The Inglorious Return of PolyLogism

Ludwig Von Mises supposedly coined the term, but he was describing Marxism, and something he saw as essentially an error.

There is but one logic, yet the Marxists held that various peoples and classes had their own logic.

Well, although Mises was right in spirit, he may be wrong in fact.

Case in point- Robert Higgs, who I do believe has actually read Mises, thinks A Kind Word On Behalf Of The Mexicans is needed.

This sort of post actually bolsters Marx's argument because here we have a person who should theoretically know the gospel according to Mises. He should be able to tell that the constant discrimination against whites since the 60's, the violations of our freedom of association and private property, etc... has contributed to a growing sense of injustice.

He might even know that people ought not to be forced to bake cakes for people they don't want to bake cakes for, and shouldn't have to hire people they don't want to hire. Now, I have no doubt he could also hold forth for days on the supposed foolishness of making racist or genderist decisions when hiring people, but he still should be able to say people ought to have the ability do to so, and let the market decide whether or not that was a stupid idea.

But he doesn't. He wants us to give Mexicans a chance. Despite knowing the perniciousness of the state, he's allowing the framing of the state to influence his thinking.

Why?

He, and most libertarians are part of an academic class, and they are demonstrating the logic of that class. To the extent that they have any power at all, they derive it from maintaining the status quo that provides academia power. They do not derive any power from admitting in the face of a blooming white identity movement, that hey, yes, we should get rid of these equal housing laws so you guys can have your private property right and freedom of association rights back.


But the logic of the class says keep heaping up insults on that other class. The 'whites'. Keep pretending the people who are being discriminated against are being mean.

It just doesn't make any sense. Is logic, logic? Or are there many logics? If there is one logic, defend it. Why should the libertarian candidate be Gary Johnson, who couldn't even answer the cake baking question correctly? He ran around, probably high for the whole campaign, talking about racism too damn much. Does he not realize most libertarian people are white males?

But if there are many logics, then it's nothing but a fight amongst many identities. And we are going to see this more and more, unless some of these identities- and in this case especially I'll call out think-tank libertarian types- start defending the logic. I know they should, because I learned about freedom of association and private property from many of them.

Weaponizing Libertarian Political Positions

Social Matter popped up recently with Destroy the Cartels, which reminded me of my own How To End The Drug War (And Win).

It also made me realise that I've been thinking of what are basically weaponized versions of libertarian thought.

In the link above, I talk about out competing the violent Mexicans- America already caused the violent Mexican problem by destroying the Columbians and the Carribean supply lines. You can take the air out of the Mexicans by taking over the trade and it's much easily to end such a trade if you own the supply- because then you know who is demanding it, and you can start making demand drop over the generations (or quickly if you just have to be all jackboot-ish about it).

Then there's going beyond the second amendment:

It is, however, within these governors' power to train and arm most of their citizens. Think about it. A lot of these guys are allegedly pro-gun too, and they can shift that debate, if every citizen who is able bodied and competent has a civic duty to keep and bear arms. Don't forget to supersede the gun-free zones, and, of course, everyone will need to be able to carry concealed.

That won't just knock the anti-gun crap off the table, it would develop a new class of people. Because not everybody is going to pass the test. And those who do form the new core of civil society.

Then there's one I know I've mentioned before but can't find: productivity is supposed to have something do with wages, but libertarians make the mistake of saying just stay out of the way. So we end up with the minimum wage- because the left never passes up a chance to legislate- and we end up with various departments in our businesses and organizations that are fundamentally political and have nothing to do with productivity. So, somehow managing to enforce the correlation between production and wages means being able to lower the wages of many contributors to leftist parties.

Most Economy of Scale Arguments Are Bogus In This Country, so you can feel pretty reasonable about ignoring them, although preferably not in the leftist way where you use the excuse of large companies to create the conditions for even larger companies. This is why Amazon exists- their 'economy of scale' and therefore size, is due entirely to government. Spreading government costs over the maximum number of transactions possible on the one hand, and using the debt backed dollar in low interest rate environment to destroy competition on the other. Not 'free market' at all, just the sort of wildfire bad governance spreads. We can not only let 'too big to fail' fail, we can also be reasonably sure the big are using government to take advantage and act accordingly.

Either we have private property and freedom of association or we don't. If we do have private property and freedom of association, then white nationalists can create their ethnostate. I don't know whether or not that is weaponizing libertarianism, but I do wish the damn libertarian party would have focused more on that rather than have a pot head call everyone racist for the entire campaign. But anyway, if the white nationalist can do it, so can anyone. And the goal can be anything, like a more Christian state, or a more environmentally appropriate one, etc... Or try to recreate Hong Kong or Singapore, but remember you need to solve the IQ conundrum or your precious 'free market' will fail at some point.

But anyway, I think a lot of the alt-right/neoreactionary stuff showed up as we worked through the implications of logic. If private property is this big deal, and distribution of labor is this other big deal, and evolution yet another big deal, then democracy is unacceptable. Owners decide what happens to their property, and property accrues to those with the skill to administrate it. The libertarian case for the ancient regimes in two fucking sentences. No, we can't just give it back- we may have old blood lines around, but they've all been tainted by the current environment, which favors the bureaucratic mind. But we've got to get back on track and hold to the track. Trump wants to get rid of the death tax; he wants families to be able to pass down their estates through the generations, and this may well be the most important policy of them all. Reduce the scope of 'public' government. Estates, and private property in general, are private governance. And from them we also derive competitive governance...

We can't really stop at nationalism. We've got to get off the modern state train entirely.

Mueller's Incentives

There's always an incentive to run with this thing- taking down a president brings with it a huge reputation. So guys are tempted to stick with such an investigation, long past the obvious time to put this away.

Then, there's is also D.C. Mueller is in D.C. He likes to deal with D.C. people. He probably knows he'll get many kudos from other D.C. people who don't want the swamp drained.

But Mueller also ought to want to do the right thing, which is stop this fucking circus. Of the ten thousand investigations that need to be going on in D.C., this is not one of them.

By doing the right thing Mueller can also become that one guy Trump, Sessions and others will trust. Is that a good idea in D.C.? I suppose it depends on who you think will win. If Trump loses, it will because he was timid. He keeps trying to behave himself. He consults with lawyers. He hasn't thrown large numbers of bureaucrats in jail- which is practically necessary. You can't stop a criminal conspiracy while the conspirators are in charge of things, and you can't know who specifically is criminal until they are all vetted.

Kind of sucks, but, we are seeing this crap now. The Russia thing is dead, warmed over twice. And yet, supposedly, the investigation is widening, even unto obstruction of justice. Just how stupid do these people think we are?

Which brings me back to Mueller. Perhaps these idiotic journalists are doing him a disservice. He has a choice, and it should be to end this damn nonsense.

Perhaps he will, assuming he realizes his own reputation is at stake here.

The Self-Pinning Moth

Vox Day's stuff on rhetoric vs dialectic is apropos here.

But I wonder if he doesn't put too much work into it.

Because they are like moths who will climb up under the glass and say, "hey look at me," and they often insult you just to make sure you look at them.

Then you redirect the conversation to whatever point it was you were making.

And the moth says 'Oh, yeah?' and it shoves a pin right into it's abdomen, or wherever etymologists stick moths.

And the you redirect the conversation again. There are usually more insults, but whatever.

So, for however long the cycle goes, it seems to me the moth is immobilizing itself. It has not talked about the topic, it has hurled insults and thereby mostly just attempted to make itself look good, but it is just a moth, under glass- immobile. He has demonstrated himself incapable of discussing the topic.

And, since the virtuous don't spend a lot of time insulting people on the internet, but rather do virtuous things- many of which are done in secret, but some of them are not, and we find out about some that are, so we know people who are better than we are, and they are not this poor, self-immobilizing moth, attempting to wrench some emotional comfort from... whatever.

It doesn't work. I don't even know how it could work among their own kind. Can you imagine a whole pack of them pulling this crap on each other?


Knowledge is what I look for. Despite explicitly not being a Gnostic, well I can't help it- I got on the internet and found the Shangri-La diet, and the Paleo diet stuff, etc... all as it was first coming out. I lost over a hundred pounds and massively improved my life. And it felt like the primary reason I was able to improve my life in this little domain was knowledge. With better information, I had a better map, and I was able to navigate the territory with improved accuracy.

So, this side of the veil, anyway, knowledge kicks ass. And almost by definition, it will be the sort of knowledge other people don't have. Those interested in virtual signalling and moral posturing have to signal against such knowledge. I know this is absolutely true, because people have done so, against SLD, against Paleo, against various low-carb/ketogenic interventions- despite outcomes.

I can't interpret anti-knowledge behavior as anything except failure. The moth pins himself, like some mentally ill people cut themselves. It is abject failure because no points are made on topic, and there is no virtue to hand, nothing to back up this poor moth's words about himself. He is merely making a spectacle of himself.

Another Bad Headline

Why Is Trump Acting So Spooked Over the Russia Investigation?

I'm reminded of the fact that the director of Sicario thought he was creating a 'strong' female character, while I thought he had completely forgotten about feminism. I watched the thing and figured he got so into the drug war story that he forgot about toeing the feminist line. Sicario, to me, rather explicitly illustrates why women shouldn't work in that field. The character was demonstrably in over her head from moment one, and functioned as extra dead weigth the professionals had to lug around.

But somehow this director thought he was demonstrating something completely different. Especially, if I remember correctly, what I perceived as her breakdown, was supposed to be illustrative of some sort of internal strength.

Perhaps, in some sort of dim light, in Universe B, most likely while getting paid by some spook agency, maybe NBC's headline might make sense.

Maybe 'spooked' means really pissed off at constant 24/7 bullshit. Come on. He knows he didn't do anything wrong. There's been plenty of surveillance before he came to office, and plenty of rehashing of what was already known in all these propagandistic 'investigations.' This is a total waste of money, and it exists because both parties in Washington D.C. don't want Trump to be able to do anything.

Crazy McCain, who usually just spends most of his time insulting Trump, actually came up with an incoherent point during the Comey hearings. While managing to sound like the senile old man that he is, he meant to point out that, if one is being fair in an investigation of Russian interference in a presidential campaign, both sides should be investigated. And it's true. Go get the damn DNC servers. Treat the campaigns equally. You might just find Russian collusion on the DNC side. Or just evidence of actual crimes rather than fake made up nothing so lame you can't even point to what the crime is.

I would be angry if someone was doing this sort of witch hunt to me. And I think, for non-media type people, Trump's behavior makes sense. Sure, there's the core left who will just believe he's guilty no matter what, but I don't think they are big enough for the media to survive on.

Incidentally- as horrible as this stupid headline is, at least I could read the idiotic piece, and link to it. I'll click on a wapo headline to see what in the hell they are talking about, and the screen whites out with the pay wall reading

Obviously, you love great journalism

Or something like that. And then I close the browser window.

Sometimes, I wonder if I shouldn't implement yet another tiny, personal boycott of a particular company that appears to be spending money on all this crap I don't like.

Elections Do Not Equal the Will Of The People Getting Done

As it was shown to us in 2008 when two unacceptable candidates both accepted the outrageous bailouts that all of America was against, so it is shown today in the U.K.

Theresa May was against Brexit, but professed to be willing to do the will of the people, yet now- after the election she called- she is in a weaker position. Of course, she is weak generally, because they will assume a position of weakness, almost pathologically not recognizing their own strength over a fading EU.

But technically, she now has more political cover to screw this up. Or at least her party does.

So, perhaps we'll see a Trump like character in the U.K. in approximately 8 years- though it would be much more satisfying if the queen would do something. But the poor old royal family must feel hostage, since they basically are hostage, to that pathetic parliament.

Playing God In The Middle East

Recently Chris Byrne popped up and pointed out that Trump has an identifiable management style:

I can say, that I recognize very clearly, the pattern of someone who is used to doing just what I described here... Orienting, deciding, and acting quickly, then failing quickly, deciding and acting again, and iteratively improving... or at least trying to.

He doesn't deliberate, or delegate, once he's already involved directly, or has to make a decision.... He delegates everything possible right up until he HAS to make that decision, and then gets involved directly; makes the decision, without second guessing, and acts on it, until it fails or requires revision. Then he makes another decision, acts on it, and If it fails, it fails... and they fix it again, and again, until you fix all the problems you can find... and hopefully, you're successful.

On the one hand, it all looks like insanity. On the other, it looks a lot like Trump saw the need to roll with the military side of the globalist conspirators.

But he is also himself. And I suspect it is possible that we'll be seeing the 4d chess memes in a few years.

If Trump is doing this 'fail faster' thing, then arguably he's taken this grand tour, and ramped up the cycle everywhere he went. The failing, and flailing, is happening, and happening faster. With everyone, including enemies cycling faster, Trump gains a potential edge over the military cabal. Do they want Qatar isolated like it is now, when their bases are there?

So whatever the military plan was, it will degrade rapidly as the situation in the Middle East changes. Disputes will arise as those formerly in agreement on the narrative try to come up with new strategies. Meanwhile Trump knows his people want an end to wars. He also knows he needs to be able to control the 2018 election cycle in order to get more folks in Congress that will actually play ball with him.

These are all moving targets, but as it becomes more of a 'fail faster' process, it becomes something Trump is familiar with. It becomes his turf. He can outperform those not familiar with his game.