Why Iran?

The blog obviously isn’t coming from where Scott Aaronson is, and the title of this post isn’t even centrally his question, so I’m asking it.

If you were trying to discredit a demographic policy that discriminated against Islamization, the thing rolled out by the US administration looks like a good way to do it. Shouldn’t selecting against Salafism be the policy core? Such a stance could be easily based upon solid American precedent. This looks like something else entirely. (It’s a dog’s breakfast, which is to say hastily hashed-up populism food.)

ADDED: The flip-side to Scott Aaronson’s concerns (from his own comment thread).

February 5, 2017admin 36 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

36 Responses to this entry

  • Alrenous Says:

    So, perhaps the left’s greatest enemy is the left, and the right’s greatest enemy is the right.

    Point for Sophism-drives-history theory. As both are parasites, the populace should develop resistance primarily from exposure to the parasite, not from exposure to attack rhetoric from the other side.

    On the other hand my meme dynamics is pretty weak. I can dominate a mind 1v1 but I can’t even start a rumour, so…

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 8:41 am Reply | Quote
  • Hodag Says:

    Given my choice I would prefer Iran/Persia over Arabian Islam. Persia has sought to be at most a regional hegemon like China. They fear the Medes or any steppe people from coming over the horizon, again like China.

    Arabian Islam is universalist and thinks everyone in the world should paeticipate, either as slave or king.

    Persia is less dangerous.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 11:59 am Reply | Quote
  • luxoria Says:

    Moldbug commenting there as Boldmug? Is this confirmed to be real? Very much sounds like him.. guess I have to actually read the comments now.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    They start off quite weak, IMHO, but gradually rise to the old standard we’re all accustomed to. “Russia and France and Syria have two revolutions, not one. The first revolution is the good one. The second, which usurps it, is bad. Sure, but you couldn’t have the second without the first. It’s like saying that the cure for stage II melanoma is stage I melanoma. …”

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    He explicitly said he was doing it due to feeling rusty.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s really Moldbug or not. It’s someone very smart, well read, and incisive. Read because good, don’t reverse ad hominem.
    But yeah it’s Moldbug.

    [Reply]

    NatashaRostova Reply:

    It’s gotta be him. I’m not sure anyone else could write 10,000 words of comments referencing so many old books.

    If they can, I’m happy to call them Moldbug2.0 and give them the same respect

    [Reply]

    Henk Reply:

    Boldmug:

    Just because the USG calls the latter the “unemployment rate” doesn’t mean we have to.

    It’s a small thing, but Yarvin pretty consistenly never called it “the” USG.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    If anyone wants to put the effort into copy-pasting the comments into a .txt file, I can use my fancy NLP skills to come up with a frequency score viz-a-viz old Moldbug.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    cuz i’m a fanboy like that

    Wagner Reply:

    One YUMUNGOUS problem the new-reaction is facing is unshackling ourselves from Thiel’s !”~esoteric~”! influence. Bags of money have a way of crushing minds. Speaking of Civil War, we may need a schism in our ranks between the “fanboys” with $-signs for pupils and the ascetic garbage-eaters. Moldy and Lando if you’re shackled to Capital all I have for you is two middle fingers.

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    100% certain this is Moldbug, absolutely no question. Like many of you I’m sure, I’ve read the entire corpus; “Boldmug” is mirroring Yarvin 100%, both thematically and in substance.

    Whether or not you agree with his presented arguments is another matter, but I find him largely convincing, per the usual.

    [Reply]

    Curious Reply:

    So, Boldmug is apparently this Hacker News user: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=kapitza

    That can be deduced by finding the comment he mentioned about thermal forcing (comment #508 on the Scott Aaronson thread, referring to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12609259).

    That seems to reduce the question to whether or not “kapitza” is Moldbug…

    [Reply]

    snorlax Reply:

    Moldbug apparently subscribes to the ridiculous Shakespeare conspiracy theory, which is lame.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 12:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Iran was an Obama ally. Trump wants to form a strong nationalist alliance including Israel, whose rediscovery of nationalism as necessary has taken the sting out of adopting a policy also favored by the NSDAP. The Iranian government also appear to be legitimately bad guys. Thus, Trump is following a solid gut instinct: beat back whoever has been winning against you.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes, I agree it’s probably something like that. Looks to me like a continuation of Neoconservative geopolitics, without any real demographic policy aspect to it.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Correct.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 12:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    The political reasons are mundane.

    Besides Syria, no countries were named in the EO — instead an existing, Obama-era law was referenced. Essentially, the banned countries were from the US’s “terrorist high-risk list”.

    The criteria is essentially:

    (I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States;
    (II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and
    (III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.

    Whether Iran meets any of that criteria is hardly debatable. Besides, perhaps it’s enough to simply note that relations between Iran and the US have been openly and antagonistic since the US embassy in Tehran was overrun by an Iranian mob. The Iran-Contra affair of the 80s put an end to even clandestine contacts between the two nations. And, although Obama really did everything possible to further Iran’s strategic goals, Congress, with what little power it has, opposed this insofar as it could. Iran is still an avowed US enemy. That simple.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 1:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nathan Cook Says:

    It seems most likely to me that the seven countries in general (a fortiori Iran in particular) were selected to survive a judicial challenge – they are those which the previous administration excluded from the Visa Waiver Program. This particular act of Obama was on the explicit grounds of “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters”. Perhaps the Trump administration is betting that this will leave any judge wishing to permit the one exclusion but not the other in the position of determining both degree of severity of the terrorist threat from these countries, and what acts of the executive branch it does and does not warrant – which would then become pretty easy to sell as judicial overreach.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 2:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    It was based on an Obama-era law as noted above. The idea was just to realise a campaign promise in an expedient, legal way. The reason for this, I suspect, was to undermine the Republican congress. Basically, just create EOs for all the stuff the Republican base wants but Republicans in congress don’t actually care about. It’s a high-low against middle tactic. Now, to get their tax cuts, the Republicans have to tacitly endorse the Trump agenda.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 2:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    I believe that it hardly matters what specific actions our executive took. The left was ready and waiting to discredit any thing he could have tried.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Son of Erik, have you read Machiavelli’s Prince lately? There are so many lines in that gorgeous masterpiece that scream TRUMP:

    “Without doubt princes become great when
    they overcome the difficulties and obstacles by
    which they are confronted, and therefore fortune,
    especially when she desires to make a new prince
    great, who has a greater necessity to earn renown
    than an hereditary one, causes enemies to arise and
    form designs against him, in order that he may
    have the opportunity of overcoming them, and by
    them to mount higher, as by a ladder which his
    enemies have raised. For this reason many consider
    that a wise prince, when he has the opportunity,
    ought with craft to foster some animosity against
    himself, so that, having crushed it, his renown may
    rise higher.”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I believe that it hardly matters what specific actions our executive took. The left was ready and waiting to discredit any thing he could have tried.

    Such a vacuous comment. Of course it matters hard what specific actions he took. That the left was waiting to discredit him is so obvious that you must be called Captain Obvious.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 6:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Adolph Verloc Says:

    Anti-terrorist paranoics are fucking retards. The FDA looks twenty times the people Islam ever has. As long people see the enemy as tiny foreign radical groups instead of the most powerful empire on the planet they deserve to be bombed and oppressed, stupid normie shit bags.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 6:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • frank Says:

    ‘And two, on “return to the past”: I would argue that what some historians call “presentism,” basically racism as applied to the past, is fundamentally a problem that can’t be worked around. It has to be solved. A presentist society is a suicidal society. Feel free to disagree with me on this.’

    LMFAO. Moldbug has no match in trolling except maybe Weev.

    [Reply]

    AugustusPugin Reply:

    The bit where he tried to convince Aaronson his position was actually further to the right than Trump’s was fairly inspired. He’s still got it.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    <>

    Lol.This is 100% distilled trolling. He knows there’s a snow ball’s chance of changing Scott’s mind. He’s just torturing him with the cognitive dissonance. You’ve had enough fun Moldy, back to fixing bugs.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    *snow balls’ chance in hell

    Oops. Here’s the quote:

    I feel like in a sense you understand this, but in another sense the only political mechanism you understand is “I wish for X, everyone wishes for X, and if there are enough of us our wish comes true. Except in an evil non-democracy, which is a sinister form of government where wishes just don’t work.”

    It would be foolish for me to utterly discount coordinated mass wishing as a political mechanism. It has made things happen. If not always good things. But is it ridiculous to hope that we could do better?

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    It’s partly trolling but mainly Aaronson’s so-called ‘beliefs’ really are that ridiculous. Again, calling a spade a spade is garlic and crosses to progressives.

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 6:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    at the beginihg of second Iraq war there was intel circulating that Iran could be the hext. But after few unsucessful attempts to stir things up inside Iran focus shifted on Syria.

    Trump is Americacentric, therefore priority in his policy desigions will be on what is going on here, with certain degree of disregard of how it will affect out there.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 11:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • peterstone Says:

    They can’t make the ban about Salafism because of the Gulf Oil states. Even Trump isn’t big or bad enough to go there.

    [Reply]

    peterstone Reply:

    Gulf oil states as in the monarchies – UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia

    [Reply]

    peterstone Reply:

    Also, selecting for Salafism/Wahhabism is not even close to being a good enough filter. Many terrorists were not particularly religious until shortly before they committed attacks – and how do you assess fervency in someone who is already hostile to you and wants to infiltrate your society for malevolent purposes?

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This is of course intellectual ploy to use thirdworldism to neutralise the West. If they wanted to eliminate terrorism and thridworldist criminality as a significant phenomenon within the West, it could be done within months.

    It takes a hierarchy of threats, and the ghettoisation of potentials. E.g. a person is brown = a complex of chance of ressentiment towards whites. A person is nonchristian and with revolutionary tendencies a point for ressentiment likelihood. Then you graph this out like a disease in demographic spread of disease and wall it off like an alien invasion or an outbreak movie.

    The post-Marxist para-Landist Davos Man is eliminating White/Christian people within generations because they intend to have a totally subservient slave class as the remnants of the proletariat (Marxists finally realised that the only way to “save” the proletariat is to liquidate the proletariat, Trotsky´s plan has come full circle), so only the workers required for minimum maintenance of otherwise autonomous production systems — along with sex slaves & “anal babies” of whatever sort, and assorted proles in contained areas for whatever extraneous purpose. Once they have delimited White people sufficiently there is no threat to them as the brown proletariat is comparatively no threat, and can be e.g. wiped off with one biological outbreak within days (no moral qualms). Only White people could stop this or even have qualms about such extreme “economisation.” Asians essentially won´t give a fuck, and already live within Davos-schematised neobolshevik hives (something which Hayao Miyazaki protests a lot).

    This is simple logic as the elimination of any threat to the transgenerational P2 onto-caudillismo, which is the hybridised of all of Rome´s slaves which later captured the anglos.

    Man has done this forever. Accumulate wealth, destroy enemies, secure a future for one´s immediate ideological and/or genetic family. Difference is mostly in tactics. E.g. Cathago Man sacrificed boys in bloodrituals, and the Aztecs had grand bloodsport war-games and ritual theaters.

    https://twitter.com/insurrealist/status/826267436274028548

    Nothing has changed but the technology which is the exterior hand-tool of the game.

    Only now instead of Romans or their offshoots running their caudillismo bloodlines through the terra sectors, we have the asiatic-levantine bloodlines which assimilated the ruling families of the anglos beginning some centuries ago.

    The guys protesting that this should be noticed here are little but a neoconservative-neoliberal hybrid, in the ideological family of the post-Marxist Davos Man.

    Now since I hate normies for being stupid, I have joined this project.

    Or as Dr. Land has said: « People are too stupid to live. »

    And as Dr. Marx has said: With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world, and see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardour.
    Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world.
    and, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator

    Let us end with Dr. Tomberg: Man with the possible perversity of his warped imagination is far more dangerous than the devil and his legions. For man is not bound by the convention concluded between heaven and hell; he can go beyond the limits of the law and engender arbitrarily malicious forces whose nature and action are beyond the framework of the law. . .such being the Molochs and other “gods” of Canaa, Phoenecia. Carthage, ancient Mexico and other lands, which exacted human sacrifice. One has to guard against accusing the beings of the hierarchies of evil to their detriment of having played the role of Molochs, these being only creatures of the perverse collective human will and imagination. These are egregores, engendered by collective perversity

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2017 at 11:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    It’s not at all obvious to me that different versions of Islam are all that clearly distinct from one another. Here’s a thought experiment on an attempt to populate a society with only the “good version” of a religion:

    Suppose we build a multi-generational starship to go to Alpha Centauri, and we populate it with members of the Church of the SubGenius (CotSG). Suppose that there are two kinds of SubGenius, the good kind (“Praise ‘Bob'”) and the bad kind (“Kill ‘Bob'”). Good SubGenii smoke “frop” and write computer programs. Bad SubGenii take LSD and sometimes want to open windows and drill holes in the wall. If the population on board our starship ever becomes more than 5% bad SubGenii, they will destroy the ship, so to prevent this, we make sure that the original population of the ship are 100% good SubGenii. So, using Matlab syntax, the initial probabilities of someone on board being good or bad, respectively, are P = [ 1 ; 0 ] .

    Whether someone who is raised in the CotSG turns out good or bad is random, and depends partly on his parents and partly on the contents of _The Book of the SubGenius_. (If the parents differ, they flip a coin, and one of them converts.) Children of good SubGenii are 99% likely to be good, and children of bad SubGenii are 91% likely to be bad, so the Markovian transition matrix is M = [ 0.99 0.09 ; 0.01 0.91] . (P(n+1) = M * P(n) .)

    What is the equilibrium proportion of bad SubGenii? Will the ship be destroyed, and if so, after how many generations?

    I get equilibrium P = [ 0.90 ; 0.10 ] .

    The ship will be destroyed after seven generations, P = [ 0.947830 ; 0.052170 ] .

    This was taken from a longer rant on immigration policy here:
    http://home.earthlink.net/~peter.a.taylor/ccg-notes.htm#borders

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Christianity lasts longer but similarly destroys itself. Ref: read the news.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Christianity cannot be blamed for “destroying itself” as some phenomenon inherent only to it. All precedent civilisations “destroyed themselves” without being Christian. Through the same fate of losing morals and thus succumbing to brown drown (similar to r-biostrategy, or simply devolutionary entropic forces):

    « in the r-strategy, we see the origins of the Liberal’s tendencies towards conflict avoidance … Liberals show diminished loyalty to in-group, similar to how r-selected organisms do not fully understand the reason for even perceiving an in-group in nature. ».

    What happens is r-biosocial generations gain the overhand through the mystery of degeneration (e.g. people get comfy, & poisoned by xenochemicals—like xenoestrogens or as in the case of the Romans: metals from their cookware, think “hey why not share this wealth and power with women and brown people, what could be the harm??”). Rationalist quantification over-reliance—and pseudo-skepticism—add to this problem and are a symptom of it: in fact they are an r-strategy themselves but on the ideological plane). It is masturbatory pseudo-elitism of third grade quasi-intellectual schadenfreude jokers and mere-mostly collectors as seen in the days of decayed of previously fallen civilizations. It is by the grace of Thoth that any (Counter-Revolutionary) progress is made in such a dissolutory Kekian scene as this, for otherwise it would be nothing but virtual popcorn & keks.

    Cryptogen delenda est.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2017 at 3:53 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment