Sentences (#61)

Tyler Cowen on the Brexit message:

if you are thinking that voting “Leave” does not at all limit Pakistani immigration, you are truly missing the point; this vote was the one lever the English were given for sending a message to their politicians.

(The entire post is impressively Ideological-Turing-Test-competent.)

June 27, 2016admin 19 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Sentences

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

19 Responses to this entry

  • Rasputin Says:

    Yes, he comes across as only nominally pro-remain, seemingly prefacing the piece by signalling his progressive allegiance in order to better present the arguments to leave in a neutral light.

    [Reply]

    dan in euroland Reply:

    He does publish in the Gray Lady (of the Night), and is routinely referred to in other outlets like the Atlantic. Heck he had a piece in Grantland (ESPN) from what I remember.

    TC may very well be a classic case of preference falsification on many issues. Certainly his economics is not mainstream with its many Austrian attributes.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    I increasingly tend towards that view myself, although I don’t read him with sufficient regularity to draw an accurate picture myself. There has been a fair amount discussion (and disagreement) on how successful such a tactic is (if giving oxygen / status to some non-progressive ideas is indeed what he is doing) in certain darkened corners of the net…

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 27th, 2016 at 4:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    “Of course, USA and Canada and a few others are mature nation states based on the very idea of immigration…”

    Wrong. “That’s not who we are!”

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Nation states based on conquest & colonisation, by 4 waves of founder-immigrants.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 27th, 2016 at 4:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • S.C. Hickman Says:

    What’s funny is he seems to be a secular atheist, but is pro-Islamic immigration. I wonder if in a couple decades if he had his way and the next generation of migrants become citizens and more and more take over parliament and oust both the Church of England, and instigate Sharia Law over the demos if such secularites will want to stay in merry old England? More and more the ideology turns a blind eye to its own blindness, short-circuiting the very blank hole in its own rhetorical and tropological universe of crapology. As the Left usually does their blaming everyone but themselves for their uselessness. But that’s par for the course, what else can they do? Losers are losers… (Yes, you could say I’ve had it up to here with the present crop of Leftists… a lot of turds with degrees who follow each other, tweet each other, fart in each other’s FB circuit… cry their crocodile tears).

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    All of these Occidental ‘extremisms’ & ‘fundamentalisms’, whether political or religious, are just forms of identity constipation. lol

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    As a secular anything, you can’t really endorse immigration restriction on religious grounds, can you? Besides, currently arriving migrants will not take over parliament, they will find employment as janitors, welfare recipients and terrorists. If islamism starts its own march through the institutions (and that’s still more likely to happen in Britain than anywhere else in the west, brexit or not), it will be done by people who have already been living in Britain for a while right now.
    Also, ideology turning a blind eye to its own blindness, that’s about as tautological as it gets.

    On a more general note wrt TC’s sentence: so, the exit isn’t real, but the voice of the people is heard…isn’t this worst possible outcome, from a NRx point of view?

    [Reply]

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    That was the point: he is a “secular atheist” who is defending the immigration of religious extremists because he is bound to the code of Tolerance (Enlightenment principle): that’s why it’s funny. I’ll assume it wasn’t funny to you so move on….

    Either you’re a lackadaisical reader or a dimwit, I’m not sure which? I said “couple of decades” and “next generation,” not arriving migrants. Also, you left out the obvious second part of the sentence “short-circuiting the very blank hole in its own rhetorical and tropological universe of crapology,” which hooks into the parodic take on the tautological statement: the point of my parodic gesture on the tautology is just that, that the liberal defense of the current immigration will come back to bite their asses.

    In that last one, if by the voluntarism of “voice of the people” is heard – then yes, voluntarism is always to be eschewed.

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    I get it, I get it, secularists will cling to secularist principles even if doing so will endanger secularism. lol. Is them doing the opposite a different joke, or the same?

    In any case, neither you nor the secularists know what will happen literally 30 years in the future, and I for one haven’t heard of any ideology that has been able to sucessfully forecast events that far ahead, at least not with sufficient fidelity in order to take any advantage from such knowledge.

    And while I found out, to my surprise, that ‘blank hole’ totally is a meaningful manner of speech, how the hell was I supposed to know what you mean by ‘short-circuiting’ such a hole, or really any kind of hole?

    Xoth Reply:

    We can make some fairly good guesses by looking at demographics and demographic trends.

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    @NRK… yep, as you say: “And while I found out, to my surprise, that ‘blank hole’ totally is a meaningful manner of speech, how the hell was I supposed to know what you mean by ‘short-circuiting’ such a hole, or really any kind of hole?”

    Yea, I have to admit, most of my posts are more directed at admin indirectly. If you’ve not read Nick’s A Thirst for Annihilation or his Fanged Noumenon essays, else the old CCRU site a lot of my telescoping and tropes are gibberish outside a few old dark Deleuzians… so I understand your predicament. Call it cybernetic Lovecraft, Gnon crapology for a fallen leftist… having worn that mask I’m slowly turning back to the Right… “slowly” I emphasize…. at 64 having lived through the dark hinterlands of postmodernism both in its Analytical and Continental worlds I probably should learn to speak the latest lingo of the NRx clans rather than the outdated jargon of a dead secularism… so your right in your confusion… my bad.

    NRK Reply:

    @Hickman having thrown a cursory glance at your blog, I did begin to wonder about were you stand politically, so I appreciate the openness. And yeah, I’ve been thinking about reading up on Nick’s early stuff, even if it sounds even edgier than what he does today…I mean, learning how to short-circuit holes, who could possibly resist such temptation?
    Replacing deleuzian jargon with NRx jargon though, can we just try to avoid talking nonsense altogether?

    Xoth Reply:

    Muslims seem fairly good at marching through the institutions already, both politically and bureaucratically. While the incoming migrants may not speak the infidel tongue, they will eventually vote for their own.

    London and places like Tower Hamlets are instructive in this regard, as samplers of the next step to come.

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    Exactly my point, but also, something about the british handling of muslim integration seems to be particularly conductive to the mainstreaming of political islam. Submission may be set in France, but such a scenario seems much more likely to play out in Britain, even when France has a similar number of muslims.
    Wrt the muslims coming to Europe right now as refugees and ‘refugees’, citizenship will probably not be an option for them (if Germany’s handling of Lebanese refugees and ‘Lebanese ‘refugees” is at all indicative), so they won’t vote for anybody anytime soon.

    Also, yes we can make guesses based on demographic trends, but judging how good these guesses are in advance is a pretty tough call. For instance, political islam may be incredibly popular now, but 30 years are a pretty long time for any movement to maintain its momentum.

    Posted on June 27th, 2016 at 6:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    It’s the “democracy/Leftism has failed again” canary.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 27th, 2016 at 9:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • illegal Says:

    It’s going to be enjoyable watching the rationalization and slow acceptance of the future nationalism which is developing. There’s simply no way around it. It’s my perception that time is moving forward and the only way back is through the future, in this sense the neonationalist concept has taken hold and is going nowhere. It should be fascinating. I think one thing to watch for and to really discuss above all other things is the notion of the American nationalism.

    America and the US are, in some sense, the psychological and philsophical model for the EU. The idea of meritocracy beyond race, and an identity built around ideology instead of cultural-racial identity. Biocultural thinking is what defines Brexit and English nationalism. However, in America and perhaps Canada there is a very different idea of what constitutes nationalism.

    However, is it different? This is the huge concept, in my opinion that we’ll be seeing. I know this isn’t preliminary, in fact it is already happening as we speak. That is to say, time is short. Without the right idea we may watch as disaster strikes. The wrong concept of nationalism in America could be very problematic. The question itself almost leads one to double over in pain because of its complexity. The number of different races, identities, cultures, and so on living under this banner – and that the Founding Fathers themselves seemed incapable of predicting this – combined with their sheer, 100% whiteness and European identity. This is the thing which brings us to question – can we easily even define American identity and American nationalism anymore? I don’t even know. The idea of meritocracy in immigration seems wise, and even in England, Germany, etc… somehow redefining the concept of immigration having to do with intelligence, and other qualifications, as well as a more priority upon host culture…

    …yet America? Is America different? It isn’t a question of yes or no, undoubtedly it is different. Yet at the same time, this complexity and curiosity of this question does seem so frustrating. It can’t easily be defined. It is so dense with issues and complications that it is almost impossible to discern and constant factor. The ideology of a future without control, an idea of a market culture evolving itself. This idea has been tried, yet we see it leading to this disaster which is predicted and more well understood through an even more radical Austrian approach. It really is as though American identity has only one possible rational and positive way, and that is deeper into Austrianism. We cannot possibly allow the left to avert this. Yet, at once, this Austrianism has to function properly. This is the end of my rant as I am less knowledgable on this obviously that I thought. The main thing is that, I think we are seeing nationalism already, and that perhaps this nationalism is good, yet it is important to define it properly in terms of American futurism, a sort of neo-racial identity which somehow has close ties with Austrian thinking, also with a complex understanding of inter-cultural imagination, inter-racial culture, the flaws and benefits of this, widespread dissemination of pure information, and informed voices and minds, and the freedom to say and do within a space of potential for escape – or exit. And choice over correspondences.Obviously reality rarely plays out this way and in actuality the future finds itself at the behest of the popular, and thus a centralist idea is required which directs nationalist energies toward an abstract aesthetic of this more nuanced version of the philosophy.

    Speaking in the realm of thought that is.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 27th, 2016 at 11:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    There is something I would like to raise. The problem with immigration vs. nationalism is that it is really difficult to nail down _exactly_ whom you don’t want. And one interesting way to approach it is that the reason Sadiq Khan’s election shocked that he didn’t even bother to change his name to something like Steve Khan. Name changing – think Charles Simonyi – or naming your kids compatible names used to be the primary way to show respect and willingness to integrate into the host culture. Looking at how Jews used to have outer and inner names (Irving, Israel) or the reason the stereotypical Italian-American maffioso is called Vinnie in the movies because it was a common combination that a man was called Vincent on the outside and Vincenzo on the inside. This is a common pattern and something sort of a minimal requirement of integration. This is how identity changes. We actually see the opposite process now, not only immigrants don’t change their names but even US Blacks whose grandpa was called Thomas are now called Jamal. Call it deassimilation.

    I mean, using a foreign name is a signal I am not one of you. Which is OK for a temporary trader but for a mayor? Either it is a “fuck you I am not one of you but will still rule you” or more like “this city is not yours anymore, it is international”. In which case at least they could drive on the correct side of the road 🙂 Just kidding.

    I think this is an interesting tangent and I would like to ask if anyone analysed it further. Links pls. My theory is that it happens when the host culture stops being proud.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    I’m not so sure about it. The Chinese seem to be quite fond of using (temporary) foreign names. At least in my experience (almost all business cards I’ve been given by them had two names, one Chinese and one English).

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2016 at 6:50 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment