Shakespeare or Schrodinger

13 02 2018

Granada, Spain

I hate myself, therefore, I love myself.

Advertisements




The Fundamental Chronic Long Term Problem with the Alt-Lite

15 12 2017

Your Blogmeister’s Secret Hideout

I’ve finally figured it out as I’ve watched in the past handful of weeks one prominent Alt-Liter after another cuck out right before they reach the event horizon.

The Alt-Lite wants to have its cake and eat it too.

They want to have fun with the Alt-Right’s memetics, and/or harvest an audience off of lightly or mildly touching our issue base and concerns, but they don’t want to have to defend the Alt-Right’s base fundamental contentions, because they don’t want to be in the parentheticals’ direct line of fire.

To put it another way, and in light of and also extending my proposed definitions of Alt-Right and Alt-Lite, the Alt-Lite will play games of footsey with anti-egalitarianism, but they’ll do it carefully:  They’ll do it enough to make enough people think they believe in it, in order to garner an audience and make a few coins, but never enough to make the important people in society for whom anti-egalitarian politics are a full frontal threat think that they actually want to endorse and implement that agenda.





As I Pursue My Ph.D. in Powerology

30 11 2017

Your Blogmeister’s Secret Hideout

As a continuation of my post of a few minutes ago about the fourth full month of recovery, I can already discern how my brain is rewiring itself, which in turn means how my cognitive sensibilities are already different now than they were before July 19.

Cut to the chase:  I’m less interested in the kind of day to day events that interested me before July 19, and more interested in big consequential profundities.  To allude to the old trope that great minds ponder ideas, average minds think about events, and small minds gossip about people.

Which means that you probably won’t be reading many posts in this space going forward along the lines of “zomg dindu murked other dindu on ghetto street corner lol” and instead posts about how cognitive stratification is ruining civilization.  Less New Nation News, more Social Matter, por favor.

That said, I can give you a preview of coming attractions, knowing where my rewiring brain seems to be taking me.

One of my near-lifelong serial ideological interests has been in the concept of power.  The nature of power, the essence of power, the acquisition of power, the use of power, the abuse of power, the mechanics of power, the loss of power, the deceitful manipulation of power, the transmission of power, the disguise of power, the gamesmanship of power, power competing with power, power clashing with power.  I started having this interest at the age of thirteen, which means you all can deduce the wherefore of the biological imperative.  The trigger was that I was on the school bus and saw that some cop had some driver pulled over, and I started wondering if there was some answer other than the practical one to why the driver pulled over.

It took me a quarter century, but I was finally able to boil everything about power down to the hard rock bottom of the matter.  At a base and individual level, I have power over you if you somehow have decided that you are better off than you otherwise would be if you allow me to make some of the decisions about your existence that you would otherwise make for yourself.  Scale that kind of thing up to the collective level, and a person or institution has power over a society if on a base level the people most skilled at wielding weapons, munitions and ordnance think that they personally and the society they live in are better off than they otherwise would be with said person or institution making important decisions, and secondarily but just about as importantly, if the cognitive elite of the society have come to the same conclusion.

“You got all that from some cop pulling someone over back in 1990?”

You betcha.  And isn’t this so typical me that I’d see something that most people, much less most 13-year olds, would just disregard, and turn that into a quarter century intellectual crusade to come to the same conclusion that some second-rate Athenian Golden Age philosopher probably already came to around 2,500 years ago?

Back to the point, it has probably been the case that I was headed in that direction in terms of my posting interests in recent years, and I’m guessing that many of you can attest to that, but my being so rudely interrupted in July and the resetting my brain is doing because of it only ices the metamorphosis.  So much so that I actually worry that the concept of power will for me transition from a mere serial interest to a dangerous and pathological obsession.

That said, I have an admission:

I want the pen and the phone and the nuclear football, and I know just what I have to do to get them.  It’s just that the odds are extremely long against me.





Chase the Brown Horse, Not the Golden Unicorn

23 06 2017

Washington, D.C.

More philosophical feed bag.  Free philosophical feed bag with the purchase of any fidget spinner.

John Lott, in FNC:  Political vitriol won’t get any better and will get worse, because its increase is nothing more than a function of both the growth of governments’ (all levels in the aggregate) spending as a percentage of GDP and its power.

A few points:

(1) Okay, then, Sweden is a country whose central government spends even more as a percentage of GDP than all levels of American government in the aggregate do.  In the last ten years, the range as been between 50% and 53%.  So, why aren’t Swedish politics that acrimonious and vitriolic?

(2) That points to how Lott is both right and wrong.  He’s right because he’s on the right track generally speaking, but wrong because he’s trying to find a golden unicorn to ride into town when there’s a perfectly good brown horse in front of his snoot.  The percentage-of-GDP argument is the golden unicorn.  The brown horse is that the American Federal government is both the largest spending institution in the world in terms of raw currency amounts, and the seat of what we all have to admit if we’re honest with ourselves is a global empire.  No, it’s not like the British Empire, one so neatly delineated and defined and you can see a map of the world circa 1900 or 1920 and London controls whatever is rose-colored, and a lot of it was rose-colored.  The American empire operates behind pretense and soft power manipulation, all backed up by the insurance policy of the world’s most powerful military.  For instance, a modern world map won’t indicate to you that the United Kingdom is an American client state, or that the Germany and Japan are somewhere between American protectorates and used to be imperial possessions in all but formal recognition, or that a panoply of American-sponsored NGOs and think tanks influence Presidential elections in France.  But it’s no less true even if it is tacit and not explicit.  Our non-formal empire operates entirely in the client/vassal/protectorate/softpower fashion, with occasional “police” response. And you can see how true it is when you have Colonel Sanders staring you in the snoot in Indonesia.

So, when you mash that up with the current reality that, at least superficially, the deep state notwithstanding, and I’ll get to that in a moment, those that run it are chosen by plebiscites organized around a partisan superficial duopoly, then it’s obvious that the partisan politics will sometimes extend to the hot lead level.

(3) In “the good ole days,” when American governments’ spending was a far lower percentage of GDP, there was often way more partisan acrimony.  The years of the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson presidencies made today look erudite.  The years and one to two decades leading up to the War Between the States — If you’re a St. Louisan, you’ve heard of Elijah Lovejoy, unless you haven’t.  If you want a really vitriolic election year, try 1884, not 2016.  The former year being the first in the era of mass print media.

(4) A lot of today’s vitriol isn’t conventionally partisan, it’s the domestic-foreign policy deep state circling the wagons around itself to try to repel what it thinks is an invading virus that has “Donald J. Trump” written on its birth certificate.  It’s just that, because Trump is a putative Republican, the deep state’s easiest route to trying expel this “virus” can be rooted through the other party.  However, it should be noted that the Congressional Republican establishment isn’t comporting itself well.

(5) Lott is kidding himself if he thinks that governments allow themselves to become weaker and spend less in a domestic tranquility sense, and he’s extra strength kidding himself if he thinks that today’s Federal government and state governments will just to satisfy his social science hypothesis.  Only after the conclusion of major wars has the Federal government’s percent-of-GDP spending decreased, but rarely and little the power it assumed for itself that it never had before to wage the wars.  This is one of many reasons why I’m #NRx — Under the current circumstances (racial diversity, empire, powerful/big spending central state), mated with the relevant range of reality (none of those three are practically going away other than a geopolitical calamity), the best (or least bad) option for white people is a nationalist-minded hereditary monarchy ideologically governing with some variant of national socialist ideology.





Somebody Else’s Sequitur

13 02 2017

Frankfort, Kentucky, et al.

Am I supposed to be impressed or mystified?

Something that a lot of people don’t grasp is that national politics, provincial politics and local politics are significantly different games, with different political centers, different homeostatic equilibria, different issue bases.  I could like or dislike a given politician on one level and then have the opposite feeling about him or her on another level.  For instance, I think Scott Walker is a pretty good Wisconsin Governor, but I don’t think he would have made that good of a President, (and you’ll remember he was briefly the Republican front runner before OCGE rode down the escalator, in fact, fulfilling the prediction I made at the time of his announcement, Walker’s was a heretofore top tier candidacy that Trump’s rise wrecked early in the demolition derby), because Walker’s agenda and accomplishments, while credible provincially, don’t scale well up to a national level.  Likewise, I pretty much despised Rahm Emanuel as a Federal politician or quasi-politician, but I think he’s been an okay even if not perfect Chicago Mayor.  Rahm is a liberal by national standards, but by Chicago standards, he’s something of a conservative, and he, as Chicago Mayor, gets something of the same level of heat that national conservative politicians get, for almost the same reason.

Another reason for the difference is that as you step up from local to state to national, the budgets grow by orders of magnitude, and the issue base transitions on the pedantic-existential spectrum.

To bitch about how national Republicans are bickering yet state-level Republicans are cleaning up pedal to the metal is about as reasonable as complaining that the basketball game lasts so long and drags on in real time in contrast to its clock time in contrast to the soccer game which isn’t much longer in real time than clock time.

 





Philosophy Is Hard

8 01 2017

London

plato-kant

And they Kant do it.

Sorry, it was a slow meatball right in my wheel house.

Those who can, do, those who Kant, teach philosophy.

Really, though, I think all this talk about colonialism and critical context and Africa/Asia is just a pure front.  These affirmative action snowflakes want easy material in what will seem on their transcripts to be difficult courses.





Niccolo Rebooted

6 12 2016

Manhattan

I already had it in my URL hopper, but since Rush is talking about it right now, I might as well establish my reaction right now.

The problem with trying to apply Machiavelli’s mentality to the modern day politics of adviser selection is that Machiavelli’s mentality is an anachronism.  Likewise, he thought mercenaries were a bad idea because they didn’t have the same kind of skin and heart in the game as did native soldiers and fighters.  Both suffer from the problem that Machiavelli did not live in, and could not have forecasted, the modern era of ideologically-driven politics and governance.   And this also crosses wires with a Trump characteristic that is a feature generally but a bug in this particular circumstance.

Machiavelli’s case here is that a politician (“prince”) who is perceived as an outsider and who attains appreciable public power through amicable and peaceful means would do better to fill his cabinet with establishmentarian figures who oppose(d) him, rather than the brightest most sincere clever cohort of the public rebels who supported his insurgency.  The reason is that the establishmentarians, while they are political enemies to the new prince, are nonetheless politically experienced and savvy, and loyal to the state and the people, and because they want to maintain their status, they’ll go along to get along with new prince’s zeitgeist, and mash that together with their governing experience to serve the new prince well.  In contrast, the talented fraction of the rebels that supported the new prince in his rise to power are nothing more than malcontents who won’t be able to govern effectively, and will turn on the prince when they feel the slightest bit jilted, and will never be happy with the appointments the prince gives them.

What makes all this anachronistic, both the matter of cabinet section and mercenaries, is just what I wrote above:  He lived his entire life (1469-1527) in a time when the ethnonationalistic imperative was the only game in town when it came to personal loyalty.  Yes, there was religion, and that all started with a German near-contemporary of Machiavelli’s, but even that was often sublimated nationalism.  It wouldn’t be until more than two centuries after his death, when the Enlightenment hit, that Occidentals developed the ideas of ideologies and the notion that their fundamental point of loyalty should be to ideologies.

Applying that, and we see that Machiavelli’s prescriptions are totally backwards in our world.  Most seriously political people are loyal to an ideology, not a given people in a given place.  With mercenaries, sure, they were less than desirable in Machiavelli’s day when being a merc and being a pure soldier of fortune was the same thing.  But in our times, mercs can be just as good as native soldiers if they mesh on ideology, an example is that white people who were mercs in the Rhodesian military to defend racial separatist and segregationist ideology.  Or the leftist Americans who went to Spain as part of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, to join the rebellion against Francisco Franco.

When it comes to an outsider prince filling his cabinet, it’s a very bad idea to keep your enemies closer than your friends, precisely because, in our times, your enemies are your enemies and your friends are your friends for ideological reasons.  In contrast, in Machiavelli’s time, the essence of political enemyship was almost always personal or business.  Back to today, giving your enemies that much power only invites them to create one ideological contradiction and paradox after another after another during your time as head of state or head of government.

Niccolo Machiavelli 1.0 would definitely want Trump to make Mitt Romney his Secretary of State; Niccolo Machiavelli 2.0 would definitely not.  M1 would presume that while Romney was a severe political opponent of Trump’s before now, that they’re both fundamentally blood and soil nationalists to one degree or another.  M2 would know that Trump’s proclivities on foreign policy and Romney’s clear established ideology on foreign policy just can’t be reconciled or mediated.

Besides, Trump’s use for Romney isn’t that of Florentine politician, but of American reality show producer.  Trump is using and playing Romney like a cheap fiddle to show purely for outward consumption that Trump is getting over his well known propensity to grind over personal or political slights; whether or not he is actually doing so is something I can’t ascertain.  But I do know it is an important trait for someone who is about to be handed the nuclear football, so we should all hope that the thing is both substantial and surficial.

Trump, as someone who is very atypical in the modern Western political world with his non-ideological outlook, may well be taking the original Machiavelli at face value and not considering the wherefores of its obsolescence.  He needs to, soon, because this could be a real disaster.