Quote note (#290)

If mainstream discussion could get to this point, it would be great:

For the record, I am not an open-borders libertarian. I accept that most people value cultural cohesion, which is a perfectly legitimate preference. I also think that it should not be considered a ‘hate crime’ to suggest that some cultures are more easily compatible with one another than others. So no, this is not one of those virtue-signalling diversity-is-wonderful-and-you’re-all-racists articles. All I’m saying is that if your aim is greater cultural cohesion, clamping down on migration from culturally very similar countries does not strike me as the smartest way to go about it. […] As for the economics, I have always found arguments about whether ‘immigration’ is ‘good for the economy’ or ‘…the public finances’ a bit tedious. People come here from very different places and for very different reasons, so when we talk about ‘immigration’, the level of aggregation is simply too high.

October 5, 2016admin 27 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , ,

27 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    All I’m saying is that if your aim is greater cultural cohesion, clamping down on migration from culturally very similar countries does not strike me as the smartest way to go about it.

    This is why America functioned well as a WASP nation — they were all Western Europeans — but not so much once Southern/Eastern Europeans got involved.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 5th, 2016 at 2:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Capitalist Says:

    Why is Elon Musk a million times more popular among less wrong, xenosystems, actually pretty much everybody? Is it because even the huge amount of leeway the internet gives to people who atleast try a little bit to do new things isn’t enough for Jeff Bezos, that he’s too much of an asshole for even hyper capitalists to redeem? Elon Musk doesn’t seem like the most social guy in the world either and reacts really sensitively to even light hearted fun directed at Silicon Valley.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 5th, 2016 at 2:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Yes! Great article. Ed West is becoming a more sophisticated voice for reaction every day.

    In the US, every single discussion about immigration with blue pills eventually comes back to, “It worked for German immigrants, then it worked for Italians, then Irish, so immigration is part of America’s DNA and it will be ok this time as well.”

    The important point is who is coming.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 5th, 2016 at 6:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Zimriel Says:

    My problem with this article is what happens a pack of “Germans” flock in with names like Cenk and Ahmet.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 5th, 2016 at 7:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    sailor linked to a press club symposium with Richwine Wax and Murray also on immigration he thought it was hopefully right ratchet, i dont know seems to me what was par for the country club course at NRO 15 years ago is now considered alt right

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 5th, 2016 at 9:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    ‘Take Back Control’ was a very effective campaign slogan, but when used in the context of migration, it was always inappropriate. Take back control? From whom? Nobody controls the movement of people within the European Economic Area and Switzerland. That’s the whole point of free movement. That’s why it’s called free movement, not ‘EU-controlled movement’. Introducing Inner-European migration controls would not mean ‘taking back control’ from anyone. It would mean creating a whole new layer of government control, which would, beyond doubt, become a horrible bureaucratic mess, and a wholly unnecessary one at that.

    I couldnt get past this, what the libertarian author doesnt get is wow theres so much lets strt with eu economicand social policy certainly does control immigration flow.
    then lets sskip full tilt to the rub

    when an unholy alliance of marxists and ‘capitalists’ [some individuals of which are firmly in both camps now], triangulating third world or even second world labor markets against first world social welfare states to reap the votes and offshore the profits of subsidized labor in the US at least to the tune of 30k per sub human family member of every subhuman worker [ doing the work americans wont do because americans dont get the welfare subsidy on top of the low wage]even unto the fifth generation and counting. meanwhile the natives lucky enough to not be replaced are left to deal with the other cost besides the welfare. costs like the inflation and ruin and debt interest welfare for unlimited chain migration costs, the inflation in everything from real estate medicine education taxes and infrastructure upkeep thats an effect of an extra 100 million sub humans and their families. on top of this is the social cost, not only are we pushing our lowest skilled workers out of the only jobs they are qualified for as well as quite a few of our higher skilled workers as well but we are suppressing wages through the economy while creating inflation, also we have sacrificed out cultural confidence we can no longer shame the indolent promiscuous or even criminal for fear of offending sub humans by inference.And it takes our best and brightest to instead of move mars into near earth orbit and terraform it they must becom SJW apologists to tamp down the pitchforks that ought naturally come out in response. our entire government has to be turned ito make work for incompetent blacks who cant compete with Amerindians even while we have doubled the blacks through immigration from black countries brilliant. we are told this is simply capitalism so if you object you are either a racist or a communist, depending which party you appeal to. -or if you appeal to nrx for that matter. This is not capitalism this is subsidized wages in fact the subsidies are astronomical if fairly calculated even purely monetarily.

    [Reply]

    Axel McKibbin Reply:

    As usual all of have focused on the symptom and not the cause. Yes, alright, the cucks need immigrants. But what incentive manufactures the cucks? And how can we reverse it?

    You each owe me one proposed solution. That is your assignment.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    no representation without taxation. only net taxpayer can vote how to spend their taxes, This means no government debt because debt is taxes that have not been paid. The author suggests welfare be like US unemployment insurance one must pay in to be able to draw out, I think its obvious european people like social safety nets, its understandable i dont think they actually like the socialism aspect they get the moral hazard i think the solution is all social safety nets are converted to solvent insurance plans.
    All liberalism is nourished on other peoples money once its actually ones own money people get very conservative.
    But nothing can be done in a mixed race nation the curve widens too much.

    [Reply]

    bomag Reply:

    But what incentive manufactures the cucks?

    It is partly inertia: cucks have done well in recent history, following the rules in exchange for a wife and job. Now they are sitting around a campfire, wondering when the buffalo will come back, not seeing the larger picture where the machine world and overseas invaders have changed the paradigm. But they still think if they follow the rules, the good hunting will appear.

    They’ve also been bought off with porn and welfare

    And how can we reverse it

    I’m not sure it’s reversal should be the plan; more of crafting a new arrangement. Get rid of the porn and welfare; more exclusive communities, even at the nation level. Incentivise long term planning. People worked pretty hard for a retirement plan. Now we can get a retirement plan at any age, or we’ve seen our plans looted by leadership to pay some of today’s bills.

    [Reply]

    Kevin C. Reply:

    And how can we reverse it?

    We can’t. There are no solutions. All that is good will be destroyed; and evil will utterly triumph everywhere forever. We’re doomed.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    What if the Cathedral or the deeper “leftism singularity” is aligned with the technocapital singularity aka. emergent “distributed” AI? It provides appeasement (Leftism is drug-like) for the monkeys and long-term extreme culling. This could be the unholy alliance between capitalism and “marxism” you talk about. I never understood why some people say globalism is bad for capitalism by the way…

    Under this view, most “rightists” react by opposing technocapital, usually through “luddite” conservatism or nat-soc. This is why Trump might end up being to the left of Clinton in consequences, and why I suspect technocrats of all kinds support “the enemy” in so many situations. If the degenerates want to live caged in their apartments hooked to VR as “their” resources flow elsewhere, well, that sounds like a great market, a good incentive to develop important technology and a pretty good way to further reduce people until they are nothing. All going according to plan?

    [Reply]

    Axel McKibbin Reply:

    Replying to Anonymous

    I think of capitalism as being a great alienating machine composed of dozens of social technologies with the tech consisting of turning countless social relationships into property.

    For example:
    Patents (property in ideas)
    Trademarks (property in creativity)
    Real estate (property in land/ houses)
    Title (property in objects)
    Contract (property in agreements)
    Marriage (property in sex)
    Constitutions/Tort (property in rights)
    Slavery (obsolete property in humans)
    Futures (property in hedging risk)
    Stocks (property in corporations)
    Votes (equal property in government)
    Bonds (property in debt)
    Vouchers (property in services)
    Insurance (property in safety)
    Money (property in other people’s work)

    Capitalism is PROPERTY. Moreover, as more and more things are be defined as property capitalism expands is dominion into every aspect of life. Capitalism not only is property, it is the expansion of what constitutes property.

    Humans are tribal communist xenophobes.

    The Cathedral is the monkey reaction against the intrusion of property into all social relationships. Human nature is at war with the alien nature of property.

    Notice that with the exception of slavery the Cathedral has never won a battle against capitalism. Moreover, giving blacks their freedom gave them the freedom to own property, which may actually be looked at as a victory for capitalism.

    It should be noted that most of these forms of capitalism were developed in Britain, and so capitalism is a British invention–a collection of British social technologies.

    [Reply]

    nnms Reply:

    Or maybe, just maybe, the Cathedral is not warring Capital. Maybe, just maybe, moving from a local maximum (human slaves) is necessary in reaching a global maximum (“robotic” slaves). Maybe, just maybe, fungibility is a useful property to have in a Capital propagation medium — you know, like market actors.

    By all historical analyses of capitalist development, standardised (universal, interoperable, inexpensive to scale), interchangeable (equal, inexpensive to replace), singletons (inexpensive to recycle/reintegrate in new systems) seem to make for better agents of Capital than diverse (particular, artisan, expensive to scale), idiosyncratic (one-offs, expensive to replace), holons (expensive to reintegrate in new systems).

    Maybe, just maybe, the Cathedral’s utopia is Capital’s dream pool.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Anonymous Reply:
    October 6th, 2016 at 6:23 am
    Axel McKibbin Reply:
    October 6th, 2016 at 7:54 am
    nnms Reply:
    October 6th, 2016 at 10:34 am

    These three posts attain a tier not often seen here since 2014.

    I find it oppor-tune to luci-re-fer to a comment from that year of our LORD, re-provid(ent)ed on one of mein weird blogs here:
    https://neontradition.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/neonaricracy/

    I must admit that your conclusions are not new to me, and I´ve tried articulating them somehow on said web-log.

    We are the body of Gnon.

    mī kāʼēl?

    Axel Reply:

    Anonymous Reply:
    October 6th, 2016 at 6:23 am

    “What if the Cathedral or the deeper “leftism singularity” is aligned with the technocapital singularity aka. emergent “distributed” AI? It provides appeasement (Leftism is drug-like) for the monkeys and long-term extreme culling. This could be the unholy alliance between capitalism and “marxism” you talk about. I never understood why some people say globalism is bad for capitalism by the way…”

    “Under this view, most “rightists” react by opposing technocapital, usually through “luddite” conservatism or nat-soc. This is why Trump might end up being to the left of Clinton in consequences, and why I suspect technocrats of all kinds support “the enemy” in so many situations. If the degenerates want to live caged in their apartments hooked to VR as “their” resources flow elsewhere, well, that sounds like a great market, a good incentive to develop important technology and a pretty good way to further reduce people until they are nothing. All going according to plan?”

    Myself / Axel McKibbin Reply:
    October 6th, 2016 at 7:54 am

    “Capitalism is PROPERTY. Moreover, as more and more things are be defined as property capitalism expands is dominion into every aspect of life. Capitalism not only is property, it is the expansion of what constitutes property.”

    “Humans are tribal communist xenophobes.”

    “The Cathedral is the monkey reaction against the intrusion of property into all social relationships. Human nature is at war with the alien nature of property.”

    nnms Reply:
    October 6th, 2016 at 10:34 am

    “Or maybe, just maybe, the Cathedral is not warring Capital. Maybe, just maybe, moving from a local maximum (human slaves) is necessary in reaching a global maximum (“robotic” slaves). Maybe, just maybe, fungibility is a useful property to have in a Capital propagation medium — you know, like market actors.”

    “By all historical analyses of capitalist development, standardised (universal, interoperable, inexpensive to scale), interchangeable (equal, inexpensive to replace), singletons (inexpensive to recycle/reintegrate in new systems) seem to make for better agents of Capital than diverse (particular, artisan, expensive to scale), idiosyncratic (one-offs, expensive to replace), holons (expensive to reintegrate in new systems).”

    “Maybe, just maybe, the Cathedral’s utopia is Capital’s dream pool.”

    New Comment

    And maybe it is both. Perhaps the Cathedral is both the shadow of capitals influence, (like capitalism, it works to undermine the family and atomize people in order to standardize them), while at the same time being a controlled opposition. (Meaning that the Cathedral is itself a controlled opposition to capitalism). This is also consistent with imperium in imperio, or with the notion that elites operate through proxies to co-opt and dominate other peoples systems.

    Reactionary Future has a whole series on how elites use foundations to control the left, (and how even the libertarian right was created by the Rockefeller’s). One sees this continued with the Koch brothers funding the CATO institute.
    https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/explaining-the-riots/
    https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/being-pwned/

    Let us also not forget that elites are people and are subject to ideological influence from the left just like anyone. A certain “cross pollination” between leftist ideology and capitalist monetary interest occurs where each takes on the flavor of the other. The grievance studies departments tend to teach whatever their foundation paychecks fund and the foundation administers tend to believe / rationalize their choice by buying into the ideology that they are paying for.

    Ultimately I see all of this (the alt-right) marching towards Nat Soc for the simple reason that Nat Soc is the closest to “tribal,” “communist,” and “xenophobe,” that humans can approximate in the modern technological order without economic collapse.

    This is what concerns me.

    It is also a series of prisoner’s dilemma.

    (prisoner’s dilemma 1) Demotism cannot be put back in the box without getting rid of capitalism because private wealth buys influence one way or another and leads to divided power.

    (prisoner’s dilemma 2) If capitalism is subordinated under fascism the economy is unlikely to grow at the same rate at a capitalist society. The level of control over economic life will stifle innovation and allow enemy societies to gain a long-term military advantage. Don’t have capitalism = eventually get conquered

    (prisoner’s dilemma 3) Communism is even worse at technological development that fascism.

    (prisoner’s dilemma 4) Racially homogeneous societies tend to become socialist ones. Without the xenophobic impulse to keep them in check, the egalitarian impulse runs amok.

    Of course, democracy has it’s own problems. The vote can be regarded as a theoretical equal ownership share in government. While all the property systems of the capitalist order are unequal, (because they can be accumulated). This means that a system that is supposed to be equal runs an economy that is designed to be unequal. The solution is to make the vote fungible like corporate stock, so that it has the same in-egalitarian nature as capitalist property. But do we really want that? If the Cathedral is the shadow / response / controlled opposition to capitalism then giving capitalism shares in “joint stock USA” constitutes transferring all remaining public ownership of the state to the very machine that enslaves us.

    The solution really does sound like monarchy. Monarchies do wealth creation just fine. They may perform at technological innovation just fine. The key here is probably property itself — redesigning it so that it can’t be used against power itself.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    NatSoc and Sovietism (USSR) seemed to have no problem with technological innovation and growth in many areas of civilization. Both were superior to the rest of the world in many fields, superior to Capitalist dominated nations.

    This issue is very much unaddressed by NRx, so far.

    Tom Reply:

    //NatSoc and Sovietism (USSR) seemed to have no problem with technological innovation and growth in many areas of civilization. Both were superior to the rest of the world in many fields, superior to Capitalist dominated nations.

    This issue is very much unaddressed by NRx, so far.//

    Does it need to be? Is it really so surprising? If we’re being honest, the org charts of the USSR and the Third Reich in the lead up to WWII were more monarchistic in practice than those of Britain or the USA. Why should NRx be surprised at their proficiency in arms races?

    nnms Reply:

    In spite of not being entirely accurate, this is more relevant than most Landianist “reactionaries” would like to admit. You can replace ‘the System’ with ‘the Cathedral’ if the point proves elusive. Better yet, replace it with ‘Capital’. The key idea, one that Land is certainly aware of but carefully obscures in his more recent discourse, is that technology (writ large) and social structure do not vary independently.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Socio-political structure is comnpensatory (homeostatic) far more than it is catalytic (excitational). It’s obstacle and trap, not facilitator. Sheer Leviathan scale is the most basic, and quite reliable index.

    [Reply]

    nnms Reply:

    >Socio-political structure is comnpensatory (homeostatic) far more than it is catalytic (excitational). It’s obstacle and trap, not facilitator.

    Which is why, to continue the obvious implication that nonetheless needs pointing out, the breaking down of that structure, the Cathedral’s most resented function, making humans themselves fungible, is greasing the wheels of Capital.

    admin Reply:

    You’re persuading me this is actually an interesting argument to have (but not that evangelical egalitarianism is a capital catalyst).

    nnms Reply:

    What if the egalitarianism being sold is not the one being manufactured. After all, there are kinds and kinds.
    Or think about it this way: what kind of individual is more likely to have reservations about human modifications? Could it be… the xenophobe?

    Axel Reply:

    Michael Says:

    “‘Take Back Control’ was a very effective campaign slogan, but when used in the context of migration, it was always inappropriate. Take back control? From whom? Nobody controls the movement of people within the European Economic Area and Switzerland. That’s the whole point of free movement. That’s why it’s called free movement, not ‘EU-controlled movement’. Introducing Inner-European migration controls would not mean ‘taking back control’ from anyone. It would mean creating a whole new layer of government control, which would, beyond doubt, become a horrible bureaucratic mess, and a wholly unnecessary one at that.”

    “I couldnt get past this, what the libertarian author doesnt get is wow theres so much lets strt with eu economicand social policy certainly does control immigration flow.
    then lets sskip full tilt to the rub”

    “when an unholy alliance of marxists and ‘capitalists’ [some individuals of which are firmly in both camps now], triangulating third world or even second world labor markets against first world social welfare states to reap the votes and offshore the profits of subsidized labor in the US at least to the tune of 30k per sub human family member of every subhuman worker [ doing the work americans wont do because americans dont get the welfare subsidy on top of the low wage]even unto the fifth generation and counting. meanwhile the natives lucky enough to not be replaced are left to deal with the other cost besides the welfare. costs like the inflation and ruin and debt interest welfare for unlimited chain migration costs, the inflation in everything from real estate medicine education taxes and infrastructure upkeep thats an effect of an extra 100 million sub humans and their families. on top of this is the social cost, not only are we pushing our lowest skilled workers out of the only jobs they are qualified for as well as quite a few of our higher skilled workers as well but we are suppressing wages through the economy while creating inflation, also we have sacrificed out cultural confidence we can no longer shame the indolent promiscuous or even criminal for fear of offending sub humans by inference.And it takes our best and brightest to instead of move mars into near earth orbit and terraform it they must becom SJW apologists to tamp down the pitchforks that ought naturally come out in response. our entire government has to be turned ito make work for incompetent blacks who cant compete with Amerindians even while we have doubled the blacks through immigration from black countries brilliant. we are told this is simply capitalism so if you object you are either a racist or a communist, depending which party you appeal to. -or if you appeal to nrx for that matter. This is not capitalism this is subsidized wages in fact the subsidies are astronomical if fairly calculated even purely monetarily.”

    My response,

    Key words here “This is not capitalism”

    But isn’t it? Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. Congressmen are multiparty brokers who sell other peoples money. I agree that it isn’t “free market capitalism.” But we must consider that voluntary trade isn’t the only thing humans can sell. They can also sell economic rents, and do.

    American democracy is a duopolistic coercion market.

    Westminster democracy is a competitive coercion market.

    Monarchy is a monopolized coercion market.

    Oligarchy is a oligopolistic coercion market.

    Exitocracy, (my idea) is a divided semi-propertarian coercion market.

    “Performance” is measured in redistribution. Greater performance = greater redistribution.

    Monarchy performs the worst, therefore is the most libertarian.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 5th, 2016 at 10:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • nnms Says:

    And, since I’ve linked one Kaczynski essay, it’s best that I link another. Better yet, since it’s about Land’s favourite topics without his penchant for intellectual dishonesty. It also explains why Land is so fixated on the idea of off-world expansion in a far straighter fashion than he has been (so far) willing to do. It also should make clearer how, in light of his allegiance to Capital, Land’s purported opposition to the Cathedral makes no sense.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 6th, 2016 at 11:17 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    It isn’t really about a level of aggregation, it is about you cannot define the group of unwanted people really precisely. The difference between Syrian and Mexican culture, obviously huge, does not even matter here much. And even if one would take the odium of that, “nonwhites” isn’t precise either, because the uppermost social class of nonwhite nations tends to be pretty well integrated, they send their kids to Oxford and afterwards those rich Indian, Arab etc. kids are mostly perfect Brahmins. Essentially the Cathedral is pretty good at borging the rich kids from any nation, race or culture. And then actually they are more “culturally compatible” with white liberals than you or me.

    No, it is a complicated intersection of race, class, culture etc.

    People here probably guessed it is likely reducible to IQ. But people’s IQ is not written on their foreheads. The best guesstimate is to use _both_ class and race.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 7th, 2016 at 3:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • R. J. Moore II Says:

    Nation states are too large to avoid indissoluable conflicts of interest and collective action problems. As long as they exist, they will fail and promote mediocrity. As long as people refuse to abandon mass government and massive geographic centralization there are no solutions, and I don’t give a shit how much they suffer.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 10th, 2016 at 4:07 am Reply | Quote
  • Gothic Architecture – Site Title Says:

    […] was puzzling over something discussed on Xenosystems a while back, “is the Cathedral functional for Capital escalation?”  I contended it was, […]

    Posted on November 17th, 2016 at 10:34 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment