Randoms

Behold the logic of mainstream economists and despair!

LMFAO: in related news, I’m pretty sure I can think of something else the South and big cities have in common.

Moldbug:

In an oligarchical regime, public opinion is always an effect rather than a cause. It still matters, but only in the sense that some effects cannot be caused. But the power of the machine is always increasing. Few in the Reagan era could have imagined that in the lives of their grown children, most Americans would come to regard gay marriage as an essential civil right. Why did this happen? Because the ruling class is sovereign not just politically, but also intellectually. What it believes, everyone comes to believe – and is horrified that previous generations somehow failed to believe. . . .

If the Constitution declares that the fickle shall rule, too bad for the Constitution. By contradicting Nature, the Constitution has contradicted itself. And it shall not rule. And that, dear Americans, is when you finally settled in under your new communist oligarchy. Whether you knew it or not. Not, mostly – but that’s what it is to be a chump. . . .

And you’re worried that someone is grepping your emails? . . .

My son actually thinks he has human rights. It’s because he’s 2. This morning he asserted his right not to take his amoxicillin – with some success, but not much. I expect the critics of the NSA to have about the same luck. When I became a man, I put aside childish things.

For a man or for a community of men, the right to rule is a function of the might to rule. If the sound competent Midwest can get itself euchred out of its democratic right to rule by a bunch of slick Harvard men, the sound competent Midwest cannot maintain its authority and will get euchred by someone someday. If it’s not Harvard today it’ll be Yale tomorrow.

The Atlantic on the Civil War. It’s worth noting that this idea isn’t new, and that if it’s true, it’s in no small part, The Atlantic’s fault.

On hate: “There probably isn’t anyone in my life who’s important to me that I haven’t cursed, and I expect no less from them during those times I overstep the mark.”

– Interesting thoughts from Sam Harris.

Reactionary books.

– Speaking of books, I hope to reviews of this, this and this up soon. This one is definitely on the list though. Maybe someone should write one about Gary, Indiana next.

Derb: “The booze-fuddled hacks I used to hang out with in the Kowloon bars back in the day had a better chance of finding out what Mao Tse-tung had for breakfast than I have of getting interracial sexual-assault stats for the U.S. Navy.”

Megan McArdle on the dire problem.

It appears trans-genderism (sigh, I was born much too late) is the new gay marriage. I’m confused. If gender is a social construct, how can it be mixed up?

Advertisements

29 Responses to Randoms

  1. Anonymous says:

    McArdle/The Daily Beast: “What do we do with people whose livelihoods are destroyed”

    Don’t you just love the “we” in there?

  2. SOBL1 says:

    Krugman is not an economist. He’s a leftist PR flak with medals draped over his shoulders that say to the commoners “he knows economics, and he’s on our side”.

    If you liked the 3rd volume of Last Lion, read volume 2. Tremendous. One of my favorite books, and the best biography I read even if it is of a limited period of one’s life. Manchester’s opening to volume 2 just hooks a reader in.

  3. Karl says:

    Atlantic commentors in a frothy maddash to insult the south and denounce slavery… It’s like progressive Xmas over theer

  4. samsonsjawbone says:

    Interesting thoughts from Sam Harris.

    Those were some pretty good thoughts. I have heard mostly bad about Harris, from people I trust, but he displayed a good head on his shoulders there. It reminds me of the way that I used to have trouble believing people who genuinely say they “love” their work.

    Few in the Reagan era could have imagined that in the lives of their grown children, most Americans would come to regard gay marriage as an essential civil right.

    As described at Steve’s and elsewhere recently, “transexuality” and other aberrant forms of sexuality are the next wave. I predict that the Western public will meekly submit to these just as easily and quickly as it has folded over under the homosexual juggernaut – and one of the things that will thereby be illustrated is that statistics about “public opinion” on these topics are misleading; that “public opinion” has not changed in the manner that would be expected if an organic, natural and free evolution of opinion were really occurring.

  5. Thanks for the mention!

  6. The preamble to Moldbug’s latest shows that he remains a solid Leftist at heart:

    “Being a slave to desire is a low condition of the human soul, but the only condition more pathetic is that of a slave to unfulfilled desire.”

    In other words MM believes that:

    1. Hypocrisy is worse than deliberate, propagandized evil, because hypocrisy is insincere, which is the worst thing to be (this is, in a nutshell, pretty much the core of post-mid-sixties Leftist ‘morality’)

    Why? Apparently because, for MM:

    2. Deliberate, proselytizing and openly-practiced evil is cool, while being a hypocrite is ‘pathetic’, sad, lame, low status.

    Consequently. MM’s (typically Leftist) argument against evil is to try and frame evil as uncool (see second paragraph).

    Disappointing…

    • josh says:

      and yet strangely, my generation prefers irony to sincerity under pretty much all circumstances.

      I agree, Moldbug is yet another advocate of the enlightenment project.

    • In other words MM believes that “Being a slave to desire is a low condition of the human soul, but the only condition more pathetic is that of a slave to unfulfilled desire.”

      Dr. Charlton, I believe you are native speaker of English.

    • You are a prissy, passive-aggressive Englishman (but I repeat myself) who’s bringing a knife–no, a lilac-scented handkerchief–to a gunfight.

      There’s a reason God despises the lukewarm more than the cold.

    • Moldbug’s post is 8500 words. 8500 words!! Geesh, I file all my posts over 2000 under “tl;dr” A man who writes 8500 words is leaving himself open to an infinitude of nitpicking. Hey, it would be easy… But you, Dr. Charlton, can divine from just 27 of those 8500 words a meaning not only not supported by the quoted words, but laden with undocumented and ideologically-charged psychoanalysis.

      It is, in fact, quite far from obvious to me, an actual traditional Christian, with an actual particular heritage, that MM’s words aren’t true… yet you take them to be not only summarily untrue, but evidence of a far deeper and more sinister pathology.

      I’m calling: Bunk!

  7. (I presume that my WordPress-generated alter-ego brucecharltonBruceCharlton is a near relation of JeromeKJeromeKJerome recurring.)

  8. If we accept that a woman falling in love is, at a biochemical, ancient mammalian brain level, tantamount to overcoming disgust, then The Cathedral:General Public :: Pornographer:Wannabe Porn Star.

    First she just had to take off her clothes (fight a war for the federal union), then she makes even more $$/luv to open it up and show the camera (let women vote); do some lesbian (new deal); then she gets even more if she does hardcore (civil rights act/war on poverty); more money/luv for taking a facial (accept gay rights); even more for doing anal (gay marriage); So what’s tranny acceptance? DP?!, coprophagia?!!? Not too much farther to go, either way… her disgust instinct got broke quite a while ago.

    • rightsaidfred says:

      Still a ways to go: porn goes self mutilation/ritualistic amputaiton; while society goes incest/pederast/bestiality. Cats will soon be eligible for SSI. Strap in for the ride.

  9. […] Charlton seems to have picked up where our dear friend Larry Auster left off in falsely pigeon-holing the “manosphere” and […]

  10. senexada says:

    The Atlantic agitated heavily for the war that, 200 years later, has still killed more men than every other US war combined (including ww1 & ww2). They proclaimed the Battle Hymn of the Republic on the front page of their Feb 1862 edition:

    Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
    He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
    He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
    His truth is marching on.

  11. sobl1 says:

    The Harry Dexter White article is old hat here, maybe with some extra dirt, but the eye opener is the comment section. Check out the pro-McCarthy comments.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2288294/The-banker-shaped-modern-world-WWII-Soviet-spy-wanted-America-communist.html

  12. Contaminated NEET says:

    If gender is a social construct, how can it be mixed up?

    How can God be both one and three? It’s a holy mystery. Maybe if you had a bunch of expensive specialized education you could understand it. Or better yet, you could just trust the expensively-educated experts; they understand, because they’re better than you.

    I know I’m preaching to the choir here.

    • Not an unfair analogy I suppose, but the key difference here is that the trinitarian formula has no self-evident application to matters of public policy.

    • Scharlach says:

      The fact that it is a social construct is precisely why it can be mixed up. The progressive project is to simultaneously deconstruct and reconstruct. Traditional concepts of gender are social constructs, and the job of the Left is to delegate these to the hinterlands and create new constructs that are less patriarchal and more egalitarian.

      • Scharlach says:

        When the Left talks about “social constructs,” they are not—-I repeat, NOT—-making epistemological claims, so it’s stupid to take the debate in that direction the way Ian Hacking does in his book on the subject. Rather, using the phrase “X is a social construct” is simply a pretext for a) ethical critique of Right-wing values or positions and b) social activism designed to topple those values or positions, and to replace them with new values or positions.

  13. nydwracu says:

    Looks like you were right about the drug war.

    “You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to.”

  14. VXXC says:

    Macroeconomics: ” but of course theory has its limits.”

    “Krugman has changed his views”

    “all of this remains in flux”

    LOL LOL LOL

  15. VXXC says:

    The solution to the dire problem is the jobs return and we have full, gainful employment. If we have to impose exchange controls and even a closed economy, protectionism, we do. Government to include “Patchwork” or Royalty has no justification without protection. Mind you other nations don’t seem to have a problem with full factories.

  16. Handle says:

    If anyone’s looking for a good, quick legal read, Scalia’s Dissent in Windsor is terrific. Still going strong at 77 – and this is among his most vigorous and sarcastic. I loved the “waiting for the other show” analogy about next term’s completely, boringly predictable invalidation of all State only-straight-marriage laws too.

    Even leaving aside the homo-marriage merits, I don’t think you could have a more complete and authoritatively Moldbugian claim that SCOTUS has appointed itself principle sovereign than the one found there.

    For those that have read Flast, one of the Warren Court’s worst reasoned cases ever that dramatically broadened the category of those with standing to sue to taxpayers in general, using the infamous “double-nexus” test, this one is even worse.

    Ironically, standing was purportedly narrowed in Hollingsworth in a very similar case of a political class in control of the attorney general’s office contriving to nullify a law by refusing to vigorously defend it whenever it predictably loses in court.

    “Propositions” like in California, were the Old Progressives favored strategy of doing an end-run around the smoke-filled rooms of corrupt political machines by means of ‘Radical Direct Democracy’. In time, they became the new machine. The Empire struck back and won. Take that, Suckers and Chumps!

    • Yeah, I never really thought that thought before, but referendum is was a profoundly “progressive” instrument… until it wasn’t… And when it isn’t, it’s unconstitutional. A clearer working example of the progressive ratchet could scarcely be imagined.

  17. Vladimir says:

    There’s also an extraordinarily interesting recent essay on some of the key institutions of the Polygon. It’s almost like reading the Reece Committee files all over again:

    http://capitalresearch.org/2013/07/the-ford-foundation-shaping-americas-laws-by-re-making-her-law-schools/

    Apparently it was written by someone affiliated with the Cato Institute. It almost made me regain some respect for the Beltway libertarian crowd:

    http://www.cato.org/blog/ford-foundation-modern-american-law-school

    • Handle says:

      I wasn’t very impressed by Olson’s thesis – or I should say his Historical Narrative – of the centrality of the Ford Foundation’s role in somehow transforming the innocent post-war American Law School into hotbeds of Liberal Legal Activism. This is especially true about his focus on clinics, one of the few law school experiences that most students will agree upon as being genuinely valuable.

      No, instead the simpler story is that what Ford doing was merely funding what everybody already wanted but couldn’t get through the government appropriations process because it was too obviously one-sided politically.

      The Progressives always have great contingency plans (“branches and sequels” I would say) of alternative fall-backs for when the rest of the formal system puts up a procedural obstacle, or when Democracy (or anything) threatens to thwart the Progressive Enlightened Agenda (PEA). “In it, over it, or around it” is the motto – very military. Developing these alternative “contingency institutions” (like the Courts and Foundations and GSE’s), as well as a deep bench of talented members in positions of control and influence over them, even in well-compensated mothballs during short periods of retrenchment, is the great, terrifying, unstoppable juggernaut strength of the Cathedral System.

      The Right may “Appeal to Heaven”, or to some long-dead ideal of “The Constitution” but the Left can has actually built and established a structure of numerous real-world appellate authorities, empowered, endowed, or otherwise capable of overturning a decision or removing a roadblock or manipulating voter’s ideas on the way to the New Jerusalem.

      That’s one of the reasons leftists like the idea of International Courts, because it’s yet another appellate authority and method of getting their way at last, just in case they lose everything else on the way up. The Public-Opinion arm of the Machine, the press, entertainment, and the schools, is there for when the roadblock is the people themselves. And when that doesn’t work, open-borders will; an appeal, in a sense, to foreign populations.

      Progressive / American Democratic-National-Socialist Jurisprudential Theories of Social Reform gained a wide influence and popularity in the legal academy and profession at large beginning in the later 19th century and enjoyed a period of flourishing in the Wilson administration.

      This era was characterized by a profoundly impatient spirit for radical ‘modernizing’ overhaul by whatever means necessary, and many of the key leftist legal scholars, and more than a few Justices while sitting on the bench, wrote frequently in “The New Republic” (founded 1914).

      They weren’t being metaphorical or hyperbolic, they genuinely wanted a completely new republic, and they were completely honest open about it, proposing numerous Amendments, calling for repeal of the 5th and 14th Amendments (which were initially held, believe it or not, to be key impediments to Socialism and Central Planning) and calling for Constitutional Conventions. That’s why our last meaningful Constitutional Amendments were all proposed in a burst of enthusiasm 100 years ago. David Bernstein’s “Rehabilitating Lochner” does a great job of briefly explaining all this.

      There was a short retreat during the Return To Normalcy, and then a rise to ascendancy and dominance during the New Deal era, culminating in West Coast Hotel in 1937, when the last old geezer on SCOTUS fighting it (Roberts) threw in the towel. Finally, the legal establishment settled on “as much creative reinterpretation in the High Courts as we can get away with” as the backdoor method of rewriting the Constitution instead of, you know, actually rewriting it open debate and in public view through the Article 5 process.

      It’s worked like a charm for 75 years and the only issue has been that this unlimited power is so seductive and prone to abuse that sometimes the Court loses sight of the real Overton window and touch with the bounds of public sentiment, and it is tempted to go too far too fast, putting its ‘legitimacy’ at risk. It shouldn’t have any more than any other despised political actor in our system. Not 50 years ago, and certainly not today.

      Lincoln said at his first inauguration 152 years ago, what Scalia echoed from The Bench itself in his Windsor dissent:

      At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

      ‘Conservatives’ make a huge mistake when they support this legitimacy or appealing to this authority; just as huge a mistake as in supporting a fossilized corpse of a Constitution, or favorable tax treatment for foundations or politicized ‘philanthropists’, or Democracy itself. These are all sucker bets and chump games. The enemy doesn’t value any of these things, and only uses them when they move the PEA forward. Otherwise, they’ve made sure they always have something else to which they can appeal to supersede the encumbrance.

      What does the Right have? A few blogs, a few glimmers of hope, a few twinkling lights in the darkness, and, perhaps, a large number of people one nudge away from awakening.

      • Vladimir says:

        Handle,

        I wasn’t very impressed by Olson’s thesis – or I should say his Historical Narrative – of the centrality of the Ford Foundation’s role in somehow transforming the innocent post-war American Law School into hotbeds of Liberal Legal Activism.

        Yes, of course, but you can’t expect anything much better from mainstream conservatives and Cato libertarians, even at their best. Nevertheless, the article does a very good job of explaining this particular mechanism for the leftward movement of the Polygon. Even with the broader historical and social context missing or distorted, as you correctly point out, I’d say it still provides a valuable piece of the puzzle for a future comprehensive political theory of the Modern Structure.

        Otherwise, an excellent comment. It’s really high time for you to start a blog of your own!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: