"Increasing automaticity in certain aspects of American policymaking" is my new favorite roundabout way to say that we need a dictator.
The real jobs problem is giving some meaning to the lives of the—what? forty percent? sixty percent? eighty percent?—of the adult population for which an artificial-intelligence economy (self-checkout supermarkets, self-driving vehicles, remote-control warfare) has no use.
The warm glow of diversity. Incidentally, it’s pretty clear that Drudge is a race realist at this point, right?
Tyler Cowen wants dual central banks. This is the latest absolutely friggin’ crazy idea uttered by mainstream economists. I predict in the future – as economics progresses, as it assuredly will – that money will be created much like the Pope gives blessings. Mainstream economists will gather in secret and elect a world Central Banker. In times of trouble, everyone will pile worthless assets in a room. This Central Banker will enter, hold up his hand, and the worthless assets will be worth lots. The Central Banker will then retire. I can’t think of anything crazier, but if I could, I would predict that instead. Can I have tenure now?
Tino on immigration.
Racial progress in South Africa has led to genocide. Congratulations, progressives!
In defense of staying married.
nydwracu – whom I haven’t been reading until recently, my apologies – on ungovernments and the American left. From the latter: "Considering the history of American politics, it is clear the American political theory is fundamentally liberal." This statement is a pretty good test of whether someone is a reactionary or a conservative. If you agree and you’re not happy with it, you’re a reactionary.
Ferdinand has re-posted some pictures from Cardiff.
Mangan has put up a couple interesting posts on Ron Unz’s long piece. See this one and follow his links.
Alrenous on democracy and freedom.
Isegoria digs up a great quote on race:
The idea that “racism” is a unitary phenomenon is seriously wrong. To select a paired set of example. Hitler was a racist. So, in a way, was Garnet Wolseley, a Victorian officer whose memoirs I recently read. But they were “racist” in totally different ways. Hitler was an ideological fanatic, impervious to evidence, hating a “Jew” that mostly existed in his imagination. Wolseley was an extremely practical man who had limited resources with which to conquer and hold vast territories and populations under the potitical control of his government. Hitler made up a fantasy world based on racial myths. Wolseley observed that certain groups had certain characteristics, as a general matter, and he took those facts into account just like terrain, weather, and weaponry and other practical considerations. He did not have the luxury of living in a make-believe world where everyone was exactly the same, or where one group was generically superior. Hitler told himself a self-congratulatory and flattering story about his own group, which led him to make incredibly impractical decisions. Wolseley looked just as hard at his own group, the English, and saw its strengths and weaknesses. He admired and extolled the former, but admitted and tried to work around the latter. He treated these facts about his own people with the same cold practicality that he treated all practical questions. To celebrate “culture” when it suits us or pleases us or flatters us, but to deny its reality and force when it does not, is ultimately dishonest. We need to understand people in the past as they understood themselves, not merely as chess pieces in our current struggles.