deeply at odds with my own image of reality.

    Posted on November 17th, 2014 at 7:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Reactionary Expat Says:

    @Reactionary Expat That is a good summary of how he operates.


    Posted on November 17th, 2014 at 12:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Reactionary Expat Says:

    That was supposed to be a reply to Brother Nihil.


    Posted on November 17th, 2014 at 12:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Frog Do Says:

    @Reactionary Expat

    Following smart people from perspectives you think are wrong is still a useful activity, surely, for people with the fortitude to disagree.


    Posted on November 17th, 2014 at 4:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Butler Says:

    From the last of the linked O’Neill articles:
    “The truth is that it isn’t the press that has changed; it’s the Left. Fundamentally, the Left today, unlike the radicals of the past, has no faith whatsoever in ordinary people, in humanity itself, and thus it constantly turns to the state and asks it to fix the alleged problems blighting society or giving Leftists a headache… That is what modern Leftists think of the masses – that they’re cruel, dishonest, immoral, violent, and apparently these tendencies must be tamed by depriving the oiks of their daily fix of tabloid titillation.”

    See, this is a good thing. The censorious leftists know in the black depths of their hearts that their much-vaunted democracy is lowest-common-denominator mob scramble that’s not fit to run anything properly. And little signs like this demonstrate it.

    ‘Course, they’d prefer going full Zhang Xianzhong than full [insert preferred Reaction-approved neocameralist / hagiocratic / tekno-cyborg / patriachal government system here], but the fact that these people can still recognise a bad thing when they see it perhaps shows that the Kool-Aid has yet to cripple all of their mental processes. Today’s prog is more censorious than yesterday’s prog because, unlike his starry-eyed utopian predecessors, he can hear the barbed crab-claws of Gnon just around the future’s bend. His response is to try and block the noise out, yes. But at least he *does* hear that stomach-churning, bone-crushing, fast-approaching SNIBETY-SNAB.


    Izak Reply:

    I’ve sort of written about this kind of thing in previous comments sections on this blog.

    The left really doesn’t understand how to grapple with the tastes of the masses. The masses like vulgarity. In fact, that’s what “vulgus” is in Latin, it’s the common rabble. But the left hates vulgarity because vulgarity always provides a storehouse of forbidden temptations and desires totally incompatible with leftist thinking: racial/ethnic/religious/linguistic tribalism, masculine aggression and dominance through violence, aggressive sexual lust, a fixation on evil for its own sake, etc.

    When people say that leftism is all about chaos and disorder for its own sake, they’re completely wrong. Leftism has been slowly gravitating toward a pristine and strict view of how the world ought to be, and the desires of the masses will always be incompatible with their ideals. Complete equality, in both outcome and opportunity, is what the left wants and has been slowly barreling toward since its inception as a self-realized political philosophy. Needless to say, it is an extreme and radical proposition for how to solve the problem of the human experience. It could even be feasible under a massive large-scale program of genetic engineering and social ordering, but it would require an unfathomably high amount of energy to keep such a tightly wound state of affairs from unraveling into chaos.

    The cognitive dissonance in the left stems from its inability to understand what ‘natural behavior’ really is, and it’s a problem that originated in the enlightenment. Despite the postmodern critique of enlightenment thought, the left has never really understood that much of what it rallies against is totally natural. In fact, the left gets its energy from thinking that it has the key to unlocking the *true* natural state of affairs that “enculturation” and “social constructs” keep us from realizing. So when the left stares at the masses, it finds itself unable to know what to do. This problem of understand the human condition is what accounts for most of the silly and amusing contradictions in how the cultural left expresses itself.


    Butler Reply:

    Well put; I’m inclined to agree. An Enlightenment-inherited misunderstanding of human nature means leftism isn’t a political programme for homo sapiens; it’s a political programme for homo sovieticus. If we’re feeling generous we might even speculate that leftism could function as advertised, if homo sovieticus existed. But alas, here we are, scrubbing it out in stupid reality.

    As for the thing about leftism = chaos, I do think there’s something in the notion. In the sense that utopian leftist party line holds that, unencumbered by such ‘stifling’ mores as hierarchy or wage-slavery or biological gender, homo sovieticus would choose to pursue eudaemoniac ends: and co-operative, ethnically diverse, skipping-through-a-field-of-daises order would arise spontaneously from a sufficiently perfect chaos.

    But as you say, when you give homo sapiens chaos, they tend to opt for things other than human flourishing.


    Posted on November 17th, 2014 at 7:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    I don’t like the tendency for medium neoreactionaries to criticize moldbug because they lack his excellence and his eliteness. Only a select few are as discerning as him. People just make mistakes everywhere and aren’t as well read. His criticism of CS research and haskell’s ‘dynamic higher order programming’, ‘static higher-order programming'(macros), and his position that PL researchers were over fascinated by the church numerals and this was a mistake is a subtlety that most of the pretenders writing will forever be unable to do. Our best enemies are our worst advocates.

    We have some very brilliant people here and are in good company, but I don’t want to read ‘Baby’s first political essay’ every post. If you even try to look you can see people making obvious mistakes and errors and they should keep reading and not writing. This is not to say that we cannot maintain some identity to let people know we’re here and active, but some of the stuff is just dumb.

    The barrier to entry needs to be replacing the lambda calculus, or some severe work. A few people do have this ability but it’s far less than the amount of people who keep participating. A bunch of highly-intelligent and under educated individuals.

    Then we have people criticizing John Gray who’s been doing this anti-enlightenment thing longer than most people here have been alive.


    Hurlock Reply:

    “We have some very brilliant people here and are in good company, but I don’t want to read ‘Baby’s first political essay’ every post. If you even try to look you can see people making obvious mistakes and errors and they should keep reading and not writing. This is not to say that we cannot maintain some identity to let people know we’re here and active, but some of the stuff is just dumb.”

    “Some” “stuff” “people”
    If you are going to compain about people writing stupid things, do it properly, name names and point out mistakes.
    Otherwise you are not helping.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    This will just make it harder to fold. It’d just be better if we could get people to update and move on. Doing it properly is not invoking politics to people who have established identities, it’s just going to be long and drawn out. If you want one, here. Let’s use your post on property rights and Alrenous. Nothing below is an insult etc etc.



    There is a somewhat reductionist foundation for property rights can be defined as having a baseline in executive functioning/pre-executive functioning which can be used as a foundation for proto-ethics & ethics. Executive functioning is necessary for reciprocal exchange as defined as

    a)trading behavior
    b)& large delayed exchanges over time
    c) social cooperation
    d) social competition
    e) social symbiosis/mutualism

    see: Barkely “Executive Functions What They Are, How they Work, and Why they Evolved 2012”. Everyone should have got it from some way via Haidt as well, although this is a separate sourcing to give a wealth of evidence to the basis of ‘property’.

    If people could read Barkely 2012, Stanovich 2010, and Baron 2007. They would utterly surpass the majority of the writers here.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Barkley* sorry

    Hurlock Reply:

    I am afraid I don’t understand.

    First of all, none of your propertarianism links open for me so I can’t compare anything.
    So because they don’t open are you saying that my and Alrenous’ account of property rights is wrong? And if so, how?

    “There is a somewhat reductionist foundation for property rights can be defined as having a baseline in executive functioning/pre-executive functioning which can be used as a foundation for proto-ethics & ethics. Executive functioning is necessary for reciprocal exchange as defined as

    a)trading behavior
    b)& large delayed exchanges over time
    c) social cooperation
    d) social competition
    e) social symbiosis/mutualism”

    You need to expand on this a bit. How would any of this discount my and Alrenous’ account and in what way?

    Posted on November 18th, 2014 at 1:03 am Reply | Quote
  • zimriel Says:

    The Cathedral will no longer enter sacred land :


    Posted on November 18th, 2014 at 1:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:


    Ok, the links opened for me, but my question still stands. How do any of the points made in those posts argue against my and Alrenous’ formulation of property and why is it better?


    Posted on November 18th, 2014 at 10:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Here is a good post from Lars Christensen at Danske Bank, in which he discusses Mussolini’s attempt to strengthen the lira in 1934. Result? Deflation, unemployment, stagnation, Abyssinian invasion in 1935 … and perhaps the alliance with Hitler soon thereafter. If Mussolini’s monetary policy had been wiser — i.e. not so uber-tight — would he have perhaps chosen a different route in the 30s? Seems like there’s an obvious lesson for today’s ECB in here …


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Much of this is built on the assumption that we’re already in a deflationary world. So can you point out to me where I can go get some more bang for my buck? I’m wondering if maybe it’s a deflationary environment for the very rich and perhaps maybe to some extent the poor but I don’t see how it’s deflationary to the middle class. Is this one of those things like globalization where it’s going to screw the middle class hard but benefit the economy as a whole?


    Kgaard Reply:

    Well in Southern Europe real estate prices were really cratering there for a while. Widget prices were falling at street level and especially at the wholesale level for many things. Wages are down hard there and youth unemployment (sub-25 y.o.) like 50%. In America we don’t have deflation so it’s not an issue. In Japan real estate prices fell for like 25 years but they are just now bottoming out and starting to rise.


    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 3:47 am Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] really get too much of that. Nick Land also makes a irregularly regular habit of it with his Chaos Patches, which if I call correctly didn’t start out as link fests. That property must have emerged. […]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2014 at 5:36 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment