Dark Enlightenment

[greenlion]

Please tell me this is all just a giant satire, because this is some of the most self-important nonsense wordporn garbage I've ever seen.

You literally could take a Markov bot and feed it bunch of random papers and it would produce something equally illuminating!

To a non-resonant transducer (receiver) of a signal, the information can appear to be random noise.

Move on, nothing for you here.

There's a lot to enjoy here, reading all this narcissistic self-aggrandizing bullshit

[1713962947]

1713962947

[AnonyMint]

Wow you are so ignorant about technology and math.

Which is another reason the D.E. will sneak up on most people and be already widespread before they even realize what happened.

[Anon136]

so like this guy?

spawktalk: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK1Uk2f36aglexxLkfOWnEQ

[AnonyMint]

so like this guy?

spawktalk: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK1Uk2f36aglexxLkfOWnEQ

I started to listen to the first video about testing a hypothesis, and it conflates so many things, e.g. where the grit meta-survey asks "do I change interests many times per year" and I would answer yes, but this isn't reflective of my ability to sustain an interest when I choose to. They should correlate instead to a measurement of my actual performance instead of an incorrect meta-model.

I have specifically upthread disclaimed statistical averages as very useful.

It seems either you've lost the theme+plot of this thread or I misunderstood your reason for citing that guy.

Nevertheless my prior post links to an irrefutable flaw in Bitcoin's cryptography. The threat that arises from it is debatable.

The assertions I have made about socialism are tested and proven throughout history.

[Anon136]

It seems either you've lost the theme+plot of this thread or I misunderstood your reason for citing that guy.

The reason was to discover is he is an example of this dark enlightenment thing. It seems like the closest match to your description that i have experience with.

[AnonyMint]

It seems either you've lost the theme+plot of this thread or I misunderstood your reason for citing that guy.

The reason was to discover is he is an example of this dark enlightenment thing. It seems like the closest match to your description that i have experience with.

I (and ESR) agree that many in the D.E. are spouting some truths mixed with some (probably a lot of) diarrhea.

I might even be one, but note that my predictions all have near-term dates to be tested as true or false. And several of my predictions have already trended towards proven.

Maybe best to go quiet now and spend more time on math, algorithms, and protocols (tech work) than on talking in forums.

[benjamindees]

Aldous Huxley on overpopulation, democracy, technological tyranny, brainwashing and the desirability of decentralization

[Meizirkki]

About the racial equality:

It takes half a brain to realize people are different. Not much more to understand different races have characteristic features other than the looks. "The Cathedrals" "lying" and "bad-policies" are imho misinterpretations of the actual noble cause to provide an environment where all the different people may flourish and feel equally respected, which is the right thing to do.

[AnonyMint]

About the racial equality:

It takes half a brain to realize people are different. Not much more to understand different races have characteristic features other than the looks. "The Cathedrals" "lying" and "bad-policies" are imho misinterpretations of the actual noble cause to provide an environment where all the different people may flourish and feel equally respected, which is the right thing to do.

The comments below are about sexism (masquerading as the realities of differences between sexes), but can be similarly applied to racism (masquerading as the realities of differences between races).

If I am correct at representing the thinking of the D.E., we can't "provide an environment..." because there is a natural order to such matters. The (unscientific, faith-based model, i.e. can't be falsified) Christian Traditionalist ("Ethno-Nats") faction argues the cause is biblical (e.g. woman is a rib of man). The anarchists ("HBDs") such as myself (actually a contentionist, realist) argue that (everything is determined ultimately by power from economics and) when society collectively tries to alter that which is natural, we bankrupt ourselves via the power vacuum of democracy (I have not articulated that well, and will try to capture my meaning via some quotes which follow). Note that I hope the natural economics don't bring us back to James A. Donald's warlordism lynching model. This is why I work hard to create decentralized technologies (e.g. anonymity for crypto-currency) so that the system performs better without warlords than with them. For me, I can accomplish much more good by innovating than by playing politics which ultimately collapses into the power vacuum any way (please read that link!).

Btw, I am happy to note that the one of cryptographic papers that the latest Zerocoin improvement cites is by two women! Cool!

Melissa Chase and Anna Lysyanskaya, "On Signatures of Knowledge".
http://cs.brown.edu/~anna/papers/cl06.pdf

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424677

That’s not a justified inference. The Ethno-Nats do want to “preserve these group differences”; the HBDs, on the other hand, have more of a pitiless, neutral “that which can be destroyed by the truth should be” attitude.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424679

the core premise of the Ethno-Nationalists is that not all cultural memes are created equal

There’s some of this going on, yes, mixed up with old-fashioned racism and nativism. I think it would be theoretically possible to disentangle these tendencies from each other, but I don’t see the Ethno-Nats actually doing that.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424741

The Dark Enlightenment specifically opposes Enlightenment political philosophy, or at least it opposes the political philosophers usually associated with the Enlightenment (such as Locke and Rousseau). In particular, many members of the Dark Enlightenment—especially neoreactionaries—embrace a more traditional understanding of sovereignty and reject the notion of “natural rights”.

Sovereign just means “possessing supreme or ultimate power”, i.e., there is no higher power that can bind the actions of a sovereign organization. A recent post by ESR shows the disconnect well:

    

[W]e absolutely do not want the government to have an easy pretext to forbid people from bearing arms; that is too dangerous a power to let government have.

From the Dark Enlightenment point of view, this is a political perpetual-motion machine: the government is sovereign by definition, so there is no “we” who “let” it have some powers and not others.

Closely related to this understanding of sovereignty is a rejection of “natural rights”. Instead, many partisans of the Dark Enlightenment believe that all rights are political...

Esr's response below is that if you don't play politics well, things end badly. My response to him is that is why I work on anonymity to diminish the economic relevance (ability to tax, prosecute, shame, and blame) of politics.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424743

(A less inflammatory phrasing might be “Every right derives from might.”)

This is true, and the reason I advocate for an armed citizenry both physically and morally prepared to defend the rights it asserts.

the liberal (and libertarian) defense of “natural rights” appears as a simple category error: the confusion of a Humean ought with a Humean is.

This is also a fair criticism. The classical-liberal/libertarian position is, however, salvageable under a consequentialist interpretation that unpacks to “If ‘All persons are not equal before the law’ is not one of the premises of your politics, your politics will end badly’”. This is actually a topic I’ve been meaning to blog about, and analyzing Neo-Reactionary thinking will be a good context in which to do it.

Then Eric admits that politics trends towards is the repeating over and over again "everyone loses" Olsonian end-game collapse and rebuild from ashes.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424853

it is inequality in the eyes of the law that ends badly

You’re right. Possibly there’s an extra negative in the sentence that shouldn’t be.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424988

My experience is that “being more cognizant of the socioeconomic ramifications of technology” turns people into libertarians, not left-liberals.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424997

The European Pirate Parties tend to be rather fond of the welfare state

Well, there’s a surprise, given that a lot of their support base is all about wanting to take other peoples’ stuff for free to begin with. The leadership, people like Falkvinge, is smarter – and more libertarian.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-425027

The way to understand the Nazi death camps, and the Gulag, is as the logic of statism taken to its conclusion, which is expressed in Bertolt Brecht’s grim joke: if the government doesn’t trust the people, it dissolves them and elects a new people.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-425083

Jeremy, a wife withholding sex from a husband is an issue calling for discussion, counseling, or divorce, not force.

Then I would suggest that a man withholding funds from a wife or ex-wife should not incur penalties that raise the force of the state to enforce alimony/child-support/etc… If one act is allowed the force of the state, then certainly the other should be too.

I mean, lets be real here, I don’t disagree with you or anyone else that the use of force to extract sexual relations from a wife is an abuse of power. Likewise, divorcing a man for any reason (and they don’t need much these days) and using the power of the state to forcibly extract such payments, is just as evil.

So if we’re going to say, and enshrine in law (which is backed by the force of state), that men must financially support wives and mothers no matter what (and we have absolutely done that), then how can we justify telling men that they cannot use force to extract what they need from marriage?

On this issue of marital rape which Esr responds to below, when marriage contracts can no longer be enforced in my idealized economically anonymous society (the one I am striving to create with technology now), the man (instead of forcing sex on his "wife") can simply go get another female when his wife stops giving him what he wants. If he loves his children, he will support and visit them. Parents of daughters and women will become much more careful about selection of mates. This is a male dominated world, and that is the reality. We get there either by the state collapsing under its own bankruptcy and/or with anonymity technology for commerce and investing.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-425160

Esr is old enough to remember when he and his entire family took what is now called “Marital Rape” as completely legitimate and proper,

Don’t project your slimy beliefs on civilized people. Even as a child I knew better than this.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-425241

I’m surprised Eric hasn’t linked JAD’s [James A. Donald's] point to statism by noting that the state increasingly undercuts males running the provider strategy (that is to say the vast majority of men).

I would, but other commenters have already done a pretty good job on that one.

P.S. This Fertility from James A. Donald will really make you think, if you are rational and don't just let your emotional reactions rule your brain. A woman wants the genetics from the most alpha-man she can get to impregnate her. She has to balance that within realities of child-rearing, limited fertility window, and her income earning potential. Without the state to give her free education, free health care, free child care, and rent assistance, she is probably unable to support herself and needs a beta-male husband. Thus the state causes divorce and destroys the family unit, by altering the natural economics of marriage. This is why the west doesn't have enough children to pay for the cost of the elderly, and one of the reasons we are horridly bankrupt and heading for an apocalyptic collapse.

[AnonyMint]

I've exchanged some discussion with James A. Donald in his blog (and actually he seems like a reasonable man and amicable with me). It appears to me his hate derives from the bad outcomes he sees from the state supporting females and minorities, thus causing great ruin (as explained in my prior post). Yet this is irrational. Hating individuals for their choices when the causes are macro-economic (socialism) and technological (i.e. lack of anonymity to destroy the state), is irrational. In my opinion, he would be better served to direct his energy towards technological solutions, rather than riding the political trend back towards for example lynching. With anonymity, I won't be affected if the minorities want to live in a cesspool of Detroit. Let everyone have their outcome in the economics, for as long as they can't hinder me, why should I care?

Jim binds himself to the outcome of the weak. That is his big mistake and it makes him an angry racist and sexist.

I have no problem with women and minorities who can do what ever they want to do, even milking the state. More power to everyone to play their best strategy in their life. I will destroy the state with technology and then they have to deal with their choices.

Even I didn't get accepted to UC Berkeley in 1984 because of minority favoritism (which is much worse now), but that is actually the best thing that could have occurred. I shiver to think what liberal habits I would have learned there.

I will be enjoying myself far removed from those who I don't want to be around (and close to those who I do).

In short, we are headed into an autonomous world.

[AnonyMint]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=502612.msg5542326#msg5542326

There's a little 1-second bite in the first video that says that Bitcoin is bringing democracy to the world. This is BAD. Democracy means majority rule.

If you are in the minority, you might not like majority rule. Bitcoin is not democratic. It is not majority rule. It is everyone for himself. It is learning how to be responsible for your own actions and freedom, or you might lose to a Bitcoin thief.

Bitcoin is the laws of nature being enacted in mathematical form to grant freedom, not democracy, to everyone in the world!

Democracy is run by the minority, not the majority.
The majority are their slaves

Gentlemen you are expressing the philosophy of the Dark Enlightenment.

[Meizirkki]

About the racial equality:

It takes half a brain to realize people are different. Not much more to understand different races have characteristic features other than the looks. "The Cathedrals" "lying" and "bad-policies" are imho misinterpretations of the actual noble cause to provide an environment where all the different people may flourish and feel equally respected, which is the right thing to do.

The comments below are about sexism (masquerading as the realities of differences between sexes), but can be similarly applied to racism (masquerading as the realities of differences between races).

If I am correct at representing the thinking of the D.E., we can't "provide an environment..." because there is a natural order to such matters.

There is no natural order. To assume such order you'd have to incorrectly assume that
1. Individuals within each group do not differ from each other.
2. Environment for every group is the same.

If the above two points were true, evolution would have already come up with the superior race and wiped out all the others.

In fact, evolution would preserve wide diversity (within the group) even if the environment was set, so as to allow survival of the species in a future change of the environment. When we observe evolution, "Survival of the fittest" is not exactly accurate. "Elimination of worst losers" fits much better.

Where D.E. stands on this is still not exacly clear to me, and it doesn't seem to be very clear to you either. If your premise was to acknownledge and appreciate the differences between peoples I'd agree, but right now it looks to me like you're more set on assuming and finding a "natural order" to put people in. Not only do I disagree on the existence of any definitive order, but I also think it's a very dangerous premise to build an ideology on. It will be used as an excuse for discrimination or something much worse.

[practicaldreamer]

     Many computational biologists would agree that (and I'm sure Anonymint would have to, albeit begrudgingly, concur) , had it not been for lambda calculus, the understanding of spreadsheets might never have occurred. An essential challenge in artificial intelligence is the understanding of probabilistic information.

     On a similar note, given the current status of optimal symmetries, hackers worldwide daringly desire the emulation of object-oriented languages. Nevertheless, context-free grammar alone is able to fulfill the need for the construction of context-free grammar especially with special reference to ECDSA and its existential threat to the farthing.

[CoinCube]

    Many computational biologists would agree that (and I'm sure Anonymint would have to, albeit begrudgingly, concur) , had it not been for lambda calculus, the understanding of spreadsheets might never have occurred. An essential challenge in artificial intelligence is the understanding of probabilistic information.

     On a similar note, given the current status of optimal symmetries, hackers worldwide daringly desire the emulation of object-oriented languages. Nevertheless, context-free grammar alone is able to fulfill the need for the construction of context-free grammar especially with special reference to ECDSA and its existential threat to the farthing.

“Distinguishing the signal from the noise requires both scientific knowledge and self-knowledge: the serenity to accept the things we cannot predict, the courage to predict the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
― Nate Silver

[AnonyMint]

About the racial equality:

It takes half a brain to realize people are different. Not much more to understand different races have characteristic features other than the looks. "The Cathedrals" "lying" and "bad-policies" are imho misinterpretations of the actual noble cause to provide an environment where all the different people may flourish and feel equally respected, which is the right thing to do.

The comments below are about sexism (masquerading as the realities of differences between sexes), but can be similarly applied to racism (masquerading as the realities of differences between races).

If I am correct at representing the thinking of the D.E., we can't "provide an environment..." because there is a natural order to such matters.

There is no natural order. To assume such order you'd have to incorrectly assume that
1. Individuals within each group do not differ from each other.
2. Environment for every group is the same.

You have argued that the only order that could possibly exist would be the uniform distribution, which of course is dead thus can't exist.

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

The non-uniform distribution of mass is mutually causal with oscillation. A uniform distribution of mass would be no contrast and nothing could exist, especially knowledge creation.

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals

The knowledge creation process is opaque to a single top-down perspective of the universe because to be omniscient would require that the transmission of change in the universe would propagate instantly to the top-down observer, i.e. the speed-of-light would need to be infinite. But an infinite speed-of-light would collapse past and future into an infinitesimal point in spacetime— omniscient is the antithesis of existential. In order for anything to exist in the universe, there must be friction-in-time so change must propagate through resistance to change— mass. The non-uniform mass distribution of the universe is mutually causal with oscillation, which is why the universe emerges from the frequency domain. Uniform distribution of mass would be no contrast and nothing would exist. Taleb's antifragility can be conceptualized as lack of breaking resistance to variance amplification.

Btw, famous mathematician and author Nicolas Taleb reviewed what I wrote above and replied that he understood the concept.

It is competition that creates the order. If there was infinite disorder in the universe, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics would cease to exist, because it says that the entropy (disorder) in the universe trends to maximum. In other words, the universe would be flattened to a blackhole.

So there is always a contention between perfect order (the uniform distribution) and perfect disorder (a blackhole). Otherwise without oscillation(s) a.k.a. frequency and phase, nothing could exist i.e. no equivalent spacetime, as I explained in the above blog article on the The Universe in great detail about why the speed-of-light can't be infinite otherwise past and present collapse into one, and without oscillation there can't be mass for I clarified what mass really is.

If you work through the math I showed, it is irrefutable.

What I am saying is that it is fine-grained, bottom-up competition is an order in itself. If a top-down entity could anneal fitness as optimally, then the top-down entity would need an infinite speed-of-light in order to know all situations (far from him) in real-time in order to anneal as optimally with the same information set.

Thus it is a mathematical fact that we can't top-down provide an environment, rather we push on the environment and see how it anneals (this is effectively what government does, although it may wish it was actually setting the environment).

If you don't understand the math, then take some time to read and learn what I have elucidated. Otherwise please STFU if you can't comment intelligently on the math (because I don't have time to respond to non-analytical diarrhea).

Note CoinCube and I have recently added the theory of Contentionism, which explains there must be an oscillation between order and disorder, because the environment is dynamic. He and I explained that upthread with links off to discussion we did previously in other threads.

If the above two points were true, evolution would have already come up with the superior race and wiped out all the others.

Illogical. If your assertion were true that we can top-down create an environment, then evolution wouldn't exist.

You claim there is no order, but then why did evolution give females an accelerated fertility curve as compared to males, which has numerous serious ramifications. Why did evolution give women a different strategy for hypergamy and short-term time preference. Because this strategy was the most optimally fit for the survival of the human race.

The government wants to turn women into men (and men into women, and here is more on that), and does its damn best to destroy the marriage economics by funding all the needs of women, but this is just pushing on the natural order in the environment and the environment annealed by producing a failed society with insufficient youth to support the elderly and a $150 trillion global debt bomb that will soon explode and then we go back to the natural order again.

In fact, evolution would preserve wide diversity (within the group) even if the environment was set, so as to allow survival of the species in a future change of the environment. When we observe evolution, "Survival of the fittest" is not exactly accurate. "Elimination of worst losers" fits much better.

That is not a refutation of my logic.

Where D.E. stands on this is still not exacly clear to me, and it doesn't seem to be very clear to you either.

It is mathematically and precisely clear to me as explained above.

If your premise was to acknownledge and appreciate the differences between peoples I'd agree, but right now it looks to me like you're more set on assuming and finding a "natural order" to put people in.

As I explained above, there must be a contention between order and disorder. And top-down order is the antithesis of degrees-of-freeom and fitness, because the speed-of-light isn't infinite and if it was past and present would collapse into one and nothing would exist.

Not only do I disagree on the existence of any definitive order, but I also think it's a very dangerous premise to build an ideology on. It will be used as an excuse for discrimination or something much worse.

Your irrational emotions aside, the mathematical facts are irrefutable.

[AnonyMint]

    Many computational biologists would agree that (and I'm sure Anonymint would have to, albeit begrudgingly, concur) , had it not been for lambda calculus, the understanding of spreadsheets might never have occurred. An essential challenge in artificial intelligence is the understanding of probabilistic information.

What does this statement have to do with the Dark Enlightenment?

I believe practicaldreamer may be trying to demonstrate that true statements may also possibly have no relevant implication.

    On a similar note, given the current status of optimal symmetries, hackers worldwide daringly desire the emulation of object-oriented languages.

I have no idea that means.

Nevertheless, context-free grammar alone is able to fulfill the need for the construction of context-free grammar especially with special reference to ECDSA and its existential threat to the farthing.

I don't understand how ECDSA is related to CFGs in any relevant way?

[AnonyMint]

I've exchanged some discussion with James A. Donald in his blog (and actually he seems like a reasonable man and amicable with me). It appears to me his hate derives from the bad outcomes he sees from the state supporting females and minorities, thus causing great ruin (as explained in my prior post). Yet this is irrational. Hating individuals for their choices when the causes are macro-economic (socialism) and technological (i.e. lack of anonymity to destroy the state), is irrational...

ESR makes the same point and articulates it better:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-425929

...

I don’t interpret the experience ais JAD would; he needs these incidents to be evidence of black and female inferiority, which I don’t. No, the problem was that as an unintended consequence of civil rights law this woman had power and immunity without responsibility. That can make anybody stupid and arrogant, no matter what their skin color or the shape of their genitalia.

...

[AnonyMint]

Contentionism doesn't appear to be falsifiable.

It may depend on how the definition is framed. I haven't had much time to think about it. I am very busy on more urgent matters.

The definition of the products of democracy is not holistically falsifiable either. Neither is man-made global warming, etc..

[practicaldreamer]

    Many computational biologists would agree that (and I'm sure Anonymint would have to, albeit begrudgingly, concur) , had it not been for lambda calculus, the understanding of spreadsheets might never have occurred. An essential challenge in artificial intelligence is the understanding of probabilistic information.

What does this statement have to do with the Dark Enlightenment?

I believe practicaldreamer may be trying to demonstrate that true statements may also possibly have no relevant implication.

Jesus Christ man - you are conflating your orthoganals - I don't think I could have articulated myself any more succinctly, in fact I thought my previous post was almost poetic - why should I waste time explaining myself to intellectually challenged charlatans who are prone to wearing the emperors new clothes just because their mothers told them they were clever boys when they were 6 - and you dare to question my intent with your vacuity posing as metaphor, your sociopathy and your vanity. Speaking of which :-

“Distinguishing the signal from the noise requires both scientific knowledge and self-knowledge: the serenity to accept the things we cannot predict, the courage to predict the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
― Nate Silver

 - how about this one Coincube, if we are throwing googled quotations about :-

     "When men will not be reasoned out of a vanity, they must be ridiculed out of it." - L'estrange.

[Meizirkki]

we can't top-down provide an environment

I agree.

rather we push on the environment and see how it anneals (this is effectively what government does, although it may wish it was actually setting the environment).

I agree.

If your assertion were true that we can top-down create an environment..

You are mistaken. I have not made such assertion.

You claim there is no order, but then why did evolution give females an accelerated fertility curve as compared to males, which has numerous serious ramifications. Why did evolution give women a different strategy for hypergamy and short-term time preference. Because this strategy was the most optimally fit for the survival of the human race.

My claim was against your premise of a natural order of races. You keep on bringing up the sex issue when it's in no way relevant to discussion about races. You might be surprised to hear we are in no disagreement on the natural differences of man and woman. Our biological bodies are still operating the same way, from the same instincts they did as hunter-gatherers in the wilderness. And that environment is, by the very biology of our bodies, the natural environment of our species where natural order took place.

What I am saying is that it is fine-grained, bottom-up competition is an order in itself.

The underlined sentence above is what my entire argument is based on. There is no natural order to races because in the natural environment it was impossible for different races to even meet each other, let alone compete to form an order!

The government wants to ... but this is just pushing on the natural order in the environment and the environment annealed by producing a failed society with insufficient youth to support the elderly and a $150 trillion global debt bomb that will soon explode and then we go back to the natural order again.

I agree that modern society is a failure, but I'm not as set on how we got here and disagree on the outcome. Whenever this bubble bursts it's highly unlikely we will end up with anything close to natural order. People will still be plagued by the same beliefs (or as afaik D.E. says, learned lies) they had before the collapse. And when a new society emerges, perhaps some things will be learnt, but for generations the new society will carry along the shadow of the one before it.

Not only do I disagree on the existence of any definitive order, but I also think it's a very dangerous premise to build an ideology on. It will be used as an excuse for discrimination or something much worse.

Your irrational emotions aside, the mathematical facts are irrefutable.

My emotions behind that concern are not irrational at all. As I argued above, races were never put into an order by nature. Every racial order to have ever existed have been synthetic and so will every racial order in the future be. Your premise of the racial order and your scenario about the collapse of society are your own political beliefs, not facts given to you by math and science.