SF Communism

There’s a gold-mine here.

There’s simply no way on earth that Silicon Valley is in the right place. Something has to give.

May 15, 2017admin 83 Comments »


83 Responses to this entry

  • someprovincial Says:

    Those silicon gold diggers will up and leave after the bubble bursts. I think a wiser strategy is too keep the rich out. They bring money but they will also leave as quickly as they came for the next fashionable money making opportunity. When the rich leave everything will be overbuilt and vacant.


    Posted on May 15th, 2017 at 6:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Something will give.


    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    Another real estate bubble, of course it will burst. People are quick to panic and see these kind of bidding wars as the end of the world, or see it as a goose with golden eggs, as if it will continue indefinitely.

    Meanwhile demand is not infinite, and tech industrialists realize they can pretty much live and work from everywhere they want, they don’t all need to move to a place where they spend nearly all their income on housing, nor have to deal with an increasingly hostile political climate.

    Pretty much: http://www.xenosystems.net/geopolitical-arbitrage/

    SV might very well be a ghost town in 30 years. Although it was formative, it jumped the shark and is increasingly full of circle-jerk marketing hype. If there is any geographic center of technical innovation it might be Shenzhen etc, but would expect it to grow more decentralized and hard to pin down as time passes.


    Lucian Reply:

    Gibt es?


    Posted on May 15th, 2017 at 8:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Been thinking about norms and norm-edge-exploration norms.

    Westerners have a normal norm mode and an experimental mode. If you’re being experimental you’re allowed to transgress many normal norms, but must stay in an experimental ghetto, at least until it’s been around long enough to count as part of tradition.

    Unfortunately the experimental norms been tuned by experience, not rationality, so they’re not particularly well tuned. I suspect the passes through the norm mountains that lead to silicon valley also lead to communism, so it’s not at all a coincidence they appear cheek by jowl. To the normies it all looks like weird freaky experimentation.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:



    Dale Rooster Reply:

    “Unfortunately the experimental norms been tuned by experience, not rationality, so they’re not particularly well tuned.”

    Could you provide an example and flush out what you mean?

    Allen Ginsberg (as a historical subject whose objective works of literature have been deemed worthy of study according to educational authorities) has been tuned by, say, “rationality”–that is, his work is studied as an object of literature worthy or study. Now, if you disregard him as a counter- example because the Cathedral is the actor of the tuning, and thus not “rational,” then I understand. But perhaps that’s not the case. The passive voice you employ to make that assertion, regarding tuning by experience rather than rationality, raises questions. Who is the tuner (of experience or rationality)?

    Also, why would passing through the norm mountains–all leading to freaky experimentalism; etc.–be your suspicion? Why would you suspect this is the perception of the normies, the generalization of experimentalism, which could lead either to Silicon Valley or Stalin?

    In other words, could you provide more examples of what counts as allowed transgressions of normal norms (which would mean they’re not really transgressing anything), and real or true transgressions of normal norms? Are these cultural, scientific, religious? Was Martin Luther living in an experimental ghetto? Or was he not really transgressing anything in light of the nature of Christianity (adopted by the West)?


    Alrenous Reply:

    How weird is too weird?
    Neoreaction is too weird. Neoreaction is also more correct than any noticeably-sized competitor.

    Bagel head is too weird. But that’s genuinely ugly and pointless. You’re allowed to come up with it but even Western freaks think it’s too freaky.

    Why would you suspect this is the perception of the normies, the generalization of experimentalism, which could lead either to Silicon Valley or Stalin?

    It’s my direct observation. Western normies are almost as stiflingly conformist as Japanese normies, except that the West has this backup cul-de-sac. Freaking out the squares is too trivial to be fun, but Western squares will let you go off and do your own thing without chimping out on you.

    Try talking about your tech job at a party in anything but the vaguest terms and see how that works out for you. SV is not cool. The tech is cool, the people are still nerds. Contrast a journalist talking about their job. Even a scientist, if they don’t sperg out about measurement details, would be pretty okay.

    Without chimping out on you as long as you don’t get too weird, that is. Cults get chimped out on. This is the kind of experience I’m talking about. They experience cults being used as sex parties and financial scams, so anything vaguely cultlike gets classed as ‘too weird,’ They don’t remember the justification…which means a genuine seed of a new culture would get caught in the dragnet, even with specific evidence against both financial and sexual shenanigans.

    On the flip side, the original far side boundaries were set more or less at random. While they can come in via experience, it’s hard to make them move outward, regardless of how harmless the experiment is.

    You’re allowed to tinker with technology in your garage. It’s probably a mess and your head is probably a mess, but that’s fine. You’re not allowed to tinker with weapons in your garage, because weapons are mean. Anything more interesting than a potato cannon is too weird. You can risk burning down your house with your family inside as long as it’s not a weapon that exploded.

    Fight club is too weird. In general, the economic/libertarian idea of consent uber alles is too weird. You can try communist communes, but you can’t try that. On the other side, experimental feudalism would also be too weird. Veganism is annoying and they don’t want it at parties, but carnivorism is real edgy. Barely allowed.

    Luther was a sophist, and his reforms were more holier-than-thou than transgressive. I haven’t checked but I expect he dropped any of the 96 theses that were considered weird and doubled down on the ones that weren’t. Luther’s actions repeatedly condemn his intentions, although I won’t go into it here.


    Dale Rooster Reply:

    Yes, I agree that Luther was more holier-than-thou than transgressive. His theology was not transgressive; it remains true to the spirit of St. Paul, St. Augustine and the New Testament. But his political moves were transgressive to the religious authorities of the time (in the power struggle between the Catholic Church and the German princes). Then Lutheranism became normal. Is it not power that determines what’s too weird and what’s not?

    “On the flip side, the original far side boundaries were set more or less at random. ”

    Random, yes, but those that succeed in becoming normal, no longer being experimental transgressions, and their success have to do with power, it seems to me (we might say the Cathedral determines and defines what’s good experimental and what’s bad experimental). Western normies are stifling conformists and will mostly follow what the Cathedral (for Vaisyas, that’s Fox News) tells them to follow and believe what it tells them to believe. What makes room for NRx and other things too weird (the dissident right, fight club uber alles, etc.) to rise is the internet and the lack of social stability–there are two competing Normies now, no? Vaisyas and Brahmins. Either way, I don’t think Moldbug was too concerned with winning over Vaisyas because good followers don’t make for good leaders, and they are excellent followers.

    Experimental norms that are too weird might just find some elbow room and breathing space as Cathedral cracks and fragmentation continues, thus becoming less weird. Unfortunately, everyone might have to choose a side. Your consideration of what’s normal and what’s not reminded me of this: https://altleft.com/2017/05/14/pools-processing/

    Just to loop back to two examples, veganism and yoga are celebrated amongst Blue Normies (SWPL); but considered very, very weird amongst Vaisyas. Hence, they transgress against the right people.

    Anyhow, thank you for the reply. I am interested in what’s “normal” and what’s not–normal-edge exploration–as well. Experimentation and exploration aren’t for normies of the blue tribe or red tribe.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ▬ » Unfortunately the experimental norms been tuned by experience, not rationality, so they’re not particularly well tuned. I suspect the passes through the norm mountains that lead to silicon valley also lead to communism, so it’s not at all a coincidence they appear cheek by jowl. To the normies it all looks like weird freaky experimentation. »
    ▬ Alrenous on May 15th, 2017 at 8:11 pm. (Italics mine.)

    Brilliant insight. We’re a crawling beast.

    Rationality is rare.


    Posted on May 15th, 2017 at 8:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    What do you mean?
    What’s going to give? What gives is their Progressive Casuistry.

    There’s nothing here that Steve Sailer hasn’t been talking about for years.
    Liberals talk integration whilst segregating for decades.
    They posture about the homeless while they spread it.
    As far as Urban Shield policing Liberals have been behind this full bore as have shall we say (((The Other Whites))) since Giuliani restored order to NYC.

    This is DC as well. DC was a bloodbath in the 1980s. Chicago when Rahm is done gentrifying. When Rahm kicked out the Black Schools he laid the ground work for a future Chicago that looks like Manhattan or DC. All that is necessary is the inevitable Law and Order Mayor to cut the Chicago Cops loose and this will be followed by gentrification by hipsters, Asians, gays.

    They trumpet their progressive virtue while acting like the noveau riche swine they are.

    Davos man came to San Francisco.

    The bad part is the niggers then spread to the suburbs, but the GOP lives there so it’s a benefit.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    (((The Other Whites)))

    Brilliant concept.


    Posted on May 15th, 2017 at 8:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Admin the article even mentions Urban Renewal aka Negro Removal.
    That’s 50 years ago.

    Immediately following the Civil Rights Act of 1965 Liberals met their first niggers.
    See at exactly the point Liberals first met niggers they decided they wanted nothing to do with them.

    What’s going to give here Admin?

    A crisis of conscience will fell Davos Man?

    PS any Asians, Gays, Techies or (((The Off Whites))) reading this can call me racist now…I used the word nigger, just for you. You may disdain me now.

    If anything gives it will be the white communities the niggers are being pushed into, and they don’t stop being niggers. Even when highly skilled and intelligent, competent, effective and yes at tech. Same animal.

    To complete the teleology yes there are Blacks and there are niggers, and the niggers have got to GO. Which they do. Always. From Africa to South to City back to suburb the problem keeps getting moved.

    I know. I’ve got it. Move the niggers to the mountains where the real rednecks Borderlands Backcountry Scots-Irish live. Where I was raised. That should be interesting.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    What you get left is more terrifying. The blacks that don’t get killed will turn into black rednecks.

    If there’s anything that terrifies off-whites more than rednecks, it’d have to be black rednecks.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    They actually already exist.

    Outside of the campus and post campus environment people have to come to terms of one sort or another.


    Nobody Reply:

    @Vxxc2014, you’re missing an element there. Jim Crow wasn’t (purely) intended to keep the nigger down – it was put in place to get him to leave. And when he had filled up enough Northern cities that liberals started to have to deal regularly with the consequences of living with niggers, they reacted by passing the Civil Rights Act to get all the niggers to move back down South.


    Zardoz Reply:

    “PS any Asians, Gays, Techies or (((The Off Whites))) reading this can call me racist now…I used the word nigger, just for you. You may disdain me now.”

    Interesting. You’re still using it as a signal of irrational hate (as opposed to rational critique of multiculturalism which is plenty easy to make), but rather than a sign of hate against a race, you mean it as a signal of political difference.

    It reminds me of the West-Boro Baptists. I increasingly question whether their “GOD HATES FAGS” signage is meant to actually upset gays, or leftists, or whether they just mean to signal “You are not me and I am not you”. An angry sign against the multicultural mantra of “We’re all in this together, we are one”.

    Regardless of your feelings about other races, I wouldn’t use the West-Boro tactic, if only because you move from the realm of exchange into challenge. By breaking with rational debate, and favoring anger, you signal to your opponent that you might not be playing the same game. They no longer take you as a reasonable subject with which to interact. It certainly won’t bring converts, unless they already share your anger.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t buy into the multicultural “oneness”, but I can’t say I feel any hatred towards other races…. Techies… well maybe.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    “You said ‘nigger’, now I have moral [pseudo]superiority … so I will engage you with the ‘’How DARE you (type of) script.”* This is one of the most common ways this word is approached nowadays, along with/aside from being used rather neutrally by young people of all races.

    * See the masterpiece «Games People Play» (Berne, 1964) for how this type of behavior works.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    People that actually hate Blacks are pathological.

    Wagner Reply:

    I hate bats that carry disease, what of it? michael is right that they’re a weight around our neck preventing a swift upward slope of evolution out of humanity. Either let JO-juh and Soth Calelina be garbage-disposal programs (GDP) or officially and legally assign blacks bronze souls under a neoplatonian model and position them in the more “machinic” parts of society, teaching them it is their god-given birthright to derive dignity from the task.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Well this comes down to the ambiguity about hate.

    Disgust is not hate. Not necessarily.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Do you pathologically hate niggers?

    Wagner Reply:

    Piggybacking off Land’s knockdown argument in the recent podcast: If I were to ever find myself in the “bad part of town” I would indeed pathologically hate them. And wouldn’t I be justified? If not there’s an equivocation of pathological in your syllogism. Gimme yo money foo. Boom boom. Even in the staunchest leftist this hate is harbored on a subterranean level. For me, in the more abstract sense, it’s not hate as much as regret, regret that the christianized physis of wypipo perceives a divine spark in everyone and perceives perceiving thus as the apex of evolution, when in reality the dead weight of snuffed, ill-lit, or never-lit souls is impeding our ascension toward godlikeness.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Wagner, aka Saint-Fond, aka Dan Carver,

    Please give me a brief summary of authentic historicality of black beings post 1863 so that I can properly locate your ‘kernel of fantasy/ideological supplement/(insert Zizek/Lacanian jargon here)

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Nevermind! You are pretty plainspoken.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Dude, hate is a virtue in no higher civilization — not even battle — but anger is.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    The question to ask Wagner is, “What if he found them in the good part of town?”

    Wagner Reply:

    One of my favorite philosophy professors was black. In retrospect thoroughly pozzed but also a genuine antiestablishmentarian in other ways. Even he was racist toward his own kind. One time he told me he hates how blacks watch The Chappelle Show and don’t notice that Chappelle is parodying black culture – they largely view it as validation of their culture. Chappelle after he quit said “You know why my show is good? Because the network officials say you’re not smart enough to get what I’m doing, and every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid.”

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Wagner you seem to have an absolutist view of Race. Somehow. But I know you’re smarter than that.

    Ultimately within even the most homogenous Nation not even two families are of the same race.

    Piggybacking off Land’s knockdown argument in the recent podcast: If I were to ever find myself in the “bad part of town” I would indeed pathologically hate them.

    No, that wouldn’t be fully pathological if it was hatred from niggas threatening you on the street. That would be more a natural reaction.

    What I said (meant) originally is that people that hate Blacks in the abstract-concrete complex are nuts. Sick. Pathological.

    I.e. my sentence » People that actually hate Blacks are pathological » means that.

    You didn’t feel burning hate for your professor did you?

    Wagner Reply:

    No, I don’t have redneck-hate. The amelioration of pig-ignorant racism is true progress.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Damnit Wags,

    I thought you were gonna have your Paula Dean moment and spazz out for us.

    I think Erik can agree; fervent racism, manifested non-violently, can be hilarious.

    It is also the form of a social bond, between an I and an other.

    But I only see racism exploding in the future, in a manner which is expressly violent.

    I agree with the statement, “the amelioration of pig-ignorant racism is true progress.”

    I’m curious how one would do this.

    How could you de-pathologize Nazi’s without destroying what it means to be a Nazi, for instance?


    Wagner Reply:

    What does it mean to be a Nazi?

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    To be a Nazi is to be he who does not know who he himself is, insofar as he knows who he is not, namely, that of the space marked off by the Jew.

    Wagner Reply:

    So if the modern person defines zerself as not-a-Nazi does it then follow that the modern person defines zerself as a Jew? Or is it more precisely an identification with the double-negation, not-not-a-Jew? Bizarre psychologies spreading around in this world.

    Inevitably Right Reply:

    Wagner, you question too much.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    The figure of the Jew pre-figures that of the Nazi.

    Nazis were created from the necessity of not being Jews. The same can’t be said for Jews (being created from the necessity of not being Nazis)

    The crux of –

    “To be a Nazi is to be he who does not know who he himself is, insofar as he knows who he is not, namely, that of the space marked off by the Jew.”

    is that a Nazi can be anything and that there is such an opening for him, insofar as he is not a Jew, and it is ‘the Jew’ that gives him this freedom.

    A double negation ends up in a ‘positive’ contradiction, such as the Nazi is a Jew.

    The Nazis wanted to become like Jews, appropriating Jewish tribalism into their vision of National Socialism. Yada yada yada.

    We need more bizarre psychologie! If only for you!

    So don’t play square now. I already know you like freaky, bloodied-lip sex, Mr. Saint-Fond.



    Wagner Reply:

    The pagan prefigures the Jew, and the Nazis were arguably a revival of paganism.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Nazism is not a homogenous phenomenon, at least not in its primary category : the wrongly-named “Third” “Reich”.

    Firstly, there was no second Reich.

    Nazism was a struggle the whole time. It’s not Pax, it is

    Inevitably Right Reply:

    No, Nazism was not a revival of Heathenry ; they banned Heathen cults. Banned Ariosophy. Hitler was a racial Nihilist.

    ▬ » Hitler is often depicted as the prototypical totalitarian—a man who believed in the superiority of the German state, a German nationalist to the extreme. But according to Snyder, this depiction is deeply flawed. Rather, Hitler was a “racial anarchist”—a man for whom states were transitory, laws meaningless, ethics a facade. “There is in fact no way of thinking about the world, says Hitler, which allows us to see human beings as human beings. Any idea which allows us to see each other as human beings … come[s] from Jews,” Snyder told me in an interview. As Snyder sees it, Hitler believed the only way for the world to revert to its natural order—that of brutal racial competition—was to eradicate the Jews. »

    Guy was a fantasist-romanticist who was obsessed with his ideal of racial struggle, and his idea of Teutonicism. German losses, shame, revenge, and “the Jew” (certain financial-ideological complexes of regulated Jewdom which he smudged onto more Jews than he ought to perhaps).

    It is given that the Romans were “obsessed” with their Romanness (as, as it were, some Americans with their Americanness) but the difference is that they lived with their gods. In actual communion. Everything was under a god. A reflex of a god.

    The Nazis didn’t have that ur-sceptre.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    I’m not using prefigurement in the sense of describing something which will ‘bring about its opposite”.

    It’s logically impossible that one thing should bring about its opposite in a manner such that “light would prefigure dark” or “hot would prefigure cold”.

    I’m using prefigurement in the teleological sense such as branches prefigure leaves.

    Which is why the double negation, in fact, is the higher truth.. that the Nazi is the Jew.

    The Nazis are Jews who, for themselves, are not Jews. This is what Lacan meant when he said “There is no other of the other.”

    Observe the state of Israel.

    Now, do I need to go into detail on this or do you automatically get what I am saying?

    And as far as paganism, it is the Jew and, more importantly, the Christian that creates the pagan.

    Erik, you’re the brilliant etymologist and linguist of the group. Tell me that pagan doesn’t mean ‘not Christian’.

    So, no, pagan doesn’t prefigure the Jew due to its retroactive creation by the Christian. Gotta love Hegel.

    Is Nazism a revival of being ‘not Christian’? Sure, but only insofar as being Jews (who themselves are not Jews)

    Wagner Reply:

    Erikson, was Machiavelli a nihilist? Was Napoleon a nihilist? Is “the end justifies the means” nihilism?

    “I would prefer not to see anyone suffer, not to do harm to anyone. But when I realise that the species is in danger, then in my case sentiment gives way to the coldest reason. I become uniquely aware of the sacrifices that the future will demand…”

    Is wanting to stomp communism and Americanism to death nihilism? Da joo! Da joo! Don’t point at da joo! It’s irrational! Just hate the Cathedral neutrally, don’t worry about who the concrete persons in charge of it are, stupid kid. Da Cuthydrul!

    “There cannot be two chosen people. Doesn’t this say everything?”

    Oh and on the paganism point it’s your word vs. Jung’s:

    “Perhaps we may sum up this general phenomenon as Ergriffenheit — a state of being seized or possessed. The term postulates not only an Ergriffener (one who is seized) but, also, an Ergreifer (one who seizes). Wotan is an Ergreifer of men, and, unless one wishes to deify Hitler– which has indeed actually happened — he is really the only explanation. It is true that Wotan shares this quality with his cousin Dionysus, but Dionysus seems to have exercised his influence mainly on women. The maenads were a species of female storm-troopers, and, according to mythical reports, were dangerous enough. Wotan confined himself to the berserkers, who found their vocation as the Blackshirts of mythical kings.”

    Hitler is just a scapegoat, Giuliano, just like the Jews. Only difference is one is fashionable to pillory. To be more charitable could we say that Hitler wasn’t merely a nihilist but ALSO, perhaps just as much, a reaction TO nihilism?

    “This then would be the counterpart, the dark side of the will to power: the perception of emptiness that precedes the typhoon.” – Jünger

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    All throughout Manhattan, there are Carl Jungs, perched outside velvet draped storefronts, soliciting their Tarot card readings.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Erikson, was Machiavelli a nihilist? Was Napoleon a nihilist? Is “the end justifies the means” nihilism?

    Yes. These, and Hitler, were nihilists.

    So was arguably, Caesar. They all ended sadly, their reigns shortened by others. I.e. lost the reins, not masters of their own fate. Few are.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    more charitable could we say that Hitler wasn’t merely a nihilist but ALSO, perhaps just as much, a reaction TO nihilism?

    Yes, that’s right. Just like “Atheism+” is a reaction to, and a further reflex of the Nihilistic movement Atheism; and Bolshevism and Lenin are reactions to, and reflexes of Nihilism.

    Any jerk-off empty “will to power,” “might is right,” “viva la revolution,” “no gods, no masters,” “accelerate”, etc, V.S:

    an actually surviving and thriving race. Apparently the Chinese are.

    Maybe time start looking beyond these ‘protest movements’, Wagner, and construct some alliances built on something concrete?

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    >Ultimately within even the most homogenous Nation not even two families are of the same race.

    This is a matterless platitude.

    And where it is *is* treated to have matter, that matter is a subversive exhortation for whites to hurry up and kill themselves already.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    No it isn’t you numb nuts, you don’t think to ask the definition. There are dozens of definitions of race.

    that matter is a subversive exhortation for whites to hurry up and kill themselves already.

    Again, take your SSRIs.

    But thanks for reminding me of this thread. I was searching for it somewhere in the back of my head.

    I live in a relatively homogenous nation myself, of roughly 300.000 natives on an Island settled ca a 1.000 years ago. I might have something to say.

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    Everyone and their mom has their own special post-modern definition (or undefinitions) of that lovely referent called ‘race’.

    If you want to actually figure out what they mean, the last thing you should do is ask them how they define it. Rather, pay attention to how they are using it, and you are using it in a bad way here.

    Also unprompted psychologization of debates is a hallmark of pseuds with no leg to stand on and jews (but i repeat myself).

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Your comment is devoid of contribution and is mostly just sneering, again. You’re a sad little twerp, who comes in here once in a while to sneeze and half-thinkingly cough off a complaint or two.

    I said ▬» Ultimately within even the most homogenous Nation not even two families are of the same race. »

    and their mom has their own special post-modern definition … you are using it in a bad way here.

    You’re such redneck trash.

    This is not a post-modern definition, but the classical one of ‘race’ as a bloodline. » “People of common descent,” a word from the 16th century, from Middle French race, earlier razza “race, breed, lineage, family” (16c.) »

    This is the type of understanding of race Europe had for all of the Middle-Ages, where the royalty interbred against what later became little plebian Nationalist or Nationalsocialist movements such class as you belong to — I am almost forced to assume.

    Anyway, I said “ultimately,” which, if you weren’t such hasty a jerk off, you might think was a note that it wasn’t a general absolute statement. I’m not releasing unalterable manifestos here, but comments for discussion—and I’m having great discussions, and I don’t see you having any. So why don’t you wisen up, instead of being a Pale Terrorist? You’ve got some potential.

    I’ve obviously previously used different definitions of race before, such as from the Harvard professor Carleton Stevens Coon (1904–1981), not that long ago, as some of the other commentators will remember; so they’d know that my position on race isn’t even what you try to construe it as, so your Little Man attempt is rather hopeless.

    Even within a relatively homogenous nation such as 80’s Sweden, Norway or Iceland, there are people who have slave ancestry, are non-Nordid, i.e. of a different race altho depigmented (i.e. white). They have very snub noses, e.g.

    Into craniometry, are you?

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    Th tao of trolling is energy efficiency; getting people to carry the conversation for you is #winning, so thanks for playing along.

    Anyways, since my (((emotional intelligence))) is clearly so much higher here, i’ll be going longform and try to explain to you what the problem is.

    That problem of course is memetic mutation. And how one deals with it. For people who have not had the unique experience of being plugged into the anonymous matrix for years and years, it can sometimes be hard to appreciate what happens more staidly in broader communities (like societies) at large, through what happens rapidly in miniature there; the dynamics behind how words and choice of words can influence communities; to sense and anticipate how communities can change over time; to sense how the words *themselves* can change.

    As always, it is rarely ever a question of what precise formal definition one ostensibly claims to use a word with, but the exosemantic load it is associated with. Elucidation and further elucidation of ones own private definition is unresponsive to this problem except in a proximate manner.

    As you know, there is no such thing as neutral communication. All actions are value laden, and all values are implicit teleologies. The question is, every time one puts pen to paper, finger to keyboard, air to vocal chord; to what end? What does one intend to accomplish with the statement one is about to make? What *direction* is one trying to get things moving towards?

    Leftists who say the exact same sort of phrases like ‘ultimately within even the most homogenous Nation not even two families are of the same race’ certainly have their own intentions in mind when they say such things. Your own special denotations or connotations of the phrase may differ from theirs, but whos meme has more gravity? If J. D. Randombrahmin comes across such things, whats most likely to be the first thing in his mind? How focused or confused will the effects of what you say be? What *narrative* is it going to serve to reenforce?

    >well what if i don’t actually care what people think about what i think

    One may think the lady, publicly posting, on public internet fora, doth protest too much.

    When one internalizes a certain form of language, they are in turn more ‘open’ to communication that uses the same form, naturally. If you, perhaps, wish others to also adopt language like that used above, that in turn then opens one up just that much further to influence by the whole sprawling cathedralic jungle; massive memeplexs of various flavors of proggist, leftist, liebral, gnostic, feminist, solipsistic, and other synonymous signaling that, sadly, currently exists in our [Current Year].

    The first significant thing NRx communities of the early 10s did, perhaps the *most* significant thing they did, relative to everything else already out there, is the recognition of how people today are Pwned by their language (https://archive.li/NXDk1 https://archive.li/9AyYk https://archive.li/cPgkW). It’s something i’ve been involved in since the beginning, and something i try to make sure to remind people about whenever possible.

    One of the most basic underlinings of consistent conservative failure to reverse ever mounting degenerations of liberal overreach, is the fact that they, themselves, use the language of liberalism. On a mytheo-poetic level, they are opened and vulnerable to the liberals own signaling. They of course might well have had and often did in fact have their own special understandings of words like ‘democracy’, ‘justice’, ‘freedom’, and et cetera, that are more adaptive for civilizational survival (let alone greatness), but it mattered not in the end; they surrendered the frame before the battle even began; the words served the liberals much better than they served the conservatives; the memes, as always, took the path of least resistance in proliferating themselves, the conservative proliferation itself merely creating vectors through which pozzed liberalism could move in later; the internal logics trending inevitably towards their realizations, their natural ends.

    There’s an easy cardinal example to give of this dynamic in action: The Bible.

    In more civilized times, the good book was remanded to the purview of the clerisy, who were able to recast it in more shitlord coherent manners.

    Thus, upon encountering certain passages, such as…

    ” Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[f] you did it to me.’

    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” ”

    …a very smart member of the clerisy may interpret, reframe, deconstruct, reconstruct, and contextualize it for the benefit of other smart but not so smart members of the clerisy, that they may then go on and disseminate the official message in their sermons.

    All ideological systems contain within themselves seeds of both their own destruction, or transfiguration into something greater, if you both have the head for it and are willing to spend the effort on it (some systems are a lot more tiresome than others).

    Alas, this perfectly reasonable setup was upended by the one two combo of Luther and Gutenberg. Once ‘out in the wild’, such passages began acquiring their own definitions, through the magic of metetic mutation amongst the fertile manure of Le Peuple, and these definitions were [i]superior[/i] to the private definitions that the clerisy of the times cleaved to; superior in the sense of adaptiveness for spreading itself.

    And indeed; in time, the clerisy *itself* came to adopt such definitions, as well.

    However sophisticated or nuanced one creates a grand intellectual edifice, the question remains: are you building a castle on sand? However modulated your own perception of the terms may be, phrases like the ones highlighted here have a lot of sand in the foundation; they don’t stand the test of time. Indeed, have *already failed already* even, in history, to right now, where shibboleths exhorting the intractable disunity and/or unreality of wypeople (often coupled with unselfconsciously contradictory exhortions of universal identity in the next breath) are standard baizuo boilerplate. That wells been well and truly poisoned.

    When one offers prayer, one may not always realize what god they really are exalting with their praise.

    In a very essential way, the moment the phrases one uses escape the confines of their minds, they begin passing outside of his control exponentially. Thus, the noble task set before any reactionary, or perhaps i should say, a right thinking perceptor of truly True and Virtuous progress (for that is what all men at heart wish to believe in themselves), is the instauration of language that can better survive out in the radioactive wastes of Outside, without morphing into a horrible chimaeric abomination against all that you held dear.

    Oh yeah, big fan of craniometry. Lapouge Did Nothing Wrong.

    Posted on May 15th, 2017 at 8:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dale Rooster Says:

    Question for the Admin that is unrelated to the above topic:

    First, some context:

    I suppose my reservation, my refrain, from agreeing with Professor Land’s philosophy derives from a hesitation, one dug deep within my brain, to cold calculation and reason–or, as the “Enlightened” philosophers wrote–such as Rousseau–Reason.

    Reason, logic, calculation–the Will-to-Think–have their place. Ayn Rand and the libertarians (especially of the “Objectivist” school) are deluded by the Enlightenment (or Crypto-Calvinist) ideal of Reason, in my humble opinion.

    Perhaps that makes me a “romantic.” But, as a libertarian of sorts, by no means am I against reason or the Will-to-Think. I simply cannot fathom how machines, though more proficient, clear and quick, can “think” as philosophers. Nietzsche argued (if I am interpreting him correctly) that we need both Apollo and Dionysus in order to achieve or create what might be called cultural “progress” or works of substantive aesthetic value. All light of Apollo, all logic and calculation, both universal in the most meaningful sense of the term, make nothing better than all the darkness cast by Dionysus alone, all chaos and disorder of individual passion.

    Moreover, philosophy–the love of wisdom–the Will-to-Think (as I like to think of it)–begins with wonder, not calculation. Can machines wonder? Can they dream? An AI that passes the Turing Test, or an AI that cruises beyond the test and dreams, would be more than human. It could dream and wonder. (Maybe.) But would it? Dreaming is not necessarily in the best interest of dreamers. To wonder may not be in your self-interest either. Stare into the abyss…

    Moreover, if nature selects AI, or if nature selects anything–say, dysgenic Americans–does that make it right? In other words, although I hate to question the Dark Master Moldbug, does Might make Right? What if Gnon is wrong?

    And if Gnon is wrong (or dead) from where do we derive such a judgment if not from reason (not Reason)? And where does that leave us if not at a place of wonder?


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    All light of Apollo, all logic and calculation, both universal in the most meaningful sense of the term, make nothing better than all the darkness cast by Dionysus alone, all chaos and disorder of individual passion.

    I wouldn’t beg, but I do differ.


    John Hannon Reply:

    Reminds me of Blake –

    May God us keep
    from single vision
    and Newton’s sleep.

    Though calculation and wonder aren’t always antithetical –



    John Hannon Reply:

    Alan Moore on Blake’s contempt for Newton –


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Doric clarity is no mere rationalism.

    grahf Reply:

    Sounds like you don’t understand computer science. Most don’t, not even the experts. You’re confusing it for the material machines. Stupid, dumb machines. All they do is calculate and push symbols around. Blind as bacteria. But in time, even bacteria turned into us. And how do these dumb machines, at the end of the day, actually work? How are they able to exist at all? Dumb, inert, material machines without creativity or wills of their own, the foolish masses tell themselves.

    Is it not then that configuration of the material system in time and space–a process–from which the ghost emerges? Computer science as a field is primarily concerned with instantiating immaterial processes in the realm of the material so as to act as extensions of our will and perform useful, or at least to some degree, meaningful work. Think Plato’s forms or the Hermetic alchemy of thought-form transmutation (wasn’t it Leibniz that was a dabbling alchemist as one time?).

    Our computing machines are better viewed as other life forms. An alien life form unlike anything before it, but also one that is native to our planet (they were birthed here, yes). Like mindless bacteria, they’ve infected all of human civilization, made us dependent on them, and now who is to say who or what is really in control. The machines and ourselves both operate on the same underlying physical laws, or “magic” or Will-To-Power that makes life possible in this world. Revisit what Nietzsche actually meant by Will-To-Power. Read “The Will to Power and Parallel Distributed Processing” by Eric Steinhart.

    The are technologies on the horizon that may bring us into the realm of non-deterministic Turing computation sooner than later (here, non-deterministic means massively parallel, highly-integrated, large-scale networks; an NTM is still subject to a degree of super determinism). Neural circuits/memristors, optical computing, spintronics, quantum computing. It’s been hypothesized that the human brain is at the level of an NTM. The fact that we exist means it can be done, our Universe possesses the requisite degree of complexity.

    When the machines make their first transit past this threshold, all bets will be off. In a way, it’s already here, most people just don’t see it.


    Inevitably Right Reply:

    Read “The Will to Power and Parallel Distributed Processing” by Eric Steinhart.


    Posted on May 16th, 2017 at 5:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Dale Rooster Says:

    @ Eiríksson

    Nietzsche’s point is that both Apollo and Dionysus are necessary, that neither alone is sufficient to create works of art of substantive aesthetic value. And philosophy is art–the art of reasoning.

    @ John–Blake is a dark god, and I’ve worshipped at his altar for many years. I agree that calculation and wonder are not always antithetical, nor need to be nor should be. That’s the case I want to make. Can cold machines (AI) dream and wonder? Being creations of pure reason and rationality, perhaps they would reason that dreaming is not in their own self-interest. But then, there goes philosophy. And art.


    grahf Reply:

    Compare the information theoretic paper “Complexity and Information: Measuring Emergence, Self-organization, and Homeostasis at Multiple Scales” by Gershenson et al. with the Apollonian and Dionysian duality.

    Apollo = Self-organization
    Dionysus = Emergence


    Dale Rooster Reply:


    I will check these out. Thank you for the sources and for the reply. I’m fascinated (terrified?) by AI, by the Singularity and Modlbug’s idea of the Anti-Singularity.

    I did not mean to suggest that machines, computers and AI are “stupid” or “dumb”. On the contrary, what I’m suggesting is that their intelligence surpasses human capabilities. If “emergence” is analogous to wonder and creativity, then I’m even more intrigued (terrified?) of what the future brings. The ghost in the machine metaphor is a bit too Cartesian for my tastes. Indeed, aren’t the leaders of AI in agreement that in order for computers to learn, they need to be embodied?

    But I’m skeptical of the view that AI can wonder, can ask questions such as, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Can AI epistemology escape metaphysical or ontological thinking? (I assume that AI has an epistemological system, some of which you might have touched on already above.) Or, can it ask such questions in the first place? We would assume that it could after it reaches some degree of self-awareness. But what degree of self-awareness? Animals other than humans are self-aware to a degree, but are they aware of their finitude? I don’t think so.

    The meaning of Nietzsche’s Will-to-Power hangs on a psychological or metaphysical interpretation (according to most folks, and I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive). Employing the metaphysical model of Will-to-Power, one would be happy to admit that it applies to AI as it does to all other things in the universe. As a principle of the driving human life-force, Will-to-Power cannot be reduced to Will-to-Think unless we discuss what “thinking” means here. Again, cold calculation, pure reason, might be what we we mean by “thinking”. But then, what of wonder? Is it the same thing as “emergence”?


    John Hannon Reply:

    Your questions echo Heidegger –

    “Is man, then, a defenseless and perplexed victim at the mercy of the irresistible superior power of technology? He would be if man today abandons any intention to pit meditative thinking decisively against merely calculative thinking.”

    He says of meditative thinking that it “demands of us not to cling one-sidedly to a single idea, nor to run down a one-track course of ideas” (the “single vision” Blake exhorted God to keep us from), but fears that –

    “the tide of technological revolution could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle, and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking.
    What great danger then might move upon us? Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing indifference toward meditative thinking, total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature – that he is a meditative being. Therefore, the issue is the saving of man’s essential nature. Therefore, the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive.”

    The big problem here is that Heidegger completely fails to prescribe any concrete practices for triggering meditative thinking – a problem which David Storey addresses in this intriguing comparative study of Heidegger and Zen –


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    God bless you John Hannon.

    John Hannon Reply:

    Why thank you, Mr E.
    Returning to Dale’s broaching of “wonder,” George Steiner calls Heidegger –

    “the great master of astonishment, the man whose amazement before the blank fact that we are instead of not being, has put a radiant obstacle in the path of the obvious. His is the thought which makes condescension, even momentary, towards the fact of existence unforgivable.”

    Steiner summarizes Heidegger’s “fundamental question” with this quote from Coleridge –

    “Hast thou ever raised thy mind to the consideration of EXISTENCE, in and by itself, as the mere act of existing? Hast thou ever said to thyself, thoughtfully, IT IS! heedless in that moment, whether it were a man before thee, or a flower, or a grain of sand? Without reference, in short, to this or that particular mode or form of existence? If thou hast indeed attained to this, thou wilt have felt the presence of a mystery, which must have transfixed thy spirit in awe and wonder.”

    There have been 2 occasions, years ago and years apart, when I’ve thus been transfixed in awe and wonder myself, both of which transpired while walking alone in nature – once in the wilds of North Wales and once on the Malvern Hills.
    Apart, perhaps, from that old cliche about “time standing still,” words simply can’t touch the experience (another cliche!). It comes unbidden, completely out of the blue, and, unlike various profound drug experiences I’ve had, can never be forced or deliberately made to occur again. Hence, as an unexpected, unsolicited gift, its accompanying emotional element is one of astonished gratitude.
    How was it for you?

    SVErshov Reply:

    nothing like Go can teach to this kind of thinking. it is some what disturbing for me to think about thinking, practically it is not getting you anywhere (besides of psychiatric hospital). for example here Heideger advocates to broad horizons of thinking while at same time excluding calculative thinking from his definition of meditative thinking. Go demonstrate an opposite ‘calculative thinking can be mefitative’. seems like theorising in some contradition with subject which been theorised.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    Thinking about thinking is thinking about that which is separate and objective to thought and the act of thinking, not the content of thought.

    How does one reach a zen-like state? By thinking they’ve reached a zen-like state.

    That any of this would be product of a conscious act is miscalculation.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Apollo = Self-organization
    Dionysus = Emergence

    That’s very interesting. But they aren’t totally reduced to that.

    Both are very dynamic. Apollo plays music.

    The ≈ sign is more appropri.

    Nothing equals



    Posted on May 16th, 2017 at 12:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Uriel Fiori Says:

    I see two ways this conundrum unfolds:

    1) SV moves to China. There’s already infrastructure and culture to receive it and make it boom (even more). The US of A gets pretty fucked by this option, but hey, there will be affordable housing in SF. (which makes me think, why don’t they make freaking high rises?)

    2) West Cost States of Good Vibes are “conquered” by China following civil war. The decoupling from the rapidly degenerating East Coast makes for a hard-market turn, focused on trade in the Pacific. Commies are invited to move back to New England. SF becomes a HK branch.

    it all depends on how long Americans take to decide to divorce.


    Posted on May 16th, 2017 at 12:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • smg Says:

    Wall Street has survived in NYC & SV will survive in CA & SanFran. Once a critical mass of dependent voters populate a block then oligarchs can control outcome. SV needs to accelerate exodus of non-pet population to TX, CO, WA, OR. YIMBYs accelerate kulaks out & pets & oligarchs in.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Basically that’s correct.
    That’s what the Left has been doing in America since 1965.


    Posted on May 16th, 2017 at 3:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mariani Says:

    the left’s immunity to good policy goals is why neoliberals will always win


    Posted on May 16th, 2017 at 3:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • SoreEyedReader Says:

    I would love to read the comments but on my phone android everything is styled classic WordPress(blue and white) except the replies which are dark grey on black background and impossible to read. Please fix!


    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    The whole site is supposed to be light grey on black


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    try an extension or another browser


    Posted on May 16th, 2017 at 4:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dale Rooster Says:

    @John Hannon

    Thank you for the reply and the link.

    “The big problem here is that Heidegger completely fails to prescribe any concrete practices for triggering meditative thinking”

    I still find Heidegger to be an incredibly challenging thinker. I am away of his turn to “meditative” thought, the philosophy (or phenomenology) of language, and against (the thoughtless use of) technology in his later, post-Being and Time phase as a philosopher. I am sympathetic to, if not in agreement with, some of his concerns. On the other hand, his neo-luddite attitude (which is perhaps an unfair description) seems excessive to me. I am of the opinion–I believe against Heidegger’s judgment–that technology is neutral. If technology evolves to possess self-awareness, to acquire consciousness, then it is no longer neutral, which is an interesting idea, whose unintended consequences could be catastrophic, to ponder, to say the least. I am in total agreement with Heidegger, however, with regards to his point about the qualitative difference between calculative and meditative thinking, and his critique of the West’s abandonment of the latter in favor of the former. I could be wrong, but I believe his thoughts on “thinking” express an extension of Nietzsche’s critique of Socrates’ (really, Plato’s) displacement of tragedy (and art’s redemptive value) with rationality. Anyhow, I look forward to reading the article. Thanks, again.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    What is Heidegger’s practical utility?


    Wagner Reply:

    Bataille, who followed in Heidegger’s footsteps of favoring meditation over calculation, picks up and drops this contradiction in The Accursed Share:

    “The paradox of my attitude requires that I show the absurdity of a system in which each thing serves, in which nothing is sovereign. I cannot do so without showing that a world in which nothing is sovereign is the most unfavorable one; but that is to say in sum that we need sovereign values, hence that it is useful to have useless values …”

    What ends up happening after our digestion of the quasi-eastern mysticism of Heidegger and Bataille is the same thing that happens after we consume de Sade: we do what any ego evolutionarily bent on sustaining itself would do–we eject him:

    “The life and works of D. A. F. de Sade would thus have no other use value
    than the common use value of excrement; in other words, for the most part, one most often only loves the rapid (and violent) pleasure of voiding this matter and no longer seeing it. […] The identical nature, from the psychological point of view, of God and excrement should not shock the intellect of anyone familiar with the problems posed by the history of religions. The cadaver is not much more repugnant than shit, and the specter that projects its horror is sacred even in the eyes of modern theologians.”

    Meditativeness, unlike the “stockpiled knowledge” of calculation slips through the fingers and slips through the slipping through of the fingers:

    “Where we think we have caught hold of the Grail, we have only grasped a *thing*, and what is left in our hands is only a cooking pot. […]
    [We] attempt to grasp that which [is] wished to be *ungraspable*, to use that whose *utility* [is] denied. It is not enough for our left hand not to know what the right hand gives: Clumsily, it tries to take it back.
    *Rank* is entirely the effect of this crooked will. In a sense, *rank* is the opposite of a thing: What founds it is sacred, and the general ordering of ranks is given the name of *hierarchy*. It is the stubborn determination to treat as a disposable and usable *thing* that whose essence is sacred, that which is completely removed from the profane utilitarian sphere, where the hand—unscrupulously and for servile ends—raises the hammer and nails the timber. But ambiguity encumbers the profane operation just as it empties desire’s vehemence of its meaning and changes it into an apparent comedy.” (On rank he also says “Rank varies decisively according to an individual’s capacity for giving.” This is a hole in the alt-right and neoreactive worldview–he gets this idea from Nietzsche’s notion of will to power as sunlike in its superabundance, giving, pouring itself out, as it were, for “nothing”, i.e. a-utilitarianly. How does this make U feel?)

    Bataille, probably deliberately edgier than Heidegger, depicts as alternatives to calculativeness sex and sacrifice:

    “Beyond calculated means, we look for the end — or the ends — of these means… The quest for wealth — sometimes the wealth of egoistic individuals, sometimes wealth held in common — is obviously only a means. Work is only a means… The response to erotic desire is, on the contrary, an end. […] The essence of man as given in sexuality — which is his origin and beginning — poses a problem for him that has no other outcome than wild turmoil. This turmoil is given in the little death. How can I fully live the little death if not as a foretaste of the final death.”
    “[D]uring the time when he is cultivating, the farmer’s purpose is not his own purpose, and during the time when he is tending the stock, the purpose of the stock raiser is not his own purpose. The agricultural product and the livestock are things, and the farmer or the stock raiser, during the time they are working, are also things…
    Sacrifice destroys an object’s real ties of subordination; it draws the victim out of the world of utility and restores it to that of unintelligible caprice… The sacrificer declares, ‘Intimately, I belong to the sovereign world of the gods and myths, to the world of violent and uncalculated generosity, just as my wife belongs to my desires. I withdraw you, victim, from the world in which you were and could only be reduced to the condition of a thing, having a meaning that was foreign to your intimate nature. I call you back to the intimacy of the divine world, of the profound immanence of all that is.'”

    Dionysus *versus* The Crucified.


    Posted on May 17th, 2017 at 1:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    A word is worth a thousand pictures.


    Posted on May 17th, 2017 at 5:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Journal of Cultural Heritage
    Available online 18 March 2017
    New evidence from archaeoastronomy on Apollo oracles and Apollo-Asclepius related cult


    Posted on May 17th, 2017 at 11:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Inevitably Right Says:

    tHE MOVEment is from the South to the North now —

    time to reverse it back, from the North

    to the Global South, invade


    Inevitably Right Reply:

    was Machiavelli a nihilist? Was Napoleon a nihilist? Is “the end justifies the means” nihilism?


    Hitler was definitely not a Heathen, but he was a dabbler.

    Jung said this of Nationalsocialism early in his career (1936) but it does not mean that Nationalsocialism was Heathenry. You have to actually commune with the gods to be a Heathen (Heiðinn), honor them. Lest you be only a lowercase “heathen”; somekind of pseudo-injun, as it were. A confused Symbolist. A dabbler.

    The Wikipedia article on Hitler’s religious views is accurate.

    Hitler was an early mysticist cum an increasingly burnt-out nihilist (as happens to them all).

    Napoleon burnt-out as well. Thus Evola calls Hitler’s a Bonaparteanism. A lasting dynasty is a lasting flame. Bush’s grand-dad is more successful than Hitler.

    500 years is minimum to be one of the big-boys. Atheist projects never last.

    could we say that Hitler wasn’t merely a nihilist but ALSO, perhaps just as much, a reaction TO nihilism?


    Like “Atheism+” is a reaction to and a reflex of 20th-century Atheism, Nationalsocialism is a reaction to 19th-century Nihilism (atheism, “rationalism”, “fideism”, Romanticism). Bolshevism is itself also a reaction to 19th-century Nihilism. These are all reflexes of nihilism. Short-lived ephemeral Additions to the dung-heaps of history, which real tradition burns to ashes.

    Consider the countless revisions and reworkings of Marxism. Itself a type of Atheism. While for 2-3.000 years there has simply been “Rome.” The Eternal City.

    “I don’t even know what that means
    (No one knows what it means, but it’s provocative)
    No, it’s not, it’s gross (Gets the people going)”



    Posted on May 18th, 2017 at 7:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Inevitably Right Says:

    ▬» Project Soli is developing a new interaction sensor using radar technology. The sensor can track sub-millimeter motions at high speed and accuracy. It fits onto a chip, can be produced at scale and built into small devices and everyday objects. »


    Posted on May 19th, 2017 at 12:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Inevitably Right Says:

    ▬» The thing about flying cars is that they already exist, they are called small planes or helicopters. Sticking car in the name doesn’t really change anything.

    The personal helicopters CEOs have that land on their pad, that’s already a flying car. »


    Inevitably Right Reply:

    I don’t agree with this. It’s not a flying car until it looks like and drives more like a car.

    Altho Latin carrus » originally “two-wheeled Celtic war chariot,” from Gaulish karro ».

    Car » “From 16th to 19th c. chiefly poetic, with associations of dignity, solemnity, or splendour …” [OED]. Used in U.S. by 1826 of railway freight carriages and of passenger coaches on a railway by 1830; by 1862 of a streetcar or tramway car. Extension to “automobile” is by 1896, but from 1831 to the first decade of 20c. the cars meant “railroad train.” »

    Shiet, — it be like SVerShow show: technology change too much.

    By the way, — anyone here knows anything about bulldozers?


    Posted on May 19th, 2017 at 12:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Inevitably Right Says:

    ▬» When she looks at the city sprawling at the end it’s like the net, infinite. She probably wanted to be more than just human and anyway she didn’t really feel very human from the beginning right ? Always talking about how her ghost whispers to her. »


    Posted on May 19th, 2017 at 2:25 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment