Chaos Patch (#50)

(Open thread + links)

Masters of the NRx energy cycle right now: Hurlock (on economic history, 1, 2, 3) and Poseidon (on significant triangles, 1, 2). Dampier has settled into a marathonrunner pace. Mango politics. “You want to save the world? Have the strength to walk away.” Never trust a non-biologian. Meanwhile, in the Augean Stables of absurd lies. The Christian Question. Teleotheology, and cyclical demography. The worse, the better. Chatting with Chesterton. No NRX for Mike (loosely related). Still speciating. Finally! Reaction rounds.

The slow, painful death of democracy. Russia is cooked. A fairly massive Greek-chicken dump (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) — when it’s time to finally go over the cliff, you get the drivers you deserve. US and China on opposite paths. The strong dollar illusion. Into the crack-up phase?

When Keynes spoke the truth. Classic left libertarian irritability (more here).

On the Internet, darkness will win (with some intriguing twists).

That’s the stupidest, most easily avoidable path to self-destruction ever. And yet it seems to be the one we’re on.” Disparate impact dogma is going to hurt. When minorities attack (each other). Stubbornly non-ethnic whites (stubbornly not looking for understanding). The truth will set you free.

Alain de Benoist on fascism. Submission reviewed. Luther is back.

When Swatch tried to decimalize global time.

Newton’s papers.

February 22, 2015admin 28 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , , , , , , ,

28 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#50) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Chaos Patch (#50) […]

    Posted on February 22nd, 2015 at 8:20 am Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    What do all the NRx libertarians think of Robert P Murphy’s criticisms of the ABCT? For some reason, I haven’t seen them discussed around these parts.


    Hurlock Reply:

    As far as I remember Murphy’s criticism of the ABCT was related to his criticism of the Austrian Pure Time Preference Rate Theory. As far as I know the first is derived from the second (correct me if I am wrong).
    Interest and capital theory is an extremely dense subject and it is definitely the most complicated one not only in Austrian, but in the whole of econ. It hasn’t been called the “black hole of economics” for no reason. Now, I have read Murphy’s criticism of the PTPRT and he makes good points, but the last time I checked those were replied to by other austrians. From what I have read so far I tend to think the PTPRT is correct.
    But, as I said, it is an extremely dense subject, and I may not myself that much of an expert on it, at least not yet (although coincidentally, I am focusing on studying Austrian econ more in-depth atm).


    SGW Reply:

    It has been a while since I read Murphy’s piece on the PTPRT, and studied Austrian econ in general, but I think you’re right when it comes to the relationship between the PTPRT and the ABCT. To be honest I haven’t quite managed to get to reading his dissertation, so I don’t really have a complete view of his criticism.

    I have googled around for responses to his critique from fellow Austrians, but I couldn’t really find any. Could you perhaps link me to the responses?


    Hurlock Reply:

    Paul Cwik responded with a paper called “A Defense of the Traditional Austrian Theory of Interest” and I have it save on my computer although I cannot find it online atm anywhere except here
    If you can’t access it there, you can just mail me at and I will send it to you.

    I think there was also a response by Roger Garrison but I cannot find it atm, so I might be wrong.
    Also Murphy’s criticisms are also addressed in this book:

    SGW Reply:

    Thank you for your response, I’ll be sure to read those two documents when I have time.

    Posted on February 22nd, 2015 at 9:12 am Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    About there is no such thing as a pure libertarian, anyway. Most of these ideologies borrow elements of others. I’m a free market libertarian but tend to be more neo con in fiscal and defense policy, and classically liberal in other areas.

    The strong dollar is part of the trend to flight to safety, which I don’t see reversing anytime soon. I’ve wondered why Newton why didn’t he make the leap to higher levels of math in his lifetime. It’s like he discovered calculus, which is what a 10th grader can learn. and then stuck there for the rest of his life.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Because ‘calculus’ as we know it was not what he learned. Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Poisson, Lacroix, Poisson, and Monge all dismissed fourier series.

    Besides Archimedes method of exhaustion is the same as Cauchy’s. The worst near miss in all mathematics is Leibnitz missing computability here


    Posted on February 22nd, 2015 at 11:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#50) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 22nd, 2015 at 12:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Y.Ilan Says:

    Russia’s corruption and decline is steeper than what one can find in Europe or North America. It is just as degenerate if not more so (as seen by the horrible abuse of horrible drugs, the catastrophic alcoholism and suicide rates), and the sooner right-leaning civilization-minded people stop idealizing Putin and Russia the better. Fragmentation is ultimately the only answer.


    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    I’m skeptical of talk of Russian decline. That which has always been bad cannot decline very much. No offense meant to any Russians in the audience.

    What peak is Russia declining from? The Tsar? Late Communism? Yeltsin? The Mongol Yoke? The early years of Putin?

    I guess you could say it has all been downhill since the end of the Novgorod Republic…

    I feel like there is a tendency to make some questionable assumptions about Russia’s potential. Just because they kind of look like us, does not mean that they are going to produce the same sort of society.

    And I can’t help but notice that Al Fin really has an axe to grind against Russia.


    Posted on February 22nd, 2015 at 12:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The point of libertarianism is to return us to consequentialism from preference-projection in the democratic sense.

    The problem with it is that it is still utilitarian, or assessed by what people think they like, not what benefits them.

    The dirty secret of humanity is that most people cannot make decisions that concern their own futures; they bungle, then conceal, then become addicted to lying to cover their tracks.

    A better way is to give them roles and more time off so they can figure themselves out as best they can.

    Glad to see the Russian collapse underway. Russia is an example of how miscegenation is destructive and leaves behind people with the ability of the more advanced tribe, but the inability to understand it of the lower.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    It’s true that libertarians tend to have too simplistic views of human nature, but there’s a bigger problem. Libertarians tend to ask, “If you take responsible government for granted, what are good economics policies?” It’s the wrong question. The question it should be trying to solve is, “How do you get a responsible government?”


    Phillip Reply:

    I wouldn’t put much stock in what Alfin has to say regarding Russia. Alfin is a Jewish Russophobe. A lot of Jews seem to dislike Russia and spend a lot of energy vilifying it.

    I’m not sure what you mean by Russians being “miscegenated”. Genetically, Russians are similar to northern and northeastern Europeans. They’re probably closer to the original Indo-Europeans genetically than Western Europeans are. You guys are supposed to be into that sort of thing, so I don’t understand the antipathy. Western Europeans have more neolithic farmer ancestry from the Middle East, which is like proto-Semitic ancestry, than the Russians, so perhaps that is the common source for the antipathy from Western Europeans and Jews for the Russians.


    Posted on February 22nd, 2015 at 2:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Frog Do Says:

    Regarding Mike Enoch and the Jewish question, it seems to me to be an obsession with modernity. HBD clearly demonstrates that outbreeding and manorialism existed in European population before any organized Jewish conspiracy could affect it, unless they’ve controlled the Catholic Church completely since the beginning. Everything must be cultural and biology is ignored, ironic for anti-Semites.


    Izak Reply:

    Yup. The great eponymous hero of Beowulf, one of the earliest known Western European epics, comes from a foreign land.

    Anyhow, I listened to Mike’s podcast. I wish more alt-right podcast type guys would prepare some notes before they record things, but aesthetics aside, he made some good points about Moldbug. Moldbug’s point about using too much evidence is totally lame, he’s right. Moldbug also has a blatant double standard when it comes to viewing groups as Groups versus mere clusters of constituent parts. Also, Enoch is absolutely right to say that Jewish influence was a necessary condition for extreme multicultural decadence in the US and Western Europe.

    That said, Moldbug’s idea about Jewish intellectual over-assimilation is kind of an interesting one, though he doesn’t articulate it very well. He throws it out there, more as a side thought, but I think he’s onto something. I’ve had similar thoughts before ever having heard of Moldbug. For instance, take Marx. That Marx A) wanted to take the growing popularity of socialism, radically break it down and completely rewrite it in his name, and B) wrote diatribes against the Jews for greed and capitalistic tendencies — that is just a tad interesting, to me anyhow. You could also argue that Freud’s whole goal was to help Jews become less Jewy, but that might just be too much of a stretch.


    Potere Occulto Reply:

    “You could also argue that Freud’s whole goal was to help Jews become less Jewy, but that might just be too much of a stretch.”
    No, theres something to that. Jung was welcomed because he was a Gentile – see Cronenbergs ‘A Dangerous Method’ for a dramatisation.


    Izak Reply:

    Oh, I’ve seen that movie. It’s a great date flick, up there with (1996) Crash. Cronenberg is a true cinematic artist.

    If I really enjoyed thinking about the Jews enough, I’d write a book on this subject, since I’m not really seeing any serious attempts to discuss what’s up with them besides MacDonald. The two biggest claims of my book would be A) the one above about radical assimilation via grotesque aping of Western altruistic (and probably other) impulses, and B) that anti-semitic actions are partly instigated by outward Jewish cultural assimilation, which in turn causes mutual anxiety in both gentiles and devout theistic Jews about cultural contamination. When gentiles and Orthodox Jews see Jews trying to blend in (Kevin MacDonald sees this as crypsis), it has — up until this point — been a lot like the Uncanny Valley phenomenon, with a whole ethnicity resembling the doppelganger. A book like The Communist Manifesto is only an intellectual version of this sort of phenomenon. I’ve seen popular versions of this theory, but they rarely contain meaningful historical analysis, unless there’s some book I’m not aware of.

    Posted on February 22nd, 2015 at 7:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Konkvistador Says:

    The Russia article seems just a mix of the greatest hits of Western gloating over the past 20 years. Not seeing much connection to reality.

    For example talk of “demographic crisis”:


    spandrell Reply:

    Seems to me that Al Fin and A. Karlin are about the same distance from reality, if on different sides.


    Konkvistador Reply:

    That sounds about right.


    Posted on February 23rd, 2015 at 6:50 am Reply | Quote
  • AnomalyUK Says:

    On the Bartlett net-anonymity piece, the question that still nags me is: has IPv6 been sabotaged?

    The Internet was built as peer-to-peer. The reason P2P is now difficult, and most popular communication is done via service providers like Skype or Gmail, is that consumer computers are not connected directly to the Internet, but given an indirect sort of access via NAT and DHCP. That in turn means I cannot send data from my computer to yours without using some choke point as an identification and connection broker.

    This is all due to the shortage of IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is now 20 years old, but has still not been widely deployed.

    The Dan Bernstein argument that it was misdesigned for the migration seems sound, but given the advantages the situation holds for surveillance practitioners, the question of why it has never been fixed… bothers me.


    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    Interesting angle. I’m not sure it has been consciously sabotaged, the adoption of IPv6 is going slowly but steadily, but there are very persistent perceptions that

    A) there are enough IPv4 for anyone that matters, market forces will distribute them

    B) NAT gateways provide a natural point to put a firewall, as well as hide the structure of the internal network for privacy as security

    As for A there is lots of space at the bottom, even rich countries cannot afford an IPv4 for every device inall the gadgets around these days [let alone the IoT or drone swarms]. Luckily, doing NAT at multiple levels works very badly, so that never caught on.

    B is also widely considered wrong. NAT doesn’t provide security in itself. A rule such as “allow only outward connections” can be enforced without NAT. But as you say this breaks P2P. And the motivation is questionable – in practice most exploitations arise from outward connections (e.g. picking up malware through web browsing) not direct attacks. As for hiding internal structure, e.g. a gateway could apply a random permutation to the internal address space as seen from the outside. This leaves a slight privacy concern – one can still distinguish different devices on the internal network, which was not possible behind NAT.

    Given that, surveillance has both to gain and lose from IPv6 adoption. If there is any sabotaging going on for IPv6 adoption, look at the players that have to gain from IPv4 shortage.

    Regarding P2P, IPv4/IPv6 is only one of the obstacles, it is inherently more difficult to make services in a robust P2P way, centralization is the easy, but probably short lived, way out.


    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    I couldn’t put my finger on it before, but I suspect your ‘sabotage’ argument holds for mesh networks. Direct (local, or even line-of-sight) communication would make it a lot harder to intercept every communication (or even collect metadata) by avoiding utility companies completely. The truest form of P2P. It would be rational for organizations interested in mass surveillance to attempt to block these kinds of technologies.
    (this was explicltly not possible with GSM, carriers ofc. also have commercial reasons to want everyone to communicate through them, though recently use of such tech has been picking up, )

    As mentioned in the article spying in such a world would require “more James Bonds and fewer Edward Snowdens”, e.g. more handiwork, which is expensive. Drones could help of course… that is, help both the networks themselves and those surveilling them.

    (and even with mass use of mesh networks there will necessarily be hubs and bottlenecks where it’s strategic to do mass interception, e.g. transatlantic cables or sattelite links. Information leeches in their natural habitat)


    Posted on February 23rd, 2015 at 7:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    It literally takes drugs to make someone like Keynes speak the truth.
    You don’t fucking say.

    I distrust truth serums. It seems unlikely that there’s a distinct ‘lying’ module in the brain that can be selectively shut off. It would be like temporarily paralyzing just the left ring finger with a pill. Further, all it will reveal is beliefs, not aliefs. Still, it perhaps means the leftist sincerity theory could be empirically tested.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Keynes wasn’t lying, his entire economic platform is based off of his ‘Theory of Probability’ see Michael Emmet Brady.


    Posted on February 24th, 2015 at 5:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Destruction as Near-Complete as Nuclear War | al fin next level Says:

    […] This article was linked on chaospatch #50, with some commenters there taking exception to my tone. […]

    Posted on February 24th, 2015 at 8:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Random, disjointed thoughts | The Right Vidya Says:

    […] Nick Land linked to my piece on Hatred! I don’t comment on Land that much since his work is way beyond my reading level, but it feels great to be noticed. Still, I think my thinkpiece isn’t THAT great. Even though I look at things realistically, I’m not really a fan of pessimism. As cold as I am, I can’t really entirely divorce myself from the human cost of social decay. I’d much rather my work that involves praising people who do things right get promoted instead. Sadly, that seems to be in short supply… […]

    Posted on February 26th, 2015 at 10:23 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment