http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29906856

Can also think of this as positive, neutral and negative prescriptions of decay rate. The trike differs in their prognostics of change. I guess techcomms have the upper hand in that they’re better aligned with evolutionary reduction in adaptive time scales and I think cryptographic technology has a better shot of providing opportunities than balkanization or demographic endurance.

Treating certain social organisations as virtual nervous systems makes leftists appear as lobotomists.

READ:I’m just gonna cut that thought off with I notice in the SLATE article this quote

“With such outsize personalities involved as ex–Occupy Wall Streeter-turned-neoreactionary Justine Tunney”,
Any one notice that?

It would be a bit naive to consider it of exclusive relevance to eth-nats (although they would profit most from a superficial interpretation, what with their natural inclinations).

Tempus edax rerum.

The simulation describes not an event but a dynamic which is relevant to the whole trichotomy (and more) when adequately abstracted. Consider the immediate extension that leftists behave like ideological ethnocentrists in academia, media, etc. as per Radish, as if there weren’t enough parallels between ethnats and progs but I digress. This also not-so-subtly skewers the entire trike and the implicit tentative solutions to the situation. Read the study again and see (rather irresponsibly, I admit) the painfully obvious parallels between New World anglo immigration, that is, Exit, providing an immense “bias” to their brand of humanitarian egalitarianism. Combine with the fact that they were then in possession of very tech-friendly qualities and you have a group being gifted a tremendous vantage point, a civilizational petri dish, a social laboratory/cornucopia. This can also probably be related to the atlantean/hyperborean thing (what with the effective removal of ethnocentric predators against the majority of anglos due to the natural defenses) but I won’t bother.

In any case I find it possible that a massive competitive advantage was constructed from a big exit payoff but subsequently degenerated from social calcification.

Techcomms require prophylactic measures defending against this, ethnats require a way for it to freeze (otherwise they’ll splinter endlessly regardless of “muh wite rayss”) and theonomists require a way to revert this. THIS is what everyone is running from. “How do I get rid of an idiotic but dominant and influential anti-structure?”

Techcomms think “Reboot”, Ethnats think “Retribute”, Theonomists think “Revert”.

Patchwork is an attempt to contain this and I think a big part of why entryism keeps popping up as a subject and will continue to. Imagine “ethnies” in a competitively stable “knot”.

I just thought of hyperbolic ideal triangles, whose interior angles are all 0. Thought it funny in the context of “non-euclidean political fraternity” and super-darwinian spontaneous order “ex nihilo”.

Of course, you could argue in response that all of the other smart people would form some sort of barrier to horrible ideas, and there’d be like a “Mutually Assured Destruction” principle for intellectual irresponsibility…. but I still appreciate Wade’s very sober approach as a counter-balance to Jared Taylor’s enthusiasm toward the issue.

There is a strange tension through the whole thing where it seems very obvious that Taylor is trying to get Wade to say something Taylor believes is true, and then when Wade doesn’t give him the answer he’s looking for, Taylor sort of breathes loudly.

The Jack Donovan piece is nothing new, but I like reading his stuff because he’s a very good writer.

The Slate piece is another example of a writer attempting to walk carefully on a tightrope and then farting very loudly while performing such a dexterous feat. Slate does this every time they ever-so-gently push back against “the narrative.” (Another example: some woman wrote an article with the shocking premise that one way to fight back against date rape might be to avoid getting drunk to the point of unconsciousness)

“Gold is now under $1180. There is no logical argument I can see for it going back up.”

Don’t worry, it will go back up. But it will fall even more in the near future. I am with Jim Rogers on this one. Gold will fall under 1000$, Rogers expects it to go downards to 900$ which would be a pretty good buying opportunity. It will go back up. Gold always goes up in the end. Because fiat always ends up going down.

In a modern economy, fear of starvation naturally begets a certain type of monetary policy: Whatever you do, avoid a complete crash/stoppage of the global financial system. That’s what 2008 threatened to be. It threatened to be the end of the world as we know it. The whole central banking system serves a two-fold purpose: Keeping the banks competitive with equity finance (a scammy purpose) and preventing the seize-up of credit, and by extension a seize-up of the machines, and by extension widespread human starvation (a healthy purpose for central banks).

On this note, Scott Grannis has a nice piece on the end of QE3. He argues that QE was about filling a real demand for cash from fear-driven individuals. Now that this fear is subsiding, the QE can come out. He has a great chart correlating gold with TIPS. Both are falling in step as fear-based demand for cash declines.

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2014/10/qe3-rip.html

Gold is now under $1180. There is no logical argument I can see for it going back up. I could be wrong, but the better call here is to focus on CONSUMERS of commodities — i.e. commodity poor countries and intermediate processing industries (steel, airlines, chemicals etc).

One last point: The implication of the Ouroboros piece is that the mark of the leader is one who can overcome his fear of starvation, step outside himself, and be compassionate enough to the well-being of others to actually take the risk to do something in the physical world (beyond hunkering down in fear of a looming collapse). Something I need to work on …