David Henderson quoting Peter Brimelow:
One winter afternoon in late 1975, Joe Clark came to see me in the Toronto offices of the Financial Post. This was even before he became Joe Who. He was running for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, but almost no one had noticed. Earlier that fall Clark had broken a previous appointment with me, pleading insufficient time to consult his economic advisors. Economics is a stigma you have to accept when you write for the Financial Post. Somewhat reluctantly, I began our rescheduled interview by asking him what he thought about the Economic Council of Canada’s just-published report Looking Outward, which had recommended continental free trade and had therefore been widely denounced as advocating Canada’s absorption into the U.S.A. […] Clark immediately fell apart. Frankly, he said, he didn’t know anything about economics — still — and his exhausting schedule wasn’t helping. You see, he added, “when I went into politics I had to choose between learning economics and learning French. And I chose French.”
There are socio-historical depths to that option that lie beyond all facile comprehension.
… the winning position of the anti-Left position is merely to exit and prosper.
(It’s about Brexit, but it could be about anything.)
Clippings from this, end-2007 Moldbug Neocameralism essay (with minimal commentary):
It is very hard to show that any new form of government is superior to that practiced now. It is even harder to show that any new form of government is superior to any practiced ever. […] Nonetheless, unless these problems are not just hard but actually unsolvable, innovation in the form of government is possible. … Certainly, the very idea of innovation in government should not frighten you. If it does, there is no point at all in thinking about government. This is conservatism to the point of mental disorder. I simply cannot contend with it, and I refuse to try. If you cannot set yourself outside your own beliefs and prejudices, you are not capable of normal civilized discourse.
Neocameralism is not (simply) reactionary because it has never been fully instantiated up to this time. It is a proposed political-economic innovation.
Let’s start with my ideal world – the world of thousands, preferably even tens of thousands, of neocameralist city-states and ministates, or neostates. The organizations which own and operate these neostates are for-profit sovereign corporations, or sovcorps. For the moment, let’s assume a one-to-one mapping between sovcorp and neostate. […] Let’s pin down the neocameralist dramatis personae by identifying the people who work for a sovcorp as its agents, the people or organizations which collectively own it as its subscribers, and the people who live in its neostate as its residents.
A Neocameral ‘neostate’ is not owned by its residents or its agents. Its ‘monarch’ (or ‘CEO’) is an executive appointment. (90% of all confusion about Neocameralism, and Neoreaction in general, stems from a failure to grasp this elementary point.) Note: ‘subscribers’ (plural). More coming on this immediately.
(Open thread + links)
Yarvin on the DAO. No enemies to the right. “Don’t react moralistically to ideas about society.” The weekly round, plus outliers.
The US gun control conundrum. Thoughts on corruption. Academic Stalinism watch. White inertia and insubordination. The death of romance.
What is Xi doing? The Venezuelan apocalypse controversy.
Brexit panic report (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Brexit analysis (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). In crisis, opportunity (plus Becker reference), also. Contagion (plus), and its limits (note). Domestic political fall–out. Jim comments (1, 2). Zizek and Walt comment. “A Brexit would deprive the Dutch of an important ally in their desire to reduce the European Union to a simple business venture. But this extremely narrow conception of the purpose of pan-European cooperation is exactly why the EU might, contrary to most popular opinion, benefit from a Brexit. The United Kingdom didn’t join and stay inside the EU to make something of it, but rather, to prevent others from making something of it.”
Trumpenführer panic report (1, 2, 3).
Thiel untoppled at Facebook.
Race and racism. Intelligence and childlessness. The world’s multicultural control group. Parental effects.
Climate contrarianism. The Gambler’s Fallacy. Six millennia of graphic urbanization (reference). Michael Herr on Stanley Kubrick. Hunting humans
… what we’ve seen from a wide range of writers and analysts in the days since the Brexit vote is not necessarily worry. It is shock. Fury. Disgust. Despair. A faith has been shaken, illusions shattered, pieties punctured. This is what happens when a life-orienting system of belief gets smashed on the rocks of history.
The name of that shattered system of belief? Progressivism.
(Only half-way through the year yet.)
Tyler Cowen on the Brexit message:
… if you are thinking that voting “Leave” does not at all limit Pakistani immigration, you are truly missing the point; this vote was the one lever the English were given for sending a message to their politicians.
(The entire post is impressively Ideological-Turing-Test-competent.)
A short, illustrative tale from Peter Brimelow:
Around Easter of 1980, I was in Paris trying to persuade my first wife, whom some of you knew, to marry me. I thought that, in the interests of full disclosure, I ought to tell her everything. So I said, look, I’m involved in an anti-Communist faction in journalism and we’re going to lose. I think there’s a real serious possibility that we’re all going to end up in a Gulag.
And, besides that, it’s crippling to our careers. I’d been approached by the CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] to do on-camera reports about business. I could have been Lou Dobbs! [Laughter] But when they heard I’d written anti-Communist stuff, they said they couldn’t possibly hire an anti-communist — even though what I would have been covering was entirely non-political.
Maggy was a Canadian and wasn’t particularly political. She listened to this and said she’d not thought about it before, but, now that I’d explained it, she could see it was true.
So, she asked with female practicality, why didn’t I change sides?
The XS takeaway: What’s socially ‘practical’ isn’t a socio-historical constant. That makes it potential cascade material.
Brexit in context:
As soon as the focus returns to why the UK bailed in the first place the proper sympathy will shift from the poor Britons in a flimsy rowboat to Europeans still trapped on the Titanic. […] As Ross Douthat observed in Twitter: “the actual disaster isn’t the vote, it’s the eight years of policy that made it thinkable.” Brexit is not the disaster. The disaster is what they’re rowing from.
This (from the same Fernandez piece) also stands out:
Brexit, for all its drama, was merely a warning. The basic demand is for a moderation of the centralizing tendencies, unchecked immigration, runaway political correctness and metastatic government that have characterized the West in these last decades. That’s the bottom line.
For discussion of UK independence, UK fragmentation, EU disintegration, Pan-secessionism, and catabolic geopolitics in general.
Here‘s Geert Wilders widening the conversation.
(Content coming later, probably in a subsequent post.)
ADDED: There’s a lot of gravy. One little drip. Bye: “Prime Minister David Cameron, who had led the campaign to keep Britain in the EU, said he would resign by October and left it to his successor to decide when to invoke Article 50, which triggers a departure from European Union.”