Quote note (#205)

In an alternative, fantasy universe Richard Fernandez is an Outside in guest-blogger. … and on the topic of fantasy:

If it takes 17 years of unbroken failure, misery, violence and ruin to persuade once-rich Venezuelans that left wing promises don’t work it will take a whole lot more than a few deaths at a San Bernardino community center for true believers to abandon Barack Obama’s ideology. The forces which enabled global terrorism are so invested in their fantasy world that little is likely to stop it until it burns itself out. […] One can only hope the fever drives out the disease before it kills the patient.

Exactly right, as usual. (Hope being scarcely more than a hairs-breadth away from idiocy.)

December 4, 2015admin 19 Comments »


19 Responses to this entry

  • Quote note (#205) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 4:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    What fantasy?

    The fantasy is that problems solve themselves. Or are solved by talk of any sort.

    As for The Left living in fantasy world they don’t.

    They’re using barbarians to control their barbarians – that is Europeans.

    If you checked out that barbarians are within the gates piece from Roubini he’s saying populists and nativists are the barbarians and surprise we need another Marshall Plan for MENA.

    This uppity gypsy of gypsies has the nerve to call the people who unwisely took him in barbarians.


    Erebus Reply:

    Yes, very unwisely. Roubini has always been scum.

    The article you mentioned is laugh-out-loud funny.

    “Unless Europe can defend its external borders, the Schengen agreement will collapse and internal borders will return, ending freedom of movement – a key principle of European integration – within most of the EU. But the solution proposed by some – close the gates to refugees – would merely worsen the problem, by destabilizing countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, which have already absorbed millions.”

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a worse non sequitur. Even if we grant that Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan become destabilized, how would that “worsen the problem” for Europe? The borders remain closed, agitators are dealt with, the problem evaporates like a wisp of cloud before the Sun.

    …But, instead, the solution is “more integration”, “action against the Islamic State”, and “action against Climate Change.” Roubini needs his neck stretched.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Agreed. Stretched.

    We give shelter to gypsies and they defame and ruin us.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Giving shelter was a mistake. Perhaps the US and the EU will not learn from their mistake until they are extinguished, but others (perhaps the PRC even Australia) might.

    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 5:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    “as American as kebab and apple pie.”


    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 5:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    I used Fernandez as an effective example of the problems of modern political discourse while talking to me dad last week. He (Fernandez) is always so close to reflecting reality, but is compelled to slap a red team framework over top. Do you think he recognizes that “Barack Obama’s ideology” is not functionally different than red team’s ideology re: Islam, but can’t express it due to his venue?


    Erebus Reply:

    I think that if you scratch the surface of Red Team’s ideology with respect to Islam, you’ll find that it differs wildly from “Barack Obama’s ideology.” If there’s a functional difference, it can be explained as per Moldbug: The power is with the permanent bureaucracy, not with elected politicians. I’d add that people like Paul Ryan do not genuinely represent their constituents in any case.


    Jefferson Reply:

    Red team has its own permanent bureaucracy in the DOD, and its objectives are not different in a meaningful way.


    Erebus Reply:

    When I say “Red Team” I’m not talking about the Republican party or the DoD establishment. I’m talking about the people — the overwhelmingly white middle and working classes, who generally hold conservative opinions, and who happen to vote for, and support, the Outer Party. These people, whether they know it or not, have been disowned by the system; they don’t have a permanent bureaucracy in the DoD or anywhere else.

    …I don’t know if you speak to such people much, but I can assure you that the attitudes I’m picking up are very hostile to Islam and couldn’t be further from “Barack Obama’s ideology.” (The volk — the backbone of the nation — just might be starting to get a bit restless.) Fernandez isn’t writing for the benefit of DoD functionaries or Republican senate staffers, his audience is with those people, and it’s only natural that he should recognize that the opinions they hold differ from those held in Washington.


    Froude Society Reply:

    Team Red and Team Blue differentiate regarding Islam mostly in regards to rhetoric and level of concern. Team Red actually cares about security matters, which Islam obviously is, not because they mind much if people die but because that’s where their power nodes are concentrated. Team Red will also sound tougher, demanding “the Muslim community take more responsibility” or “we have to admit it, I’ll call it as I see it, we are at war with radical Islam”. It’s all a show though, Team Red was the one who armed the Afghani Taliban and was furious when Team Blue didn’t give more arms to the Chechens and FSA/Nusra. In terms of clients Team Red sponsors nearly all the Muslim portions of the “empire”, be it wiser ones such as Egypt or Jordan; or the downright duplicitous and evil ones like Pakistan, KSA, Turkey, and Qatar. As long as Team Red sells the Saudis weapons to immediately be handed over to Al Qaeda in Yemen and Syria they are as awful as the State Department.


    michael Reply:

    look if they were really two different teams not good cop bad cop team then they would leak intelligence about each other but they dont one ran a POW traitor owned by the NSA and the other a commie organizer also owned. Im not saying they were necessarily manchurian candidates but they certainly were not going rouge on the GCBC team.
    Look just because some general is actually conservative and Hillary is actually leftist doesnt mean both will do whatever it takes.They may or may not know the long con, The players are on a need to know basis. If you want to know what they are up to forget all the ideology watch their feet, what are they actually doing, fuck why they say they are doing it.

    Dont you see they own the definition of collapse,They will roll tanks on to the streets and tell us its for our protection, They will seize our accounts and say its because evil banksters and profiteers, They will shut down free speech because hate. VXXC is right they will never be stopped by talk.

    They are at a critical point they must overreach to finalize control if they succeed its lights out. Their NSA type abilities are almost omniscient,Their cradle to grave propaganda is on its last generation the first to be totally pure. if they succeed in population replacement and disarming its over. A facsist revolution or anarchy is preferable to total state forever. Well it is to some of us.


    admin Reply:

    Left Singularity (communist nadir) demonstrably happens. The ancients knew it. The 20th century confirmed it (most recently). Why the hell would we think Anglophone progressives were somehow invulnerable to it?

    Exfernal Reply:

    A fascist revolution would lead to total state as well, only with someone else at its helm.

    William Newman Reply:


    Perhaps they will never lose their CAPITALS ’cause now they’re backed up all over the place!

    But even powerful sovereign organizations can collapse — or at least become fragile or flammable enough that a small spark or modest shock can set them off — for several reasons.

    SOs can piss away their legitimacy. In the past, indulgences were a literal Catholic thing, not just a snide figure of speech referring to modern Progressive environmental holiness except-when-we-look-the-other-way and racial definitely-not-racism patronage holiness and so forth. In the past, the Catholic establishment came to have reason to regret pissing quite so long and hard, but during the pissing session it can be hard to determine when you go too far.

    SOs can screw up their fiscal affairs, which is a particularly acute problem when key loyalty relationships are heavily based on payoffs, or when they face a major military challenge, or both. Trying to cope by taxing even harder hits various death spirals, one undermentioned one being that you can’t credibly pay people off any more except in short-term favors. When politically informed people start applying a huge discount to your pension promises or estate grants or monopoly grants or whatever, you lose a major way to motivate people. Relatedly, borrowing at reasonable rates becomes harder and harder, so while motivating people with vast sums in their Swiss bank account does work (considerably less bang for the buck than a local villa) the cold immediate cash to do it is harder to come by. The house of cards that is the government-guarantees-everything financial system, the slow-motion clusterfuck that is official pension policy, and the limited headroom for raising a higher proportion of GDP in taxes combine to make this look like a serious instability to me.

    SOs can get too lazy or arrogant or short-termist to keep up their nothing-up-my-sleeve legitimacy demonstration mechanisms. In the Anglosphere we tend to like us some representative assemblies, trial by jury, leading from the front, standards against flagrantly blowing off oaths, or against flagrant perjury and destruction of evidence and proscutorial blindness to the abuses of the powerful, and other things. I don’t really understand the Far East, but I have the impression that at least there as here aristocratic virtues (broadly interpreted) and general state success also weigh in the equation. If it ever came to pass that our powerful movers and shakers ever stopped being so obviously excellent, and indeed from displaying aristocratic virtues they suddenly plummeted straight past displaying rudimentary neighborly/lifeboat virtues en route to somewhere in the abyss, it would probably erode their legitimacy. But as long as every subject hopes “if I am ever in a 2-person lifeboat in a desperate situation, I *hope*, oh I *hope* that the other survivor on board is a powerful politician [and not just to push him overboard]” the regime enjoys more stability.

    Pushing sufficiently incredible or unpalatable political dogmas can eat away at legitimacy too, and accidents of timing can turn the chronic erosion into acute political embarrassment. Unfortunate timing for James II that Louis-the-Nth revoked the Edict of Nantes just when he did. e.g.

    SOs can antimisunderestimate the incentives they are creating for key ambitious people in their organization. I have read a tale of a Chinese emperor falling because a military officer faced death for some screwup and decided to double down on the “might as well be hanged for a sheep” theory. That seems plausible to me, though it’s from too long ago to truly trust, esp. with the useful David Friedman principle of doubting history that makes a good enough tale that people would repeat it even if untrue. More recently Macaulay’s history makes a more detailed case for another kind of incentivization instability in the runup to the Glorious Revolution. “The dismission of the two brothers is a great epoch in of the reign of James.” (http://eremita.di.uminho.pt/gutenberg/2/4/3/2439/2439-h/2439-h.htm — good for things to make a 2015 reader say hmm, like with-us-or-against-us incentive instability and like the executive using the dispensing power to legalize people banned by Parliamentary law)

    It’s hard to tell what might be a big enough spark. Being invaded by a strong foreign prince with a claim to the throne was what it took for the Glorious Revolution, which is less like a spark than like being hit with a flamethrower and a bulldozer at the same time. But the Reformation, the fall of the Protectorate, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution seem rather like the SO losing the ability to withstand the dropped cigarettes that can be expected to occur every few months.

    Most internal instabilities can be worked around by tightening the political screws hard enough, but then the sovereign state can easily become laughably weak against external enemies. Admittedly rather often the external enemies are all shooting themselves in the foot in their own ways (perhaps just by tightening their own screws) but historically a SO depending on that to continue for generations is pressing its luck pretty hard, and today, with so much baked-in technological change in military and economic affairs rising rapidly into who-knows-what, I think depending on that for more than a decade is iffy.

    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 6:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#205) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 8:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • whatwedontknow Says:

    At this point, every terror attack makes things better, not worse, by exposing and accelerating the inevitable contradictions.

    For that reason, I expect there to be ever fewer terror attacks, as the powers that be do all they can to contain the rising pressure.


    Posted on December 5th, 2015 at 2:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    I didnt say we were immune to a left ratchet,but Im not sure its even fair to say anyone generally thought we were, even up to today its referred to as the “American experiment” Its possible perils have been elucidated from Burke to Toqueville to a hundred others before and after.The Founders themselves were clear on the fault lines and had their actual design been followed we might no be here imagine an america and its proteges with voting franchise for white males over 30 owning property and therefore net taxpayers.Why its almost cameralist. Monarchy was not working,Something new was tried. And as Ive said many times the problem doesnt seem to be the vote it seems to be the elites end run around the vote. The common man seems to have common sense despite 8 hours of propaganda a day.
    If what you meant was the commies must collapse Im not sure anymore. Its not really your fathers communism. Its partnered with Capital in an entirely new way, its learned from prior experiments, sure it still redistributes wealth on a racial and gender basis; and while that may satisfy the red diaper generation and confuse the neocons, its pretty clear they no longer even aspire to equality economic or otherwise, they aspire to absolute control to impose their morality and pay their partners. The current redistribution is a means to an end [white independent mentality] once power is consolidated the gloves will come off for the Muslims and blacks and women and they will be used as they see fit. Ive said for decades they probably think they are just making tough moral choices in a shrinking world. They have the advantage that they dont think their choices will effect themselves.
    Maybe but anything that disrupts the power consolidation, buys time is a win what they are putting the finishing touches on is unprecedented in human history its the govt singularity. But they are still vulnerable, there are people alive who still remember and some have power. They are starting to expose themselves in order to make the final grabs and this is opening eyes. They are rushing geopolitically. They can be taken down but not for long.


    Posted on December 5th, 2015 at 6:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    HMMM Think Ive thought about all the usual roads to ruin and me thinks they got it covered. The problem is they control it all or at least will soon. Nothing sticks to them nothing can they create reality a people that are wired in 8 or more hours a day actually actually live in the matrix. if they say greedy banksters decided to finance million dollar homes for welfare cases in the hood and must pay a billion dollar fine no one questions this nonsense they neednt edit the historical evidence of how they orchestrated the entire thing the monstrous damage done to the world is the banksters fault. You can go ask any 140 plus IQ lefty you know he will explain it, go ahead ask him about how acorn came up with it in the 70s and how bush and clinton ran with it and directed fannie to help the banks when they balked, your lefty neighbor will be undaunted be he in scotland or new york whether hes got a degree in economics or lays brick.
    but this is so 90s, they now can make merkel dance, or finance isis or hold anyone without trial, soon even in the us they will shut down speech. what then.


    Posted on December 6th, 2015 at 12:53 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment