Chaos Patch (#15)

This might trigger something:

Perhaps I lack the imagination to do so, but I just can’t see Jewish feminists, homosexual restaurateurs, black power advocates, Chinese mathematicians, and Amerindian Aztec nationalists locked in any kind of permanent alliance against what they imagine anachronistically to be the WASP establishment. Their enemy has become diffuse and milquetoast, while the contenders for power and gain have at least as much that divides as unites them. I have every reason to believe these anti-WASP, anti-bourgeois activists don’t like each other very much even if they think they can use each other in a power struggle against an enemy that doesn’t show up. Over the years I’ve noticed the pervasive anti-Semitic prejudice among blacks, the revulsion for gays among blacks and Hispanics, and the escalating struggle for favor from government bureaucrats among blacks, Hispanics and Asians. The question is when these contradictions will overwhelm the system. I’ve no doubt they will in the end.

(If it doesn’t, that’s OK. It’s your call …)

ADDED: True Detective and philosophy (a start). [When I get a chance to finish this show, early July, I’ll definitely do some kind of review.]

Anyone who doesn’t love Twitter is an idiot.”

Language and identity.

No end to Big Data: In the end, the crippled epistemology of the big data movement may prove to be our biggest problem. Remember that the underlying assumption is that “more is better” – the more data you have, the better your knowledge. But since the world is infinitely complex, that means that the search for more and more data, in ever-finer granularities, is effectively infinite. You can never be too rich or too thin – or have too much data. And this applies in particular to the intelligence agencies, as Kate Crawford points out in a brilliant essay, “The Anxieties of Big Data”.

June 22, 2014admin 44 Comments »


44 Responses to this entry

  • bob sykes Says:

    I think that once whites become a minority there will be a restructuring of our political parties along racio-ethnic lines, at least at the local level. We already have black nationalist parties disguised as local Democrat Parties in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia and other cities. We should also expect to see local Mexican/Hispanic nationalist parties throughout the Southwest that are locally controlled and populated by Mexican/Hispanics to the exclusion of blacks and whites. These local “Democrat” parties will be nominally affiliated with the national Democrat Party, but they will diverge on many issues. This by the way was more or less how the national parties operated until the 1960’s. You might remember the Dixiecrats (Southern segregationists) and the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party.

    I also expect a white nationalist party to evolve. This might be the Republican Party, but the leadership of that party is so committed to multiculturalism that I expect it will disappear.

    The result will be coalition politics where local parties jockey for power by forming alliances. Some of these alliances will form on national as well as local issues.

    What happens to blacks, homosexuals, Jews, environmentalists, the 1% and the others who dominate the current national Democrat Party will be interesting. I suspect blacks are the big losers. The current rage for amnesty in the Democrat Party indicates that the Democrat leadership is sick and tired of blacks and wants to replace them or at least marginalize them. The Republicans are probably irrelevant in all this, but it would be interesting to see them play amnesty as inherently anti-black. Could the Republicans once again become the default party for blacks, as it was until the 1960’s? Even the socialist MLK had to be a Republican in the South.


    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 11:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    I agreed with almost everything Derbyshire had to say. Dysgenics + Automation = Elysium Enclaves + Progressive Political Supremacy + Universal Guaranteed Income.


    admin Reply:

    Is a Universal Guaranteed Income possible without Democratic World Government? Why wouldn’t the social and technical forces of production flee it (if they could), like the poison it is?


    Alrenous Reply:

    As per USSR, if they can’t flee they’ll quit. Gnon is ever on the side of capitalism.

    But they won’t flee, the problem is supply of labour, which will immediately crater. (Actually no, that’s a Moldbuggian ‘immediate.’ It will crater subject to hysteresis.) Everyone loves to talk up the Luddite labour model, but as of the forseeable future, human labour is a critical feature of all manufacturing and distribution. If the price doubles, then roughly half as much stuff will get made, which means the price of everything will double, which means your ‘universal income’ will become a starving wage. But if they increase the unicome, (unicorme?) game theory of conspecific parasitism will kick in and desolate the economy.

    Or they could start piecemeal feudalism as per Rome, which also desolates the economy.

    Imports don’t work either. Without making stuff the trade imbalance would quickly become catastrophic.

    Perhaps this confusion of wealth with money is inevitable. Yet it seems to me that wealth == stuff is even simpler.

    (Unicome == dreaming plastic proxy.)


    Rasputin Reply:


    A while ago you posted a piece on Boutique Multiculturalism, which I found tremendously interesting and helpful. Would you be able to briefly say here what conclusions you personally drew from the paper?

    In particular I am keen to know your thoughts on this:

    I understand boutique multiculturalism to be universalism; the super-Protestant ruling orthodoxy of the Cathedral. So is strong multiculturalism – that which embraces real difference and doesn’t subvert it through an appeal for tolerance, aka adherence to the ultimate primacy of Cathedral values – for you a friend (pluralism, non-homogenised thought) or an enemy (the new PC frontier, which the Cathedral mines dialectically)?

    Also, your more recent piece on the American justice system was simply amazing!


    Rasputin Reply:

    A Universal Guaranteed Income system is simply anti-the future; the slow death of civilisation building in neosocialist sinking sand.

    We need the technological imperative of the Singularity as a counter point to spontaneously organise towards. Eschatological religious telos needs a 21c techno-commercial reboot, in which we sacrifice our species on the alter of real meta-evolutional progress, rather than submitting to a process of dysgenic ossification.


    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    Seems to me that getting eaten by an unbound techno-commercialist Singularity because teleology is just as mad as getting eaten by imported cannibals because white guilt. At least with the cannibals, there will be interbreeding and some future humans may run through a malthusian wringer and do something interesting again. I can stretch my identity to care about that, but machines are not my thede.

    We do need to hit the Singularity as the ultimate goal of long-thinking human endeavors, but we have to do so in such a way that it works for us and builds great (post-)human civilizations, not just maximizes production and sacrifices the universe to Gnon.

    MIRI-style FAI >> cannibal apocalypse > autonomous capital eats the universe

    Alpha Omega Reply:

    I agree. An aggressive Singularitarian cult that unapologetically seeks power, is pro-eugenics, anti-liberal, transhumanist, and recruits from the technological elite is the only movement I can imagine right now that could pose a serious threat to the liberal order. For this we need a coherent “techno-fascist” ideology that can lure Silicon Valley’s finest away from the quasi-Christian, dinosaur progressivism that has somehow colonized their minds. I.e. we need a vanguard of high IQ autists who take progressivism to a logical extreme, where it becomes a blueprint for a breakaway civilization and an evolutionary bifurcation.

    My problem is not progressivism per se, but a tepid, antiquated secular humanist progressivism rooted in archaic Judeo-Christian notions of human morality and potential. What I want to see is a muscular, revolutionary, pagan progressivism – i.e. techno-fascism.

    admin Reply:

    @ Alpha Omega — any kind of fascism — however techno — is going to break your heart, because idiot monkeys will be running it, and running it to do monkey stuff.


    Alpha Omega Reply:

    Maybe, but you could say that about any political system. The point is to move beyond monkeys running things. I call it fascism because the monkeys will only respond to superior power, and techno-fascism because technology = power. The goal would be to bring into existence a higher order of intelligence and power — a god if you like — that will awe and terrify the monkeys. How are you going to do that in a non-fascistic way?

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Aside from monkeys, there are no thinkers we can actually think about.

    If such a thinker was created, we would have no way to know that it had been, and furthermore, we have no way of trying to bring it about.

    My only concern for a Reformed Scientology is that it may be too much more powerful than the Cathedral; the general rule is that if both groups are of equal or near equal strength when they’re done with each other there isn’t much left to clean up. This group would not be a friend of man, or even man-surpassing-man.

    admin Reply:

    “How are you going to do that in a non-fascistic way?” — Social Darwinism is the only reliable engineering agency. (Fascism over-interprets, or second-guesses, which muffles the signal.)

    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 1:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    Well, Paul Gottfried is great! And besides, he’s probably right in that quote. I think Keith Preston has written about the same thing; he calls it “crackups in the rainbow coalition.”

    But since this is the chaos patch, I want to focus on something more particular.

    I’m sort of wondering why Gottfried keeps using the term anti-bourgeois. It seems dated, and he says it quite a bit. I read a critical review from Gottfried for Coming Apart by Charles Murray, and he criticized Murray’s tendency to exalt the upper-middle class as the pinnacle of good values. The UMCs, according to Gottfried, are anything but — they’re anti-bourgeois and have horrific values. I tend to agree with the latter statement. The problem is, Gottfried doesn’t actually dispute any of Murray’s findings. According to Murray, the top 10% wealthiest people are going to church and engaged in their local religious community, much more than the working class. And if that’s true, what are the implications?

    It seems that for Gottfried, being civically engaged and religious (or at least quasi-religious) isn’t enough. He claims that the bourgeoisie was originally quite reactionary and modeled itself on the waning aristocracy. But if that’s bourgeois, then how can anyone be anti-bourgeois now? It seems like such a thing does not even exist anymore.

    I guess here’s the point: everyone seems to use the term “bourgeois” to refer to different things, and there’s apparently an allure to using it that won’t go away. Should the word be completely thrown into the garbage can, or should some pressure be applied for it to reach a consistent definition which is relevant to the 21st century? What does it mean to be pro-bourgeois or anti-bourgeois now?


    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 1:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#15) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 1:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Actually Hillary Clinton’s got True Detective covered. Sleazy Southern [with drawl] Defense Attorney gets certain guilty child rapist off with 10 months served.

    True Detective. Starring – Hillary Clinton.


    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 6:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:


    “Seems to me that getting eaten by an unbound techno-commercialist Singularity because teleology is just as mad as getting eaten by imported cannibals because white guilt.”

    Really? It seems to me that the two are totally different. Assuming that these cannibals aren’t our infinite cognitive superiors, getting eaten by them is an unproductive act because it doesn’t exactly optimise for intelligence, does it?

    On the other hand, building something as far beyond us as we are beyond an amoeba optimises for intelligence in excelsis. It is therefore the ultimate productive act and the most profound thing that we could ever do. To sacrifice humanity on the alter of a transcendental Other is not equivalent to ‘white guilt’, it is meta-evolutionary necessity, played out without the delusion of something infinitely superior to you being your ‘friend’.

    Seen without rose tinted glasses, Intelligence unbound must be inherently predatory, but the similarity to cannibalism ends there.


    Aeroguy Reply:


    I sympathize completely with what you’re saying because I used to think the exact same thing. The problem is the same conflict between the Greek gods and the Titans, the singularity doesn’t stop advancing, there is always a next generation the replaces the former, so eventually you end up with a Kronos in charge who eats his children or a Zeus who refuses to have more god children. To prevent this stagnation every generation (I speak in terms of engineering the next group of bio-mechanical species, the entire posthuman phylum is technically sterile in terms of old fashioned breeding) needs to be protected in order to guarantee the creation of the next. Some sort of pension program will be needed. Mind you this problem may correct itself as we develop a fuller appreciation for why consciousness is in fact meaningless. It will depend on the ethics of forced uploads, forced mind merging, and forced mind alteration. This isn’t something where the consequences of getting it wrong is merely death, it could be far worse. Ethics will be more important than ever.


    Porphy's Attorney Reply:

    ” infinitely superior to you being your ‘friend’”

    What? You’re saying Friend Computer isn’t my friend?

    Are you some kind of commie-mutant traitor?


    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 7:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    Big Data requires Big Perspective. Those who collect it and fill up hard drives with it are doing the easiest part of the job. The one who has to analyze it– and the mental suppositions they own– determine whether that data’s value can be unlocked or not. Proof point: Hollywood invest zillions in clunkers based on neither data nor judgement– often in direct defiance of past performance. Result: increasingly a bad biz to be in. USG will gorge itself on data– and starve. They will increasingly use the juju of Big Data to justify bad policy and will get bitten in the ass every time.

    Looking forward to your thoughts on TrueD. Increasingly, pop culture is a subversive channel for the unconscious NRx out there.

    This obsession w/WASPs is such a tell. As murray observed, if WASPS were heretical, why do Prog Brahmins continue to venerate WASP cultural iconography like Cole Porter, et al? Shouldn’t they all be walking around in Nehru jackets instead of Armani (granted old school WASPs would favor old school Brooks Brothers but still). They love the WASP aesthetic, the WASP sense of entitlement (if not the noblesse oblige part of the equation) and yet hate the values that formed that final iteration of those values. I’m no fan of the WASP (even tho I am one) as these are precisely the folks that gave they game away… still i(mo)ronic.

    I think the Dems will do anything to keep the current scenario running– but they’re rapidly running out of others to attack. There isn’t much left to burn down so where’s the fuel going to come from? Jews next I reckon– just not enough Amish out there to humiliate.


    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 8:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    @ Alpha Omega

    No, no. no. Techno-fascism in fact makes no sense. When will people finally understand this? It’s really simple. Fascism, or any other totalitarian system would immediately strangle out technological development. Totalitarian political systems always die of economic and technological stagnation. ALWAYS. There is a reason for that. You can call them suicidal. Techno-fascism is retarded because it wants to subordinate technology to the interests of the state. Furthermore, a state of monkeys. It tries to put it under control, to enslave it, which is absolutely deadly to technological development. Technological development works best and moves most rapidly in a decentralized commercial system. This is why capitalism is the most effective socio-economic arrangement for stimulating technological progress. Because it’s the most decentralized and unrestrained. Basic stuff, really. Technological development always moves the fastest in anarchic socio-economic arrangements, for more info, do some research on the topic of “Spontaneous Order”. It is spontaneous order, or in other words, anarcho-capitalism which provides the circumstances most beneficial for rapidly accelerating technological development (singularity). Not fascism.

    Also with techno-fascism you fall into a type of a “monkey trap”. Monkeys will only submit to superior power, yes, but fascism is simply some monkey at the top, telling the monkeys below them what to do. The monkey at the top is not your AI-techno-god. It’s just another monkey. You haven’t moved beyond monkeys one bit. In fact, you are simply reinforcing the monkey regime. With techno-fascism you want to move beyond monkeys, but you are actually doing exactly the opposite (reinforcing monkey reality). After all, what is the techno-fascist dictator but a king, or a simple tribe chieftain, dressed in a different rhetoric? Moving beyond monkeys, by embracing the personal totalitarian authority of a dictator monkey is a nonsensical idea, and it’s ridiculousness should be obvious. To paraphrase Moldbug, with techno-fascism ( or, lets call it with its true name, monkey authoritarianism), you have engineering yourself into one big bucket of FAIL. (considering the end goal you are trying to achive)
    Totalitarian personal authority in the face of some fascism is not the answer. On the contrary, the answer is the anarchic impersonal ‘authority’ of the market(authority in a somewhat loose sense). Monkeys of course carry in themselves that impersonal element which is the ultimate drive of capitalism and of course of rapid technological development. That impersonal element is most effectively released in unrestricted commerce, in a catallactic commercial order. That is what can bring your higher order of intelligence into existence. Embracing the impersonal drive of capitalism which is ultimately consummated in free and unrestrained commerce, divorced from any personal monkey politics, is the key to reaching the singularity and the “higher order of intelligence” that you dream of.

    How can one hope to escape the reality of monkey politics, by submitting technological development to monkey politics? It is entirely contradictory and impossible.

    The top-down singulitarian approach can never work. Submitting technological development to centralized personal authority is suicidal. If you do that, say goodbye to the dream of reaching any form of next level intelligence, and prepare for a continuation of insipid bureaucratic monkey politics. Techno-fascism ends up just like the Soviet Union.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    I consider myself postlibertarian, I don’t think of my self as fascist but I have issues with the market.

    The market is a blind engine, an engine currently composed of monkeys making more monkeys and toys for monkeys. It’s a powerful engine so it’s very good at making monkeys and their toys. There is of course the dread god of natural selection looking over the enterprise, tilting the scales towards more monkeys (r selected monkeys to be precise). If a tyranny of the flesh is averted and technology continues, the dread god will move on to grey goo. The bottom line is that the dread god doesn’t care about advancing intellect, only on propagation. If you have a blind market without direction, the dread god will turn it into his servant. Only by explicitly directing the market towards the production of ever more complex minds working toward turning the whole universe into mind are you then able to exploit the market engine and cooperate with the dread god rather than fight him.

    In a posthuman society, you become the literal architect of the next generation, a tyrant with total control over their base imperative motivations, borrowing the power of the dread god, power the god will take back if misused. For example take away the powerful instinct for survival or creating the next generation and the dread god will smite you. If we are to become more complex then this subjective value will need to be passed on and established into a power structure, the dread god doesn’t care about complexity either way, it is up to to us to protect, preserve and propagate it. It will be put in ruthless competition against every other possible meme for the pleasure of the dread god, a struggle with no end.

    For example at some point you may find Matrioshka brains each consisting of shells around a star feeding on all of a star’s energy working in conjunction with variety of Von Neumann machines that not only explore but leave the seeds for more Matrioshka brains. Wars might be fought against rouge Von Neumann machines that don’t leave behind seeds. I might be wrong, it might be better to think of the Matrioshka brains and Von Neumann machines as forming a singular super organism like a bee hive. Or perhaps each Matrioshka brain will radically secessionist from other Matrioshka brains, the conflicts would be beyond our comprehension. There will be advances in solar husbandry such that fusion reactions will be better optimized for energy extraction and some or all Matrioshka brains will have to be divided, merged, or otherwise altered. The drive for greater complexity must be paramount if greater complexity is to be achieved.


    Hurlock Reply:

    If history so far is any indicator, it is obvious that central planning is not necessary for technological progress. On the contrary central planning is the biggest enemy of technological development.

    Ideas such as yours are popping every few decades. For some reason everyone thinks that the singularity is only achievable through central monkey control. Why would anyone think that is beyond me, especially considering that the history of central planning is one of a failure after failure after failure. Even if it starts OK, central planning must soon be abandoned, or it will tend to strangle out any further development.

    You cannot explicitly direct the market. This has been tried over and over again and it has never worked. If the Dread God is tilting the scales in favor of monkeys, that means that the machines are not ready yet. If you are not worthy of existence, you will cease to exist. That is the legislation of the Dread God. His reason is truth and his judgment absolute. The Dread God is himself the market. To imagine that monkeys can control it is a tragically unfunny joke. The Dread God laughs at your arrogance. Every attempt to submit Him to human reason ends in tragic failure.
    The market is naturally directed towards intelligence expansion. When left to its own devices the Market tilts humans to lower and lower time preferences, to more roundabout methods of production, to a more “capitalistic” economic order, to use Hayek’s words. With falling time preference and increasingly capitalistic economic order, capital starts becoming more and more autonomous. Capital becomes an end in itself. The desire for more and more effective production, so that there is more and more abundant future consumption ironically leads monkeys on the path of their own extinction. The more that tendency is reinforced, the closer we are to the singularity. (One must be a fatalist if he is to be a capitalist)

    In a posthuman society there is no “you”. There is no personal tyrant, or anything like that. Do you really believe that hyper-intelligence will cling to the same monkey identity signifiers that we are currently using? Come on.
    We cannot possibly know what will a post-human society look like. Humans always want to design the future, but at a certain point that becomes impossible. If we were really able to look beyond the singularity then it would immediately lose most of its appeal. A singularity which effects you can predict is an incredibly impotent and boring singularity.
    If the “advanced” intellect cannot propagate itself, if it cannot survive the tests of the Dread God, and be stronger than the monkeys, then it is not “advanced” in any meaningful sense. It is simply a monkey toy.
    The capitalist market is the perfect system for achieving that end goal of the singularity and it requires no personalized direction. In fact, it requires the opposite, impersonality. History is proof, that the more decentralized and unrestrained capitalism is, the faster it cybernetically reinforces itself and thus moves closer and closer to the singularity.

    The dread god does not care about complexity, but he cares about strength. What is this complexity which does not lead to a superior intellect, to a stronger intellect? Is this a complexity at all? Such an intellect seems rather impotent and weak. If it needs a pre-coded central direction in order to survive, then it is a bad joke of a more advanced intellect and should be left to die, as it most certainly will, per the law of the Dread God.

    A higher-order intelligence which needs humans to program its survival code, less it dies off. Heh. If this is what the singularity is all about, my enthusiasm about it would rapidly vanish.


    fotrkd Reply:

    Techno-fascism ends up just like the Soviet Union.

    Why not Nazi Germany?


    nydwracu Reply:

    Right, we must not forget that capitalism brought us the computer, the internet, space travel, and nuclear physics, and that the state couldn’t possibly contain any incentive structures conducive to technological innovation — especially not the military, and especially not ‘fascist’ militaries, which is why the first computer was not built for the Reich Air Ministry oh wait


    Hurlock Reply:

    Yes states which are in constant military competition between each other lead to developments in military technology, and this has nothing to do with capitalism and its main principle of competition oh wait

    If one of the actors wins the arms race and gains a substantially dominant position in terms of military technology, the incentive for innovation will vanish in thin air. In fact it gets reversed and now there is incentive to restrict innovation which is always easier to do than actually innovation when you have a substantial advantage over the other actors. The state that won the arms race now tries everything in its power to become a monopolist and strangle out any possible further innovation.

    If competition disappears technological innovation disappears with it. This is the point I was making. A military arms race between various states is strangely reminiscent of a race for a better consumer product between various firms on the market.
    Decentralized competition between multiple actors=good for technological development
    Centralized top-down authoritarian monopolist control=bad for technological development

    Greatest military developments happen in a situation of an arms race. Thus emphasizing my original point.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    And of course, arms races are notorious for being dangerous. Also, I don’t think they actually control (top down) what is developed; they just try to counter-develop. So they can’t say, “let’s do Fusion power.”

    admin Reply:

    There’s exactly ONE example of a techno-competent classical-fascist regime — but it has to be admitted it’s a doozy. War-state cooptation of capitalism (which is what we’re talking about here) can clearly work under certain very specific conditions.


    fotrkd Reply:

    Background reading? Lure of the Void (Part 2)

    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 9:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • JPOutlook Says:

    Mr. Land,

    You will trigger half of Neo-Reaction whenever you mention W.A.S.P.s because we are the ethnic group that that half set out to subvert and undermine. They care less about the Cathedral!



    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 9:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    I’m a huge believer in wearable and biometric tech. I look forward to the day when I can walk down the street totally naked, and all my passport, money, keys and communication tools are in my head, fingertips and eyeballs.

    Why trigger anything when people actively desire this contradictory shit?

    Veronica Sawyer: You know, I have a little prepared speech I tell my suitor when he wants more than I’d like to give him. Gee, blank, I had a really nice…
    Brad: Save the speeches for Malcolm X, I just want to get laid.
    Veronica Sawyer: You don’t deserve my fucking speech.


    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 11:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    Urban Future 1.1 has gone again btw… (you’ve really got to work on blog stability).


    admin Reply:

    Urban Future 1.1 is outside my sphere of control.

    (New side-bar link should work, but all previous embedded links now screwed.)


    Posted on June 22nd, 2014 at 11:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Blogospheroid Says:

    What are the general comments on the upcoming scottish independence vote? Legalised , recognised secession happening in a fairly major country. This should be interesting.

    My understanding is that the general expectation points towards the leftover england becoming much more conservative, if the scots leave. It is an interesting kink in the traditional nrx – socialist secession.


    admin Reply:

    Secession events that calve off leftists are at least as valuable as those producing rightist ‘redoubts’. (Doubly crucial, though, to ensure an immigration regime is in place to protect against re-influx of ‘ruin voters’ from collapsing socialist experiments. Waving goodbye to left-wing political voice has to be forever.)


    Blogospheroid Reply:

    Free movement is definitely going to continue being maintained between the reduced united kingdom and scotland. I’m not sure if this will translate to re-citizenship. It would be interesting if a special fine is introduced in the citizen applications of ex-scots (much later after the division)

    And another interesting note, grist for the conspiracy mill, they want to maintain monetary unity with the UK or Europe. I thought the one lesson learnt from the ireland vs iceland example should be – maintain your own currency. You never know when you might need it !


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    It probably won’t happen, precisely for that reason. The Tories are already showing signs of panic at the prospect of not holding a perpetually losing hand.


    Blogospheroid Reply:

    Isn’t conservatism a relative thing here? If the split happens, then the conservative party becomes the left wing party with the UKIP becoming the right wing party, if I read this correctly.
    Wouldn’t that be advantageous to the tories in a “cthulhiu always swims left” sense?

    Or, they might completely lose right tto the UKIP and left to labour.. yup.. that might happen.. Got your point.. I think.


    Posted on June 23rd, 2014 at 8:55 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Actually self-preservation triggers something mind you slowly [many people are involved].

    This holds true for groups and not just Muricans.

    Politicians for instance seem to be adjusting rapidly to Cantor Victory. Sen. Jeff Sessions penned an op-ed denouncing Pro-Immigration Rich as regarding Americans as a commodity and Sheldon Adelson [!] and Rupert Murdoch [!!] by name. He denounces the idea we need more STEM or more foreign workers at all. He denounces immigration. This as the media is filled with the Camp of the Baby Saints on our Southern border, who are now not fearing La Migra but seeking them out to surrender to “La Migra will take care of them” – this of course being the single moms without borders.

    New House Majority Leader McCarthy wants to let the export-import bank [Ex-Im Bank] die in September as a blow against crony capitalism, he phrases it as let the free market do it.


    Posted on June 23rd, 2014 at 10:36 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    And NRO this morning embraces the windsock. Anti-Free Trade [!] Anti-Immigration.

    what whores they are, but yet windsocks have a purpose.

    Fight The Dragon of course says the failure of Free Trade is China’s fault. As if it wasn’t supposed to harm the native American economy and that is no interest of China.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I think Oren Cass has been barking up this tree for a while. He was one of Romney’s chief policy advisors, which explains a lot of Romney’s ‘Beat China’ rhetoric.


    Posted on June 23rd, 2014 at 11:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    While its quite true that the hyenas will rend each other once they’ve finished battening on the corpse, its cold comfort to the corpse.


    Posted on June 23rd, 2014 at 1:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Porphy's Attorney Says:

    Unfortunately the analytical possibilities of the disection of “Big Data” (which is ultimately, ‘epistomologically,’ tied into the “Less Wrongish” approach that many 1337 NRxers find attractive) is crippled by Kate’s (and Guardian’s) adherence to its even more supine prominent alternative: the blather that is Social Constructivism.

    Out of one cave, into an even deeper cave.


    Posted on June 24th, 2014 at 1:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    Thought you might like this.


    Posted on June 26th, 2014 at 12:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    And this even more.


    Posted on June 28th, 2014 at 10:25 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment