Bartender_Venator
No bio...
User ID: 2349
I agree with you on the wider thrust, but there is also Nick Land's point about "Dr. Gno" - something along the lines of "with every x years' advance in technology, the IQ required to destroy the world drops by a point". And when you crawl high up enough along the bell curve, you'll find someone who'll do it.
IMO the actual bottleneck is not intelligence but time preference. Someone who can get in the frame of mind to cause the mass death of innocents - unless they're some true sociopath, like Bin Laden, or an academic virologist - wants to do it now, ASAP, let me kill/die now so I don't have to spend any more time like this. Most mass shooters could have 10xed their kill count if they were rationalist killmaxxers, but at that point, thankfullyish, too much of the mind has snapped off into little fragments.
From all the Venezuela experts I know, it's incorrect to think of the previous regime as Maduro commanding the loyalty of various power-holders as if he was some Arab dictator. He was an increasingly ineffectual figurehead "in charge" while the real power-holders, mostly in the military, made decisions - the man was a bus driver, not a colonel. These military power-holders don't need to become a puppet of the US to get what they want, just to stop being an enemy of the US. There are many things that could go wrong still but, assuming nobody on either side chimps too hard, realistically the political stuff on the VZ side is a smaller issue than the bond restructuring on the US side.
Seconded. Gurri's book is the book to understand modern populism.
I would also add Leo Strauss's What Is Political Philosophy (essay), Burnham's The Machiavellians, Nick Land's Xenosystems: Fragments (google for pdf), and Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism. Consider Baudrillard as well. The first three will give you a good overview of the stages of political theory leading to the new right, and Fisher is the last leftist theorist of any intellectual note (to get a sense of the woke/"actually existing left", just read Ibrahim X Kendi or any similar 2020slop, it's all completely interchangeable).
Yes, I think this is the obvious play if you are a high-ranking Venezuelan crony right now, particularly in the military rather than the civilian patronage structure.
You are an american or american-adjacent whose post history is largely getting mad at Trump for cucking to da jooz. The reality is that, yes, capitalism, and specifically Western capital investment into otherwise dysfunctional countries, plus western trade opportunities, does make them richer. Very quickly and effectively. It also has a tendency to make them more functional, at least within the limits of the people you're working with. Now, the US is also very happy to bring aimless neocon foreverwar or lefty post-colonial massacres to third-world countries, and this could certainly degenerate into the former. But there's no particular reason it has to, and if there's one thing that Trump loves, it's making deals.
I agree in theory, but the issue is not with information asymmetries, really - that's just how it's sold as 'fairness' to the public. Insider trading is bad because it radically distorts incentives for insiders and encourages all kinds of violations of fiduciary duty.
Many of those interests know they would be much happier and richer if they could align with the US and get the oil flowing. That's what the deal Maduro was trying to make was about. Hopefully we get the right general taking charge.
Filter bubbles are real. You're very happy to skim a For You feed and only see what you want to see, which is that, surprise surprise, Outgroup is a blob of stupidity. I've curated my spaces for quality - which is actually infinitely easier to do on the right. It would be gauche to boast about my friends, but as far as I can tell, the people making the argument that there are no smart people on the right (which, by the way, is something you have the burden of proof on) just don't get invited to good parties. Of course, there are stupid people in the coalition, and some are even as embarrassing as the ones on the left, but that's all political coalitions larger than a groupchat, you can live with reality or you can get into little huffs about it.
"Don't believe your lying eyes"
To answer the question "why is it blowing up now?": as Hanania has noted on a number of occasions, conservatives by and large don't read. Neutral tone (or even hostile) print journalism isn't going to catch their attention the way video is, even (especially) if the latter is sloppy.
I like that people are considering a viable take, given that the last Conservatives Are Mad Current Thing before this one revolved around a highbrow-toned article in Compact Magazine. Goldfish seem to have better memories than a lot of posters.
Good point, but I'd file this under "the men that are willing to commit are undesirable", as I assume the great majority of the men giving away all that unwanted sexual attention would be willing to commit.
I think you underestimate the myopia of male horniness here.
Coffee_enjoyer has a rather simplistic view of this stuff, but yours is pure denial. Epic poetry was born as a means of exploring and understanding violence, not moralizing about it (see, for instance, Odysseus's slaughter of the suitors). Grand architecture was born as a means for the projection of power and the defense of strongholds, space travel as a complement to/substitute for nuclear war. The veneer you mention isn't a thin one. In fact, it's the thick crust built over those instincts that makes civilizations great, but the desires to take and to destroy, even the desire for sadistic violence - and, above all, the need to get better at those - are some of the core drivers of civilization. It's only with fairly advanced civilization we even get the concept that this violence could be bad in itself, instead of merely situationally unacceptable (you can rape the Sabines, but you can't rape Lucretia).
Now, there are many ways to deal with it, like the introjection of sadism Nietzsche mentions as the root of guilt cultures, or the sublimation of male energies into productive effort that Freud prefers, but it's not some mere chimp impulse we should beat down in boys. Our schools/phones produce enough castrati as is. Let 'em take it to sports, the arts, the boardroom - when necessary, the military - and remind the world that homo sapiens is the apex predator even when he isn't killing.
Even in Christian Europe it was only in the Middle Ages with the rise of chivalric ideals that "cunning" ceased to be considered one of the manly virtues appropriate for a leader. Robert Guiscard is the last one I can remember to really make it his brand (many Crusaders, merchants, etc. after that, including Guiscard's descendants, but they're treated as much more morally grey). While the chivalric virtues that superseded "trick your enemies and take their gold" can be gotten out of Christianity, they were built into the Church as part of a semi-secular project to build centralized power structures and make the military aristocracy somewhat more controllable.
goose_chasing_man.jpg
"What was the epic poetry about?"
Very simply reducible to "I am against my brother, my brother and I are against my cousin, my cousin and I are against the stranger."
An effortpost on all of this would be interesting to write, but I don't know if I want to be known as the guy who writes about Japanese prostitution.
My understanding is that 90%+ of this world is not open to foreigners, and even less if you don't speak Japanese, so I would think you could do so without undue suspicion.
These people seem beyond help, but Matthew Gasda's The Sleepers could be a fun cat to throw among the pigeons. It leads with the "queer romance" and only gets subversive later.
Yeah Seiko has skyrocketed. As someone who likes a good-looking watch but couldn't care less about thousand-dollar mechanisms, it's unfortunate (although looking for alternatives gave me a much better sense of how OpenAI is planning to monetize shopping recommendations).
What kinds of books?
I think this is an egregious misreading of Nietzsche, which was wrong when Bertrand Russell argued it and wrong when religious "anti-Nietzscheans" do it - but the best cure to that is probably to keep on with Junger, "Nietzsche's only true student".
I don't think that's even what libs feel, they just see Bill Clinton as yesterday's guy, doesn't matter to the coalition anymore.
So the thing is, the question of consciousness is fundamentally prior to everything we discover through consciousness in the physical world. In Kant, for instance, the question is something like "what are the conditions of possibility for us to experience the the world, with minimal assumptions about the world", whereas physicalists (your choice of term, not sure about the scare quotes, it's a fundamentally metaphysical theory and has to hold up on the level of metaphysics) just make an absolute shitload of assumptions about the mind because, you know, if you give someone a brain injury it does weird but consistent things to them. As for "dualism", it is and has always been intended to be a dirty word, but it also presupposes a lot of assumptions you can just discard by stepping outside of the frame.
Why do you find parsimony dispositive except as a heuristic? It seems to me that parsimony is valuable in making snap decisions, but the reality is that the world is complex. If you're a general making decisions on troop deployment with parsimony as your high heuristic, you're going to lose the battle. Likewise, if you're a scientist using parsimony as your key criterion, you'll get stuck in a local maximum of whatever your field of study is. The world is big and tangled and not all that amenable to parsimony, as useful as it is as an anti-bullshit heuristic.
Man, I appreciate the thought, but you can't just say "given all the important parts of my argument as axioms, here are some consequences" and make big claims based off that. I could go into some big thing explaining Kant and phenomenology and philosophy of science and so on but it's late and I'm cooking and it won't help you.
Casual everyday clothes are more attractive (at least in this, uh, particular context) than Dressing Up.
- Prev
- Next

In the US, where there's relatively extreme weather and fairly bad infrastructure, the optimal strategy would be to get yourself in charge of some kind of disaster preparedness agency, and do the sloppiest, laziest job that you possibly can in preparing for/responding to that disaster. As an example, you could refuse to respond to wildfires because of the risk to plants. The hard part of using this approach to cause mass casualties is that there will be many other people, often with better local political connections, running the exact same life strategy, and they're more fairly described as satisficing for mass casualties.
More options
Context Copy link