Taking his chicken game international probably is dangerous, but it might also be the only thing that works.
It’s getting difficult to set any kind of limit to where this stuff could lead. Whatever counts as a ‘realistic’ socio-political forecast today, it’s been pushed out vastly further than seemed imaginable only a year ago.
When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do.
(No one’s listening, but historians will.)
The final words (already implicit) are also good: “Angela Merkel and Donald Trump may be temperamental opposites. They are also functional allies.”
A little illustrative sang froid:
Naemi has heard all the predictions of the dam’s imminent demise. “Sure, we have problems,” he says. “But the Americans are exaggerating. This dam is not going to collapse. Everything is going to be fine.”
I mean, come on, it’s not as if the 2016 effect could actually escalate.
Niall Ferguson backtracks from his public Brexit opposition:
… 14 years of living in the United States had taken their toll. Americans since the 1960s have wanted the Brits inside the EU to counterbalance the French, whom they do not trust. I had started to think that way. But a bigger factor — I must admit it — was my personal friendship with David Cameron and George Osborne. For the first time in my career, I wrote things about which I had my doubts in order to help my friends stay in power. That was wrong and I am sorry I did it. …
Many interesting (and more substantial) points in the article. Cascade dynamics are intriguing to watch.
This is inevitable, it is progress, but it is also socially destructive.
He’s not wrong about any part of that. Providential Protestantism is a bitch.
This is what an honest (and thus formidable) left would sound like:
Some years ago, a friend sent me a shocking article. It said hundreds of British girls were being systematically gang-raped by Muslim gangs. It claimed this was being covered-up. […] I’ve never had time for conspiracy theories, especially when they look as hateful as those in the article. So I checked the links and sources in the piece. I found an American racist-far-right website and from there, saw the original source was a similarly unpleasant website in the UK. […] I did a brief search for corroboration from reputable mainstream sources. I found none. So I wrote a curt reply to my friend: “I’d appreciate it if you didn’t send me made-up crap from neo-Nazi websites”. […] Some months later, I read the seminal exposé of the (mainly) ethnic-Pakistani grooming gang phenomenon by Andrew Norfolk in The Sunday Times. […] I was stunned and horrified – not just that these vile crimes were indeed happening and endemic, but that they really were being ignored and “covered-up” by public authorities and the mainstream media. …
The whole piece is terrifyingly sane. It’s so atypical, though, it can probably be ignored.
General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis:
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
That someone who said this might be US Secretary of Defense soon is awesome in a way that isn’t easily expressed.
We study, for the first time, automated inference on criminality based solely on still face images. Via supervised machine learning, we build four classifiers (logistic regression, KNN, SVM, CNN) using facial images of 1856 real persons controlled for race, gender, age and facial expressions, nearly half of whom were convicted criminals, for discriminating between criminals and non-criminals. All four classifiers perform consistently well and produce evidence for the validity of automated face-induced inference on criminality, despite the historical controversy surrounding the topic …
If given the slightest opportunity, the monkeys will ruin everything:
From the Restoration in 1660, to the end of World War II, the Royal society enforced the scientific method. If you wanted respect and esteem as a scientist, you had to tell us new and interesting things, and you had to show everyone how you knew these new and interesting things from what you saw with your eyes and touched with your hands. […] After World War II, Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, and you no longer have to show your work. Instead, your work must be approved by the most holy synod of mother church – in other words, must pass peer review behind closed doors. Peer Review is new. Attempts to root it in the past of science before World War II are artificial and contrived. Somehow we obtained almost all of science that matters before we had peer review, and since we have had peer review, things have started to go terribly wrong with science. Peer Review is science by social consensus, and Galileo told us that that does not work.