Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


There's this idea that Cathedralist universalism is a by-product of wealth. Affluent societies lose sight of what made them wealthy, they become complacent, life is easy so the energy they aren't spending in surviving, they spend in zero-sum status whoring to see who is holier than who. Affluent people are also proud, disobedient, hard to employ in hierarchical corporations. That serves to incentivize the import of cheap labor to fill the menial jobs that their parents used to do happily, but the kids can't do without falling into depression. Of course the cheap labor isn't cheap (nor labor) in the end, but by the time you notice it's already an article of faith in the holier-than-thou rat race.

But wait, not all is lost! Universalism of course is toxic to the economy, and if wealth is causing leftism lunacy, the inevitable economic downturn will turn things straight, reminding people of their priorities. Poverty opens your eyes to what is important in life. What works and what doesn't. Europe today is fertile ground for a return to sanity. The economic crisis will strengthen national sentiment, pushing back the leftists and their insanity.

Right? Right??


Italy, of all places, just appointed its first Black African minister. Minister of what? But of course, Minister of Integration. That's right, Italy, where the state has been technically bankrupt for years, with a youth unemployment rate of 36%, with a political system so dysfunctional that they forced their 86 year-old president into reelection because they couldn't agree in anyone else (and the President doesn't have any real power), oh Italy, who'd you think has better things to worry about, has just appointed a Black Minister of Integration.

Because that's what really matters right now. Fix the economy? Cut public spending? Pay off the national debt? Bah. Fuck the proles. What's really important is integrating the vibrant black community.

Because in reality, immigration is a richness. Diversity is a resource.

According to Yahoo, "Foreigners made up about 2 percent of Italy's population in 1990; currently the figure stands at 7.5 percent, according to official statistics bureau Istat.". It might sound like peanuts to an American, but Italy's TFR is a mere 1.4. And of course this grand political stand, nominating a black minister, means that 7.5 is not considered enough.

Our friend Vladimir might have a point in that immigration policy is not decided by moneyed interests, but is simply yet another article of faith of the Cathedral, without any real interest to it besides dumb institutional inertia. Italians are chanting that diversity is strength when their economy is on the verge of collapse. It seems to me that nationalism is dead.

UPDATE: Although the evidence is still strong for third world immigration being a plutocrat conspiracy, as seen in the comment by camp:

Immigration IS decided by the Elite. Make no mistake about it. Multikulti is being PUSHED ON US.

That guy is an unelected Goldman Sachs/BP/EU/UN/Bilderberg shill. And their goal is to undermine homogeneity and push immigration and multiculturalism. He says it right there in the open. I have no idea why this link isn’t being reposted by the alt-right into oblivion.

So which is it?


Leave a Reply
  • Immigration IS decided by the Elite. Make no mistake about it. Multikulti is being PUSHED ON US.

    That guy is an unelected Goldman Sachs/BP/EU/UN/Bilderberg shill. And their goal is to undermine homogeneity and push immigration and multiculturalism. He says it right there in the open. I have no idea why this link isn't being reposted by the alt-right into oblivion.

  • >>is not decided by moneyed interests, but is simply yet another article of faith of the Cathedral<<

    It's both. The moneyed interests of the elite are the articles of faith of the Cathedral. Whatever the elite wants to be right, is made right by the Cathedral, that's what it's for.

    • Problem is: I can understand the economics of Mexican laborers in the US, or the H1B visa.

      But there's no profit to be made by bringing blacks to Italy. Or Algerians to France. Or Pakistanis to England. They aren't taking jobs whites won't do; they aren't contributing anything at all. They are a net drain of resources on everyone. The only Cui Bono with blacks and others is government agencies who get bigger budgets to take care of the dysfunction.

      • So? You are undercutting your own plutocracy argument. When plutocracy is doing things for reasons other than profit and self-preservation, it can no longer be considered as such. Something other is at work. And that something is, as Vladimir said in the previous thread, the fact that the moneyed interests have been co-opted by the Cathedral to a far greater extent than the Cathedral has been co-opted by the moneyed interests. This is easiest to see in the sources of Cathedral's funding: most of it comes from the State. What is a few billion dollars contributed by Bill Gateses and Warren Buffets compared to the deluge of government cash?

        • So you're telling me that this guy: Is pushing for Brazilization because of some religious inspiration?

          I don't know man...

          • Look at medieval Italian Popes' portraits, Borgias and what not. This guy is not exactly a ringer for Jesus.

            No genuine religious inspiration is needed, although I wouldn't rule it out. It can be a factor. Consider people like Caplan or Monbiot or our favorite dummy. What is needed is buying into Cathedral status hierarchy. After all, that creep in your picture is already chairman of Goldman Sachs. How much more pluto can he get? Fnargl, Owner of the World? Karabas-Barabas?

            • Candide - a non-executive director or chairman is not part of the management of a company. Sutherland has been a lawyer / politician for his entire career, and was a European Commissioner (i.e. a member of the highest ruling body of the EU) 28 years ago.

              The theory of a non-exec is that he is a representative of a company's shareholders, independent of the company's management. In practice, he is a supervisor of the company on behalf of the Cathedral. A company will select a Cathedral high priest like Sutherland as a way of buying respectability with the elite.

              • So he's not even a plutocrat, and his pronouncements are just what one might expect from one in his position. Heh.

                In practice, he is a supervisor of the company on behalf of the Cathedral.
                There is by the way an analogous institution in modern Russia, called "smotriaschij", which came out of the prison world. They supervise businesses on behalf of the ruling clan, currently Putin's, to ensure that the ruling clan gets its cut and no funny things are going on.

          • Holy shit that Khazar beak opens a whole new can of worms by itself.

            Doesn't seem like he actually is one, though. Like you said in the last post, ethnicity is a messy business.

      • Interestingly, I took high school German in the 70's, and one thing mentioned in the book was Turkish "gastarbeiteren" or guest workers. The idea had been that in the 60's there had been a "labor shortage" in Germany so Turks would come for a few years and then go home. So at least some of the motivation was to push down wages, apply to Pakistanis in England and Algerians in France also. Some of it was the desire to give full residency rights to colonized peoples, applying to blacks in England and Algerians in France. Some of it was a desire to bring in refugees to be morally superior.

        They are a net drain on everyone, but a net negative can consist of a positive in one area and a larger negative in another area. The elites derive a benefit from immigration that is sometimes economic, sometimes political, sometimes social and cultural, often all at the same time. The non-elites derive a larger negative, but the elites don't care.

        There is no need whatsoever for foreigners to do any job since if you have been to Montana or Canada you know that white people are capable of cleaning hotel rooms.

        • Problem is, the term "elites" isn't very descriptive.

          There's two models here. One is the one I put forward: Plutocrats, i.e. rich business people conspire to bring migrants to drive down wages to profit from the plus-value. They bribe the media and lawmakers into doing their bidding. It's a purely class conspiracy to screw with the non rich.

          Vladimir's model is: the plutocrats don't count for shit, it's the Cathedral, i.e. the diffuse ideology of the bureaucracy and academia that bring immigrants because its ideologically defined status assignment mechanism works like that. It's not about material profit, it's purely about feeling morally superior. Not all Cathedralized people are "elites". The hard left bureaucrats making 30k a year can't be considered elites. There are tons of supremely PC minions who aren't elite and will never be. So it's not a class conspiracy.

          Well it's either one or the other.

          • Don't be so black-and-white. I know black-and-white makes for a better story, but we are not after a good story here, we're after the truth. The businessmen used to support importation of cheap labor for one set of reasons, the Cathedral supported it for other reasons and/or discovered what a nice opportunity do the immigrants present for playing their status games. Later, the business world ran out of businessmen educated outside Cathedral, so the businessmen could all the more easily persuade themselves that they are killing two birds with one stone, i.e. doing good for humanity and simultaneously improving their bottom lines. On the opposite side, the Cathedral is happy to mix with the businessmen and take their money as long as it does not mean seriously compromising on principles. That's about what Vladimir was saying, I think.

            • Sure, I understand that. That still means that Vladimir was right and I wasn't. And that has consequences.

              I was focusing inside the framework of the Trichotomy I put forward, in whether capitalists deserve our support or not. If capitalists are the driving force behind Brazilization, then techno-commercialism is wrong, and we need to crack down on the plutocrats. If they are only accessory to the Cathedral, and if in the absence of the Cathedral, the plutocrats would not push for Brazilization, then techno-commercialism is right.

              • I was focusing inside the framework of the Trichotomy I put forward, in whether capitalists deserve our support or not.
                I think you have to focus even sharper to get to the real meat of the question, because a) "capitalists" are not close to a uniform group — compare Wall Street hedge fund managers to German industrialists to Russian or Chinese oligarchs for instance — and b) "capitalists" do lots of things, and I don't believe you want to decide whether to support them (or some of them) unconditionally. As I read it, what you want to decide is whether sufficient asabiyya can be generated purely out of economic relations or something else is necessary and what it is. In another words, whether a "proposition nation" can work, because what is adherence to certain economic rules if not adherence to a universalizable proposition? I add "universalizable" because obviously any constitution, including for instance Restoration England's or Nazi Germany's, is a sort of proposition.

          • Why does it have to be one or the other. Both camps are causing unrestricted immigration. Capitalists because they want increased freedom of movement and labour and cultural marxists/progressives/Cathedral because they are evil self-righteous puritan twats who love feeling superior to others.

            They are both factors.

            If you have to reduce it to a single cause to explain why both groups are behaving this way I would simply reply, "lack of nationalism."

            Both groups are internationalists. Internationalists for different reasons but nonetheless internationalists all the same.

      • But there’s no profit to be made by bringing blacks to Italy. Or Algerians to France. Or Pakistanis to England. They aren’t taking jobs whites won’t do; they aren’t contributing anything at all. They are a net drain of resources on everyone. The only Cui Bono with blacks and others is government agencies who get bigger budgets to take care of the dysfunction. You're correct in all of your assertions, and also correct of the beneficiary. I'll explain a bit on how it works at a micro level on some situations I have first-hand accounts from.

        In Finnish municipal politics, the refugee/asylum seeker/whatever business is an economic tool to channel government funds to your county. If you agree to build a refugee reception center, or to host refugees in otherwise low-usage housing, the government subsidizes your 'business' significantly, up to so called 'disco money' for refugees themselves. After the big domestic migration waves towards cities, our sparsely (and elderly) populated counties are running huge deficits (we're talking 50% of turnover here), so the economic incentive is pretty strong.

        Everybody wins. The petty local politician gets to balance the budget and a sense of achievement. The few remaining good girls get a swell job and something to sate their misplaced nurturing instinct with. Our leaders don't have to answer embarrassing questions in the next UN convention. Richard Florida gets a new speaking gig. If it just weren't for those damn externalities once again..

        We also have the cultural aspect working in some parts of the country. The Swedish-speaking population tries to boost non-Finnish numbers with immigrants to keep their county officially bilingual with its monetary and administrative perks.

        It's a clusterfuck of short-sighted policies. The hunter is blind to mountains when chasing a rabbit, as the guy from Fourth Checkraise used to say.

        • Yup. That doesn't explain the motivation of the Prime Minister who appoints a Congolese women to Minister of Integration in a country with 1% blacks.

          • That's where the "Our leaders don’t have to answer embarrassing questions in the next UN convention." line comes in.

            I can't reverse-engineer the motivation to that. There's something in most of these theories. It's a memetic virus, it's status signalling, it's class conflict, it's cutting off your nose to smite your face, it's myopic economics, it's the fully unleashed humanist impulse of a post-scarcity world.

            It's just something that's done until it isn't. Who's the first to stop applauding Ceaucescu?

            • Well as Vladimir said, given that there is no clear example of some obviously superior place outside the system where Ceaucescu isn't applauded, there is no real reason to pause and think.

          • You missed the part about "our leaders [who] don’t have to answer embarrassing questions in the next UN convention."

            There are of course other important venues besides the UN conventions where they'll get to reap the rewards of sanctimony. (Plus, this is something that I'm sure they imagine will be worth an admiring mention in future history books.)

              • Well, the Soviet Union sure didn't look fragile, until it suddenly did. But as they say, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

                In this case, however, there are also other feedback loops besides pure sanctimony, some of them quite cynical and self-interested -- but not at all plutocratic. What I mean is that a recalcitrant European politician's troubles won't stop at unpleasant questions at the UN and a missed chance to get an admiring footnote in the Cathedral's future history books.

                What will also happen is that he will get on the radar of the Cathedral's intellectual classes as one of those rabble-rousing troublemakers that are standing in the way of progress and trying to bring back the dark ages and fascism. This means that opposing him will automatically become a required status-symbol on the left -- which in turn automatically means mass media vilification campaigns full of ominous passive-aggressive drops of the "far-right" moniker, hand-wringing State Department cables, Quangos bracing for full attack mode, etc., etc. All this will be a matter of spontaneous ideological coordination, without any centralized conspiracy -- and yet the result will be very dangerous for his career, and certainly fatal if he crosses certain lines.

                In the end, even an old-fashioned crook politician who doesn't care much for sanctimony has a very good incentive to toe the line. And it has nothing to do with plutocrats.

  • Notice that under any conditions the problems don't fix themselves. Regardless. Notice "they" whoever they are - shy not from their task. It doesn't look easy because they're professionals, it looks easy because they have the field to themselves.

    Fixing the Problem would require the dreaded work, which is of course a prole task, however the Proles would need Tribunes. That might just be you, and that would involve not only work...but...would require...courage. Even if the proles shoulder most of the burden.

    Let me offer my very humble contribution to the bounty of talk: The Dark Realization. The moment when you realize it's your Watch.

    [Watch doesn't mean Voyeur to Life's struggles].

    It's our Watch. So if you are confronted with "pure distilled evil" that further wants every inch of every mile ...?

      • I wouldn't call that motivational. It's pointing out the problem won't fix itself. As an academic you of course need to "define the problem." Which should keep you busy...forever. Yes your relationship to the Great Question is indeed academic.

        Nor will speech fix anything. The only justification for speech to to direct action.

        It remains for some of us at least - Our Watch.

        Good Day

    • Indeed. I'll just repost what I posted at SP:

      "Radical individualism stops dead in its tracks if the state is not there to stop the more stupider variants of it."

      And your point is?

      If the people have decided that what they want is radical individualism then in a democracy they will vote for a state that supports it.

      It all reeks of the despair porn of the right. "Once the economy collapses, that'll show those bitches."

      1) Economy collapses 2) ??? 3) Traditional society

      Hint: The great depression gave us Hitler, Stalin, and FDR.

      "Darwinian selection is quite efficient."

      Darwin is a eunuch without his brother Malthus, and Malthus is has been dead for awhile and will be dead for awhile more even if the economy "collapses".

      • And your plan is:

        1) ... 2) People discover Jesus 3) Traditional society

        Hint: Christianity took 300 years to rich critical mass, massive state coercion to force it on the population at mass.

        • It worked, didn't it. How many people will be dying in the name of Roissyism in 300 years?

          • You forget the little detail of who started the whole 300 year run. Christianity grew out of... Jesus. Where is he now? There's a reason most sects focus on the Second Coming.

            • ^^^^^^^^Jesus^^^^^^^^^ And my suggestions suck? -------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know about other democracies. I know that since the New Deal democracy has not governed in America, I know that the American model is dominant. It's administrative govt that holds elections and does as it pleases.

              I know that the people are a great beast, that actual democracy is a powerful weapon. I know that the ethno-nationals you're looking for have awoke and cleaned the shelves of a particular set of political tools. They are motivated more by politics than ethno-nationalism [I'm not sure what that would mean in real life]. They are most afraid of their decaying, predatory elites, consciousness that they're disliked, and ...suddenly aware of themselves. It just happened in November.

              I know they need Tribunes.

              I think something will quite happen anyway. So...

  • I sometimes toy with a little model of how these things come about. Generation-1 wants end E2, but can't be explicit or overt about it given the social circumstances of their time. They come up with a strategy. They will pretend to care about, and publically extoll, end E2, the most socially acceptable goal available. But end E2 is actually the means to achieve E1 eventually.

    Not exactly a secret conspiracy, but through the left-spontaneous-political-coordination mechanism, everybody's in on the inside joke. No one in Generation-1 really cares about E2, some might even, privately admit they think it's harmful and costly. But E1, boy, that gets your salivating, that might just be worth it. And if E1 is something like permanent one-party rule, then because power is option value, you can always convince (or deceive) yourself that you'll have the capacity and authority to play clean up.

    Generation-2, on the other hand, was never 'let in on the joke'. They learned E2 as a fundamental religious moral principle, and they grew up in a world where Generation-1 maintained a framework where not supporting E2 was a shaming offense worthy of ostracization and excommunication from polite society. They believe. As Moldbug wrote recently

    I also except those, several of of whom I know, who grew up as rationalists but have made a rational decision to convert to orthodox religions, the mustier and more arbitrary the better - generally because the alternative more and more proclaims itself, per Chesterton, not nothing, still less Reason, but the Whore of Babylon in full professional attire. To these friends, Babylon-worship, essentially idolatrous (and speaking to Maimonides' point that idol-worship is self-worship) seems unsatisfying for a grownup, but utterly unacceptable for his children. But still - these people are not genuinely religious, though their kids will be.

    The Cathedral's kids are now the Cathedral. And with regard to E2, once just a scheme, they really believe it. Generation-1 probably wouldn't have approved of that, but there was nothing in Generation-1, no limiting principle, to inoculate against E2. So E2 is the goal, and, except for a few cynical pols, E1 is genuinely seen as a kind of a 'happy coincidence', or 'enlightened self-interest'.

    • Yes, there are plenty of examples of the old Left just taking whatever position is destructive to the Right and society in general so they can take over. Kill capitalism, kill the patriarchy, kill parental authority, free drugs, free sex, say whatever it takes so chaos reigns in and we can take over. Then the kids take over and continue with the same crap because they never got that the whole point was taking power, and the excuses were just that.

      It's a model, and perhaps some people fit, but I don't think it's the whole story. The kids might be less cynical than the parents, but true believers are few. I do think most people are just going along with the memetic virus because of subtle but consistent peer pressure.

    • I think you've nailed it, and it should be interesting when the scales drop from their eyes.

  • Here's another point against the plutocratic hypothesis.

    The idea of "cheap labor" as a major motivator for the political activity of businessmen is, while not completely irrelevant in practice, still blown way out of proportion. Businesses in the modern managerial, semi-communized state have an infinite array of options for rent-seeking, and it's naive to suppose that they'd expend the bulk of their influence on this one major ideological battle -- rather than concentrating on much more petty and obscure, and yet far more easy and profitable venues for milking government cash, restricting competition, regulatory arbitrage, etc.

    Think about it: as we speak, there are exorbitant sums of government cash being helicoptered to well-connected businesses under all kinds of pretenses, lavish profits made by (de jure or de facto) state-chartered monopolies, and whole classes of businesses given such brazen privilege for shearing the public that they can be seen as de facto tax farmers. Now, in this situation, imagine a businessman figuring out how to boost his profits by playing politics -- and instead of grabbing as much as he can of this readily available stream of rent-seeking cash, he instead gets the brilliant idea to spend money and time fighting the most radical ideological battle imaginable and struggling to turn the entire society upside-down, all this in hope that his payroll costs might fall by a few percent at some distant point in the future!

    There are indeed some special situations where it makes sense for particular groups of businessmen to lobby for cheap foreign labor, where the process is straightforward, quick, and directly related to their industry -- e.g. the Silicon Valley lobbying for more temporary visa programmers, or farmers lobbying for more foreign fruit-pickers. But it's completely naive to extrapolate this into some vast and general plutocratic open borders conspiracy, or to believe that this is a major part of the forces behind the current Cathedral consensus. Real big business players have far better ways to profit from politics, and spend the their time and money on those.

    • I think a better way to look at it is that immigration doesn't hurt big business. Within big business I think the goals of status jockeying and sympathy for known immigrants in ones personal life are the real reasons for support. If those goals conflicted with business interests then they might not be strong enough, but since they do not game on.

      Mark Zuckerburg is not supporting more H1-Bs because he thinks that being a billionaire isn't enough. He's supporting it to feel good about himself and impress friends. However, his shareholders aren't stopping him because hey, it's no skin off their back. If it was skin off their back they would go after Mark.

    • Yes yes I understand all this but there is something missing.

      Let me put forward an example I know. Japan has very little low skilled migration, and in general is not a very Cathedralized place. The bureaucracy and academia of course aren't running grand studies on HBD or nothing of the sort, but status is still assigned mostly by seniority and skill, and not by status whoring based on some watered down puritan morality. Japan does comply with those embarrassing questions from the UN, and pays lip service. Get refugees! OK, we'll get some Burmese. They put them to work in real jobs in standard japanese discipline. They hate it and leave.

      Now there is a *big* push lately for bringing millions of migrants to Japan, with the typical rationales of needing them to "pay the pensions" because of low fertility, and to increase foreign competitiveness. The funding for these people comes almost entirely from Keidanren, the Japanese Business Federation. The slogan is "10 million immigrants by 2025".

      That's pure madness. But it doesn't give them any social status. Nor sanctimony. Yes there are some circles where cathedralistic status whoring does work, especially among the well-off, but the general mood is staunch opposition. The government, i.e. the bureaucracy isn't buying it, at least yet. Even the Left isn't on board with it, and many have pointed out the danger of driving down local wages. But the movement is getting momentum, and they are increasingly pouring down in the media to push for it.

      So why do they do it? My model isn't a simple 'drive down wages', although that is an important part. I think part of the motivation behind multiculturalism is that having a foreign underclass inside the country is psychologically appealing to elites. It's the Mexico (or Thailand) model, where white privilege really exists: being white means you are the ruling class by birth, period. Mono-ethnic meritocracies means there is constant competition for socioeconomic status. But if you fill the country with barbarians, being white (or northeast asian) automatically makes you part of the elite, forever.

      As I said in this post months ago:

      In the absence of a legally enforced class system, there’s something deeply disturbing about having poor people of your same genetic stock around. They sort of remind you of where you come from, and where you might go back. When I see all those smart enterprising Chinese working their asses for 200 dollars a month, I feel uneasy, that they might some day replace me, or I’ll end up like them. Prole co-ethnics are the personification of downward mobility. And downward mobility is the most pure source of fear in the world. It’s fear itself. It’s the cause of anxiety, depression, mental disease. It’s the cause of most suicides.

      • I don't know much about Japan, so I can only defer to your first-hand insight there. But Japan is, for whatever reason, quite different from the West nowadays, and occupies a very different place from the West in the Cathedral's ideological model of the world. So it may well be that very different ideological and political factors have preponderance there.

        As for this point, however:

        I think part of the motivation behind multiculturalism is that having a foreign underclass inside the country is psychologically appealing to elites.

        Here it may be that we're actually talking about similar ideas in different ways. Clearly I don't think this model is plausible if you understand it as ordinary traditional hidalgo caste domineering. But I think it's right on target if you understand it in a more sophisticated way, where the elite revel in the fact that they have broken the bigotry and bias of parochial ethnic and national allegiance, and are bringing about a new age where they lead the world with a kind paternalistic hand guided by a global-utilitarian ideology.

        This way, multiculturalism is living evidence around them that this global-utilitarian world is happily coming into being -- and as a part of it, that the domestic proles are being justly stripped off their undeserved hereditary privileges, and the only privileges left are the just meritocratic ones that they enjoy (and selflessly put to work in the service of global utilitarianism, i.e. Cathedral sanctimony).

        On the other hand, I don't think the fear of downward mobility can be a factor here. The essential feature of this transformation is that the domestic proles are being pushed down, until they no longer enjoy any undeserved hereditary, accident-of-birth privileges over Third Worlders. So the members of domestic elites are in fact setting themselves up for a far worse fate in case they experience downward social mobility. This seems to contradict your theory flat-out. Where would a fall from riches to poverty be a worse fate -- in Japan or in Mexico?

        • They are setting themselves up for a worse fate, but they don't know that. You just don't see poor whites in Mexico. They don't exist, and to the extent some whites fall off, they blend into the mestizo masses. Having a lot of mestizos, arabs or blacks around is an unconscious daily reminder of how awesome your genes are. Downward mobility doesn't seem even possible.

          Of course in real life it's a dangerous game, and that's why white Mexicans or Thai-Chinese stick to each other and try to bolster their ethnic superiority with political power.

          I might be overstretching but I do think there's something to this. Also something to Handle's generational joke theory. And your elite sanctimony theory too.

          But I don't like the identification of the Cathedral with the elites. There's plenty of non-elite true believers in the Cathedral. In fact the distribution of true believers and people going with the flow doesn't seem to me to be much different between elites and non elites.

          • But consider that one of the staples of the elite ideology in the Anglosphere is the elite's differentiation from the "white trash." The white proles and underclass are constantly being exhibited, in every imaginable context, as the worst possible thing that exists in the world, and as an incessant reminder of what every civilized and righteous human being must struggle not to be.

            So the ruling ideology precisely maximizes the elite whites' consciousness that they must, at all costs, struggle to remain apart from the domestic lower class co-ethnics. The result in practice is that class-consciousness and fear of downward mobility get cranked up to eleven, not assuaged. And the elites compete in who's going to show least inclination to show more solidarity towards lower class co-ethnics than towards foreign third-worlders.

            As for this:

            But I don’t like the identification of the Cathedral with the elites. There’s plenty of non-elite true believers in the Cathedral. In fact the distribution of true believers and people going with the flow doesn’t seem to me to be much different between elites and non elites.

            The point however is that there are no dissenters from the Cathedral among the elites. Cathedral loyalty and sanctimony is a necessary, not a sufficient condition to be a member of the elite. (I don't know what the difference between the percentage of true believers among elites and non-elites might be, but I do know that the difference between open dissenters among elites and non-elites is a difference between zero and non-zero.)

            And of course that plenty of non-elite people will ape the ideology of the elite even when they have no prospect of joining it. People always try to imitate their superiors in everything, even as just a way of jostling for status within their own class. Also, needless to say, adherence to Cathedral ideology is a plus (and often a requirement) for most non-elite careers as well.

          • But I don’t like the identification of the Cathedral with the elites. There’s plenty of non-elite true believers in the Cathedral.
            My hypothesis is that you see a contradiction here because you have a non English understanding of elites. Here's Orwell, who was a keen observer for all his socialism, on the topic:
            The reason, obviously, is that in England education is mainly a matter of status. The most definite dividing line between the petite-bourgeoisie and the working class is that the former pay for their education, and within the bourgeoisie there is another unbridgeable gulf between the ‘public’ school and the ‘private’ school. It is quite clear that there are tens and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at a ‘posh’ public school is wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that mystic world of quad-rangles and house-colours, but they can yearn after it, day-dream about it, live mentally in it for hours at a stretch.
            and in this essay which is not available online in English, so I'll back-translate from Russian:
            Standard metrics put everyone between capitalists and wage laborers into the petty bourgeoisie. That is, a Harley street doctor, an army officer, a grocer, a farmer, a government functionary, a lawyer, a parson, an entrepreneurial contractor and a fisherman who owns his boat, are all classified together. But nobody in England will consider them to belong to the same class, and the distinctions between them are not in income but in pronunciation, bearing and, to an extent, in worldview. Anybody paying the least attention to class distinctions will put a navy officer living on £1000 a year higher on the social scale than a grocer making £2000 a year. [...] In practice, middle class people are distinguished by their degree of similarity to aristocracy: high-rank public servants, officers, university professors, clergy, even literary and scientific intelligentsia stand higher than businessmen, even though they earn less. This class is peculiar for the fact that education is its members' largest expense. A successful shop owner will send his child to the local state school, whereas the parson whose income is only half will scrimp on food for years to send his son to a private school, even though he does not expect a direct return on his investment.

  • It's both the capitalists and the Cathedral. The capitalists no longer have a sense of noblesse oblige, so they can do some amazingly destructive stuff in the pursuit of short term profit.

    Did you ever read the story of Postville, Iowa?

    Orthodox Jews buy meat packing plant in tiny town. The native whites won't work there as the wages and conditions are too bad. Russians and Ukrainians are brought in, but they quickly move on for the same reasons. Illegal Mexicans and Guatemalans are brought in, but eventually the factory is raided by immigration and the Mexicans and Guatemalans leave. Native Americans (Amerindians) and students from Kyrgyzstan are recruited but they quickly quit due to the low wages and bad conditions.

    Micronesians from Palau are flown in from 8,000 miles away, arriving in shorts and flip flops. Somalian refugees and homeless people from Texas are brought in. Eventually the owner of the plant goes to prison for bank fraud and the Paluans end up on the street with no money, no way to get home and no where to stay.

    The story closes with the plant open under new management, a town full of Somalian refugees and the locals wishing that the illegal Mexicans and Guatemalans were still around.

    You wouldn't think that it would make sense for capitalists to fly in Micronesians from Palau in order to avoid paying a decent wage and maintaining a safe clean working environment. But it happened.

      • Spandrell, your blog and this thread in general (and this Iowa story in particular) are almost enough to make me question my own commitment to techno-commercialism . . . Capitalism works best as a creatively destructive force only when the people who own the capital are committed to their products being the best rather than to their profits at the sake of everything else. "Owner-operated" capitalism is what we need to optimize for---the people making the profit are also the people who do (or once did) the work that creates the profit. People love Jobs and Gates because they did a lot of ground-level, material work on the products that made them rich. People love small-business owners because often they're the ones running the till or wiring the electronics; they're not just taking out loans and putting low-IQ tribesmen to work for them.

        • A criminal asshole gets ignored by the justice system while exploiting state subsidies to pull in populations he would never be able to afford on his own, and generally externalize his internalities. This is not a story of capitalism.

          CEO in modern corporations benefit from several layers of literal privilege.

          To start with, what does it mean for a corporation to be a person? It means that the corporation can be charged with felonies. But, since you can't lock up a corporation, being guilty means a fine. In other words, criminals can commit again and again as long as they're doing so on behalf of a corporation.

          As another example, the laws on stock are so deranged it's not even worth listing the problems, it would take too long.

          Chapter 11 allows the corporation to shed debt scot-free and break employment and retirement contracts, even if the corporation is still profitable and ends up being continued more or less as-is after the process.

          Anyone under these conditions is going to act evil, they're punished if they don't. Fixing this isn't hard or complicated; simply hold decision-makers personally responsible for the decisions. Imagine if that Iowa dude actually had to pay for the immigrants' plane tickets, moving vans, and houses, and was held responsible if they broke the law. What kind of idiot makes immigrants full citizens for the virtue of stepping off the boat?

          Corporations as they currently exist are entirely impossible with legitimized coercion backing them.

        • Capitalism works best as a creatively destructive force only when the people who own the capital are committed to their products being the best rather than to their profits at the sake of everything else.
          That's utopian though. It doesn't work like that, it never worked like that. It can't work like that. Even in cohesive national entities, capitalism is about making money, and people will churn out crap to earn profits. Pushing your psychological buttons so you get addicted to stuff you don't need. And in my experience small business owners are also quite likely of using low IQ tribesmen. So yes, capitalism sucks. Badly. But what are you gonna do?

          The techno-commercialist position is that you can't fight capitalism without falling into the left singularity. So make your choice.

  • I don't think it's safe to go

    'S Europe = disaster' --> 'nationalism failed to arise' --> 'nationalism dead'.

    Just look at Spanish bond yields. (By chance, I know more about Spain than Italy.) Spanish employment levels are completely *. Money was flying, ripping, tearing itself out of Southern banks, according to Bass, even as the EU dons celebrated their latest beautiful accord a couple months back.

    So I conclude, despite my want of economic sophistication, that the Spanish and Italian bonds are being propped up somehow. The whole countries probably are, more or less. Probably even more pervasively than we know about, or at least more pervasively than I personally am able to understand. But Greece finally became un-prop-able, and what do you see? Ethny.

    Will ethny come to rule Greece? I dono. Would Greece be bombed by America if they tried to explicitly institutionalize ethnic power? Dono. Will Spain stay prop-able? Dono. Can EU's brezhnevian 'artists' defuse a debt bomb which is, after all, only a bunch of paper (silicon 01010010001110010 actually) and a bunch of people who are really angry about what it says on the paper? I guess I'm just saying, who the hell knows?

    • Honestly, I think that people in charge of things correctly see this as an easy problem. None of this is anything that wouldn't be easily solvable -- at least in the short and medium run -- with a well-orchestrated combination of fiat alchemy and judiciously applied force. (The latter might be necessary if some rabble-rousers start getting out of hand.)

      In particular, I think it's silly to see any possibility of a breakup of the EU, or even just the Eurozone due to the recent financial troubles. Any problems of economics and finance are just trifling second-order issues relative to the fundamental ideological basis and rationale for the EU. (The aforementioned rabble-rousers might cause some problems, but none of them can hope to withstand a full-on Cathedral propaganda offensive and, should circumstances require it, legal suppression as well.)

      • In some ways, most of this is just very rich people bickering about 0101100100. They play a game, whose primary psychological basis we agree to be ordinal and cardinal status-seeking. They take the game very seriously, but still, what's really at stake? I'm about to go try to squat (X epsilon) pounds for reps ; if it's just X I'll be ticked. --And there I'll be, a ticked-off guy in an infinity of space-time, kind of scowling in the grass -- how bout that.

        What about merely affluent people, or middle class? How about some Japanese, some Amerikaners? They face prospects like having to live with alzheimery or incontinent elder relatives, versus not having to. (The prevalence of alzheimer's is very high above age 80.) Being able to afford (actual worthwhile) further education/certification versus not. That's what I think of when Kyle Bass repeatedly makes reference to 'the social fabric being torn' when Jap bond yields hit the teens (as he forecasts) or when the same happens in Europe. I don't buy his supposed ability to predict major wars over 0101110101. Yet 10000101110 can mean something very real to millions of first-world people. It doesn't mean they have to die, but it may mean more than which cut of beef you can afford. In some cases a lot more -- and you can't just wipe it all off the books in a couple of smooth moves. Can you? Devin Finbarr sort of seems to think so, and wrote a very interesting post about it (it's 5 or 6 posts down from the top at his 'Intellectual Detox').

        How many people end up with a scowl on, and how many end up feeling like they've been utterly disrupted? Bass seems to think, contra Finbarr, that there will be 10 Ms or 100Ms more toward the latter category. Well, that's what it comes down to. I don't know, I'm American, maybe things like education and care of the elderly are more state-supplied in Japan and Europe. Still, you might see those institutions degrade perceptibly.

        I don't know, maybe it's just not enough to matter. I'm not going to start a revolution if my apartment gets 15% smaller or my car 15% less reliable.

  • > The essential feature of this transformation is that the domestic proles are being pushed down, until they no longer enjoy any undeserved hereditary, accident-of-birth privileges over Third Worlders. So the members of domestic elites are in fact setting themselves up for a far worse fate in case they experience downward social mobility. This seems to contradict your theory flat-out. Where would a fall from riches to poverty be a worse fate — in Japan or in Mexico?

    Yes I agree utterly. Most here will be acquainted with at least a dozen elite or elite-ish or at least prosperous people over 55, perhaps some dozens. So just think of them. How many of their kids are boozy, depressive, kinda boozy/depressive, are single mothers, or generally got a lot of problems and not much money? A minority, but a substantial minority.

    And their kids' kids? Gonna be incrementally worse, again, than the kids.

    • --And that's assuming real GDP/head don't even change at all!

      --Or even keeps rising at the long-accustomed 4% (which in this country goes all the way back to the late 1800s and beyond, except for the Depression) -- not likely!

  • > Well as Vladimir said, given that there is no clear example of some obviously superior place outside the system where Ceaucescu isn’t applauded, there is no real reason to pause and think.

    Jim suggests England's real consumption actually rose since the restoration in 1660. I've actually seen comparable claims for W-Europe at large, going back way before 1800 . . . to more like 1500. I'm sure it grew maybe 1.5% way back in the day, nothing like the 4% you see in America over at least ~1870 - 1990 (minus the 30s) -- still.

    So an interesting question is, suppose no real cataclysm happens, but consumption is -1% per year. --As it apparently has been. That could represent an inflection point after . . . 5...0...0 flipping years!

    OK, oil production has been flat, whereas I can't begin to imagine NEA demand hasn't been rising rapidly and won't continue to rise rapidly, so considering that and other factors (racial change leading the list), suppose we soon shift to -2.2% -- ?

    0.978 ^ 20 = 0.64

    for that matter, 0.985 ^ 25 = 0.685

    Whoops! Problem alert! This will mess up society, bad, even if there is no point where things just go bananas.

    Do you really need a Ceaucescu to cease applauding for, if and when the above happens? I say no. Try looking at 50-150 photos of Afghanistan from the 1970s. There's nothing you can do about the endless visual, statistical, and narrative documentation of the West at its econo-technical height.

    For me this says Vladimir should greatly moderate his feeling that disciplined, sharp, and freethinking men are at the helm in any real numbers. My hypothesis is more like, only a few Davos Men answer that description. One of them, Thiel, up and quit lying. Actually he already started talking pretty real a long time ago, but somehow became and remained hyper-elite. So, there are maybe three others that decided it was better to stay inside and stay quiet. But in general the Cochran picture is far more true: we have idiots.

    20 years is not a long time -- and you know, caveat caveat caveat -- as disciplined guys we've made them ad nauseam -- robotics may bail us out, blah blah. But maybe not ; it's obvious that the above models have at least a fair chance of taking place. So why are we betting our entire civilization at all, staking everything, when we just plain don't have to -- just make a few simple changes, merely shore up the very basics -- and when it is simply not possible to be master over all the imperiling trends? Take a step back ; when have sagely, disciplined, or merely highly savvy men behaved this way? Savvy good, savvy wicked -- or just savvy all-too-human, yet still savvy for all that? They haven't, therefore these hypothetical savants don't exist. Weirdos and decadents and fools and the unsober have acted like this.

    Now, as for embryo selection, think about the lag time for its payoff. OK, now notice that the IQ (and probably Conscientiousness) variance between sibs is a large fraction of the variance in the pop at large (ie, US Whites, US Mestizos -- not that these are perfectly endogamous pops). By the law of large numbers, that tells you the phenotypes are mostly determined by relatively few alleles of large effect. (Otherwise sibs would be closer in these traits. If IQ were determined by 800 flips of a single unfair coin, two sibs would have very similar IQs. The fairness or unfairness of the different coins represents the fact that IQs of parental couples vary.) It follows that these determinative alleles must be rare alleles, otherwise they would have been discovered already. This is possibly not an ironclad syllogism, but I think its pretty close. Dealing with all those rare alleles is going to be extremely hard, and anyone can understand why: you have 10,000s to millions of very rare alleles, virtually all of which do nothing, they are fitness-neutral or virtually so. So, good luck finding the ones that matter ; it may take ten years longer as compared to a common alleles scenario, or it may take 40 years longer -- or it may take only ten years but the power of selection is only 0.25 what you would get in a common alleles scenario -- or whatever.

    • Of course the hyper-elite are smart, though I have to doubt Davos man is actually creme-de-la-creme. If you're really smart, you stay out of the news. Who's the white house chief of staff these days? You can look it up, but you'll never hear about them, their character, views, ideology or goals, unless you do. We know about Obama...but who made Obama? We don't know that. And who was in turn their patron? Who mentored them? Where did they go to school? To whom were they born and who did their parents know?

      Part of the reason is you do start to believe your own lies, so hire someone to do your lying for you. Ideally, never deal with them directly - they don't know you and you don't listen to them. (For example of the opposite, the Kims.)

      They don't care, though. "The only people [who] are going to suffer are my heirs, not me. Because when you have a billion six and you lose a billion, you’re not exactly like crippled, right?" The money is just a way of keeping score at that point, and even if society completely shits the bed, they'll still be on top. (For example, the Kims.) There's no noblesse oblige for people you'll literally never meet, and who you cannot directly command. They're saps, dupes, and since hyper-elite is probably in the region of 160 IQ, basically talking apes. (The talking dog says, "Blacks are stupid, and so are you." "Amazing! That dog's talking!") Pawns, game pieces, perhaps. Who can get the most obedience with both hands tied behind their backs - no formal hierarchy?

      Secondly, they're indeed supremely competent. But, only at gaining and keeping power. Anyone who wasted time getting competent at anything else lost the game. "Why didn't the elite do X?" "Because they kept power anyway, didn't they?"


      I suspect we can get a complete story of immigration with a little mix and match.

      The point of immigration is to import an easily-ruled IQ subclass. The white middle class is highly resistant to coercion, especially state power, having been strongly selected for exactly that, and is only going to get more resistant as time passes. (Similar to the way whites have a custom of not drinking alone or during the day, and amerindians don't.) There's a parallel phenomenon where someone slightly dumber is really hard to dupe, because they're caught between not understanding the sophisticated reasons to obey, but seeing through the best bullshit the slightly-smarter can produce. So, this pegs it as upper-middle-class versus elite.

      Originally, this was pretty much conscious, but now a lot of the visible elite (not top-out-of-sight) genuinely believe 'diversity is an unqualified good' or some similar bilge. (This may prove to be fatal.)

      The plan is basically to have entirely gutted democracy by the time the beige vote gets big enough to throw its weight around, instead of merely shoring up the unmarried white woman vote. But don't worry, if the timing's wrong, they'll prove just as capable of saying beige folk vote wrong, if they decide to not stay bought. But, as they're even more gullible than white folk, it probably won't be an issue. See how rapidly gay marriage became an issue? Just as rapidly, beigeness can stop being a virtue and go back to being a colour.

      Equivalently, as Foseti says on SOPA, voting wrong is simply a matter of delaying the inevitable. You can vote wrong as many times as you want - because it only sticks when you vote right.

      See, the point is oppressing the middle class. If the middle class ever surrenders, then it's the beige vote's turn to get it good and hard. Oppression is fun!

      However, there's the possibility that the steering wheel has come off the bus from being yanked one time too many, and in fact nobody is in control of the thing anymore. It's all bureaucracy and game theory. In this case, when the beige vote votes wrong, there will be a cascade as the nominal elite try to hold onto status - not power - and, when they order the security forces to put down the inevitable riot, they refuse. If that's what's up, it will be...interesting.


      Incidentally, there's very good inherent reasons the elite is global, not local. For one, for the top-out-of-sight, they have far more in common with a brown elite than an otherwise similar white non-elite, namely the experience of rule.

  • "It’s all bureaucracy and game theory." And Marketing. Yes the steering wheels off, it was quite obvious in Iraq. I will add inertia to the above.

    For the game or indeed the despair of reaction to play out requires eternal passivity amongst the main target group. There is no reason looking over the last 50 years to assume that's not going to continue indefinitely. EXCEPT that it already...isn't. Now if your the game theorists and bureaucrats we've actually GOT as opposed to whatever we'd like to have, *they don't realize this yet except dimly*. The sudden hysteria about tool control is the long suppressed and in their case selected out reptilian survival brain sending out warnings ...which are poshed away. Poo Poo. Silly M'uricans and so on...

    Understand your cognitive elite self-selected in WW2 for - cowardice. Said trait was reinforced and indeed bred into generations from 1940 to 1973, with a strong impetus [fear/survival] to keep selecting out physical bravery...or indeed labor. Oh sure they were smart...BUT...that wasn't the motive.

    Military Service - including Conscription periods - also runs in families. It was the Fighting Sullivan's, not the fighting DeSturgess-Smythe-Vespulas-Patricius. Ah, no. And the military has been self selecting and indeed intermarrying from the same pool for 40 years now. For both populations there's also the intersection of nature and nurture - the family - to consider.

    So smarts is chosen over...survival and fighting. Except that is was actually - cowardice. Using smarts as a tool. One might get the idea that this would produce...spawn of ever weaker character, regardless of their test scores.

    Gee I guess that's great if nothing goes wrong with your high equilibrium fantastically leveraged on fiat status.

    However when your not primarily breeding smarts - as you were led to believe - but breeding could end up with elites that however smart [smarts they were using to shirk, not produce the enlightened reign of philosopher kings] you could end up with a truly degenerate bunch not fit to run a bath.

    And they aren't fit to run anything. That is patent, even if my pet theory of one of many reasons why isn't patent...

  • If I wasn't clear I was referring to the Draft Deferment for the Cognitive Elite to shirk either danger or labor. Yes the New Deal set the Table...but WW2 was the banquet, and still is...a shotgun wedding of Mr&M__ Cognitive-Elite wedding banquet. Prior to WW2 they wouldn't have dared utter or write such nonsense about their brains being such a strategic asset that they could not be risked in war. Nor did they during WW2..this all came after you see. Prior to the Atomic detonations the Brains weren't at the time they came to be in the Official Mythology.

    WW2 is also the beginning of the term "grunt" as in "can only grunt yes or no" to refer to Infantry and other unfortunates..who were you see considered under technocratic government lower status by even much of the Military - who picked the smarter soldiers and Officers for other Branches - and that was the case until Vietnam enshrines the Grunt.

  • It’s not mere “socialism” as some would have it. It’s multi-cult fascism: Take from the producers to give to the centers of multi-cult wealth and political power.

    Here’s how it “works”:

    1) Confuse people about the distinction between “wealth” and “income”—probably the worst single political economic crime possible to commit in public discourse and one of which the wealthiest man in the US, Warren Buffett, is guilty.

    2) Progressively tax income while claiming you are taxing the “wealthy”.

    3) Respond to all of the pathologies you create in this confusion by a proliferation of public sector “fixes” that eventually result in the public sector overtaking economic activities by “virtue” of its taxation of all economic activities.

    4) Allow the truly wealthy, whose property rights would disappear in an instant in the absence of government protections, to continue to accumulate net assets without limit and without paying the costs of protection of those property rights—shifting them onto the heavily taxed producers.

    5) Continue to increase the overall taxation of producers until the goose that laid the golden egg, the middle class, is dead.

    6) Decry the profligacy of the middle class as it ceases to have children hence family values, and goes into the abyss of usurious debt, the economy collapses due to a failure of consumer demand and the government centralizes even more power by handing over even more wealth to the creditors in exchange for equity stake.

  • We interrupt the despair with some good news - at least if you appreciate Nick Land's Lure of the Void - Now This:

    Bechtel in Space. Now they're serious. When we're really Serious - Halliburton in Space. News Issue #95, May 2013&utm_campaign=NSN-1&utm_medium=email

  • > “capitalists” do lots of things, and I don’t believe you want to decide whether to support them (or some of them) unconditionally.

    Read Finnbar's latest on utility-transfer 'capitalism' -- fantastic. Read all his essays, he's a heavyweight, as is Peter Frost.

  • Vladimir your hard skepticism on macro contrasts with your sense that the EU (and Yank and Jap?) crises can be easily defused. It would appear to present a dichotomy unless you think, like Finbarr, that it's mainly a problem of reaching a suitable political accord and that there exist adequate means for softening the inflation that must take place. I don't think Kyle Bass feels that way.

    The relevant Finbarr piece is 4 or 5 essais down, maybe I will re-read it in a few hours.

    I'm going to provisionally take Bass over Fin, and so proceed from trichotomy to the dichotomy I perceive in your thoughts. Off the top of my head, I seem to recall most hedge funds not performing so well under average circumstances. So I'm going to provisionally play it like this:

    --few people can beat the market hard (Bass is probably one of the few)

    -- I'll accept your view that most academic macro jocks would just go get rich if they possessed real insights (as opposed to a body of elementary and widely-understood knowledge plus a mastery of imponderable questions)

    -- and I'll decline your view that the crises are easy to defuse.

  • It's both - cathedral and capitalism.

    Capitalism is driven to improve profit. Cheaper labor is the path of least resistance for improving profit and will thus be chosen when there is a choice. In the past national capitalism shut off that option forcing capitalism to innovate instead thus creating vast amounts of technological innovation and real growth which benefited the whole nation. Regulatory capture by the plutocrats ended national capitalism allowing capitalists to take the easiest path - and thus by extension setting in motion the beginning of the end of innovation imo.

    Also once a ruling class has defected from the people they become like a colonial power and divide and rule as deliberate colonial policy goes back to roman colonia where cohorts of retired legionaries would be planted as a colony in conquered terriotory the same way Somali colonia are being planted in midwest towns.

  • I will not deny that foreign students can be bright, but faculty exaggerate their brilliance because foreign students are servile in doing work and favors for faculty and not demanding that professors actually earn their tuition keep. Moreover, faculty like that foreign students are either afraid, complicit or morally ambivalent about the immoral behavior of professors. In many cases they are more likely to share the professors’ anti-Americanism than American students. These ass kissers are absolutely not entrepreneurial, and they take the most bureaucratic and least innovative jobs.

  • 2 pingbacks