Sunday, July 31, 2016

La Nina Could Create a Perfect Storm for Zika

The Girl Child Arrives
Does it mean anything if we are to get a strong La Nina later this summer and into the fall? Based on recent history it does. In January of 1998 there was a record La Nina. By the summer of 98′ the water temperatures had fallen rapidly and a strong La Nina developed. 2016 is shaping up to be a perfect repeat. This is how NOAA described the 1998 hurricane season:

Time will tell if a few hurricanes are to make USA landfall. If they do, Florida is a prime target, as this year’s crop of hurricanes will likely be Atlantic born, and head for the SE coast.

If it should come to pass that Florida gets hit/brushed by a few big storms there might be some collateral damages. Florida is already flooded with rain water. The largest lake, Okeechobee, is pumping water into canals that bring the excess water to the east and west coasts. The problem is that Okeechobee is filled with phosphates from farming. The result has been a huge toxic algae blooms. Floridians accuse the Feds for the problem. The argument is that the Army Corps of Engineers has not maintained the levees/dykes around Okeechobee so that the lake can no longer be safely filled to the brim.
Also could create prime conditions for the spread of mosquitoes carrying Zika, since disease outbreaks can occur in these type of conditions.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

The Economist Stumbles Its Way to Reality

The Economist realized globalists have a problem: an inferior good.

The new political divide
Start by remembering what is at stake. The multilateral system of institutions, rules and alliances, led by America, has underpinned global prosperity for seven decades. It enabled the rebuilding of post-war Europe, saw off the closed world of Soviet communism and, by connecting China to the global economy, brought about the greatest poverty reduction in history.
Always push a globalist to make this type of argument. Most will destroy themselves rhetorically by admitting they don't care for their co-nationals and see borders as imaginary lines. The Economists recognizes the globalists are getting scorched rhetorically, but can't come up with anything of value:
Countering the wall-builders will require stronger rhetoric, bolder policies and smarter tactics. First, the rhetoric. Defenders of the open world order need to make their case more forthrightly. They must remind voters why NATO matters for America, why the EU matters for Europe, how free trade and openness to foreigners enrich societies, and why fighting terrorism effectively demands co-operation. Too many friends of globalisation are retreating, mumbling about “responsible nationalism”. Only a handful of politicians—Justin Trudeau in Canada, Emmanuel Macron in France—are brave enough to stand up for openness. Those who believe in it must fight for it.
You can make a case for NATO to a nationalist. What is noteworthy is The Economist admits globalists need to start defending NATO. Fighting terror demand co-operation, true. No nationalist has claimed it doesn't. Responsible nationalist is nationalism. As for the handful of politicians defending globalism, that's a pathetic handful.
They must also acknowledge, however, where globalisation needs work. Trade creates many losers, and rapid immigration can disrupt communities. But the best way to address these problems is not to throw up barriers. It is to devise bold policies that preserve the benefits of openness while alleviating its side-effects. Let goods and investment flow freely, but strengthen the social safety-net to offer support and new opportunities for those whose jobs are destroyed. To manage immigration flows better, invest in public infrastructure, ensure that immigrants work and allow for rules that limit surges of people (just as global trade rules allow countries to limit surges in imports). But don’t equate managing globalisation with abandoning it.
91% of Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, are on welfare. (See table A8) Even a relatively informed publication such as The Economist probably has no idea how bad the stats look. They realize the rhetoric is bad, but they don't realize that if we move them into dialectic, their argument takes a turn for the worse.
As for tactics, the question for pro-open types, who are found on both sides of the traditional left-right party divide, is how to win. The best approach will differ by country. In the Netherlands and Sweden, centrist parties have banded together to keep out nationalists. A similar alliance defeated the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in the run-off for France’s presidency in 2002, and may be needed again to beat his daughter in 2017. Britain may yet need a new party of the centre.

In America, where most is at stake, the answer must come from within the existing party structure. Republicans who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.
I comment on stories from The Economist because a friend sends them to me and they are still relatively objective for globalists. Right now, however, the globalists are still trying to figure out what is happening, while nationalists have no competition or opposition. There is only one nationalist party in most countries, if you take up nationalism you are a monopolist. The opposition also hasn't even started to try to co-opt your rhetoric. The opposition doesn't try to debate, it tries to shut up and shut out the opposition. At some point real competition will begin. Nationalism will become more popular and other parties will adopt immigration restriction or protective trade policy. The Cathedral will adapt. Until then, nationalists are inside the Cathedral's OODA loop.

Trump's Economic Policy In One Sentence

Increase the cost of access to the American market.

Trump will reduce regulations and taxes to make America wealthier, but he will also raise the cost of being outside of the American labor market.

Nothing is stopping Goldman Sachs or Google from moving their HQ overseas. If they can't or won't move overseas, then Mr. Trump is correct: the United States can charge more. The explicit support for Obama and Clinton also tells us American companies are willing to pay more for market access. They are willing to pay higher taxes, and suffer higher regulations.

Mr. Trump's goal is not a rearrangement of wealth in America, a transfer of rich to poor. Instead, he wants to grow the pie much larger, but also keep more at home. Under his policies, corporations will make far more than they would under Clinton.

Yet, most likely companies such as Google and Goldman Sachs, multinationals that are American in name only, will loudly oppose President Trump. Foreign multinationals, such as InBev, the owner of Budweiser, will play ball.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

The West As Demon

Outside In Quote Note (#269) quoting SSC:
I am pretty sure there was, at one point, such a thing as western civilization. I think it involved things like dancing around maypoles and copying Latin manuscripts. At some point Thor might have been involved. That civilization is dead. It summoned an alien entity from beyond the void which devoured its summoner and is proceeding to eat the rest of the world.
What did the West summon? Science and industry.
This is an easy distinction to miss, since demons often kill their summoners and wear their skin. But in this case, he’s become hopelessly confused without it.

...But “western medicine” is just medicine that works. It happens to be western because the West had a technological head start, and so discovered most of the medicine that works first. But there’s nothing culturally western about it; there’s nothing Christian or Greco-Roman about using penicillin to deal with a bacterial infection. Indeed, “western medicine” replaced the traditional medicine of Europe – Hippocrates’ four humors – before it started threatening the traditional medicines of China or India. So-called “western medicine” is an inhuman perfect construct from beyond the void, summoned by Westerners, which ate traditional Western medicine first and is now proceeding to eat the rest of the world.
He cites Coca-Cola and sushi as other examples.

Where SSC goes wrong is mixing Truth for Power. A thought experiment to illustrate: imagine Cathedralites can be safely and humanely captured like Pokemon and moved to a Siberian prison colony.

What parts of universal Western culture do you think survive? What goes away? Anything you believe to be universal or Truth, will bubble back to the surface. Anything that is false, and spread/supported by Cathedral power, would quickly vanish.

I suspect Coca-Cola would survive, but it's position is partially the result of power. Other countries invented sugary drinks like Coca-Cola, but they didn't have a vast network of American military bases as ports of entry into foreign markets. Had Germany or Russia won WWII or the Cold War, Americans would be drinking some other supposedly universal drink. How did sushi spread globally? Pizza? Hamburgers? I don't know for sure, but I would not be surprised to find the influence of American power. If things become popular because Americans popularize them, are Americans universally popular (like puppies), or are they universalists finding the universal truths, or are did they mostly benefit from raw power, the ability to amplify the American cultural signal and drown out competition?

America in this example is a bit like Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart decides to sell your product, it becomes a hit with sales in the millions. If Wal-Mart doesn't sell your product, it's not so easy. Wal-Mart must choose a product that sells well, otherwise it loses money, so it is always dropping bad sellers for good sellers. Yet if there are two potentially good products, and Wal-Mart only has space for one, a choice is made. Not a universal one.

SSC's main point is that in order to have this power, you have to become Wal-Mart, you end up claiming to have some universal culture because of your success, but really you are enslaved to a logistics algorithm.

Yet the "universal" values SSC mentions, such as gender norms, are slowly eroding economic and military efficiency.

P.S. Islam is a universal religion and it seems to be expanding thanks to Western technology. I expect Islam is less than 10 years away from no longer requiring suicide bombers thanks to self-driving car bombs and C4-laded drones. Is "Western" culture the boot disk for the global Caliphate? If the West is dead and replaced by a summoned demon, then this is entirely plausible and even likely if you believe Muhammed was talking to a jinn.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Cathedral In Collapse

Just in time for the convention in Philly.

This is the last stand for the cynics resistant to the signaling spiral.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

The Foreign Policy Debate Is Settled

The neocons are having fits after Trump says he'd defend NATO members based on their contributions: Donald Trump Sets Conditions for Defending NATO Allies Against Attack
Asked about Russia’s threatening activities, which have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”

“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” he added, “the answer is yes.”

Mr. Trump’s statement appeared to be the first time that a major candidate for president had suggested conditioning the United States’ defense of its major allies.
Every reporter on national security should have to read Thucydides because they have totally forgotten history.

As for Trump's statement. In a vacuum, it is stupid to condition protection within NATO because it is a mutual defense pact. If a country is in NATO, it has to be defended as a matter of fact, otherwise NATO falls apart. Trump should kick member states out of NATO immediately if they are seen as not contributing, not refuse to defend them.

The bigger issue, which has gone down the memory hole, is that the United States cannot afford the empire:
He said the rest of the world would learn to adjust to his approach. “I would prefer to be able to continue” existing agreements, he said, but only if allies stopped taking advantage of what he called an era of American largess that was no longer affordable.
Trump critics don't want to deal with any of the substance behind his 4th grade reading level statements. They can't win rebutting Trump with "Wow Just Wow," but they also don't want to debate the issue. The debate, as they say, is over. The established powers know they are running a highly unpopular foreign policy.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

System Failure

The pace of terror attacks is increasing.
The risk in the global financial system is increasing.
The risk of epidemics is increasing.
The risk of a mob riot response to a real or perceived failure of government is increasing.
Natural disasters are somewhat random, though not so random on longer time scales. Risk of earthquakes is supposedly increasing.
There's some evidence a rapid decades-long cooling phase could start soon.

Complex systems don't collapse in like a building demolition, they are worn down by multiple points of failure.

The Cathedral can barely handle one point of failure.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Black Lives Get Zika

Health experts: Zika threat is serious – and getting bigger
Top health officials warned Wednesday that the Zika virus threatens much of the Western Hemisphere, with Florida, Puerto Rico and Brazil in the crosshairs.

At a Senate hearing convened by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, three senior U.S. government experts urged Congress to pass a $1.1 billion Zika-prevention bill that has been stalled by partisan politics.

“We have made difficult decisions and redirected resources from other important public health activities to support our most critical needs,” Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told senators on a Senate Foreign Affairs subcommittee focused on the Western Hemisphere.

“These redirected funds, however, are not enough to support a comprehensive Zika response, and they divert funding from other critically important public health activities,” Frieden said.

The CDC chief criticized partisan congressional squabbling that has held up the emergency Zika funds.

“This is no way to fight epidemics,” he said.
Zika costs way more than black lives, and it will end up costing way more blacks their lives before it's over.

Saturday, July 09, 2016

While You Were Shooting

The slow burn in the background.

Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Faith in a Time of Cthulhu

Catholic care home in Belgium fined for refusing euthanasia
Judges in Belgium have fined a Catholic nursing home for refusing to allow the euthanasia of a lung cancer sufferer on its premises.

The St Augustine rest home in Diest was ordered to pay a total of €6,000 after it stopped doctors from giving a lethal injection to Mariette Buntjens.

Days later, the 74-year-old woman was instead taken by ambulance to her private address to die “in peaceful surroundings”.

Buntjens’ family later sued the nursing home for causing their mother “unnecessary mental and physical suffering”.

Diversity Training Makes People Avoid Diversity

The Problem With Diversity Training

If you don't people to do X, give them lots of training explaining how they will be fired, go to jail, get sued, lose friends, become a social pariah, cause irreversible damage if they do X wrong. This is the Ferguson Effect in the corporate HR office. It's also how we teach children not to play with fire or stick their hands in electrical sockets.

Diversity: it ain't worth it!

H/T: Outside In.

Globalists Destroy the Commons

The politics of anger
Their anger is justified. Proponents of globalisation, including this newspaper, must acknowledge that technocrats have made mistakes and ordinary people paid the price. The move to a flawed European currency, a technocratic scheme par excellence, led to stagnation and unemployment and is driving Europe apart. Elaborate financial instruments bamboozled regulators, crashed the world economy and ended up with taxpayer-funded bail-outs of banks, and later on, budget cuts.

Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.

Rather than spread the benefits of globalisation, politicians have focused elsewhere. The left moved on to arguments about culture—race, greenery, human rights and sexual politics. The right preached meritocratic self-advancement, but failed to win everyone the chance to partake in it. Proud industrial communities that look to family and nation suffered alienation and decay. Mendacious campaigning mirrored by partisan media amplified the sense of betrayal.

Less obviously, the intellectual underpinnings of liberalism have been neglected. When Mr Trump called for protectionism this week, urging Americans to “take back control” (see article), he was both parroting the Brexiteers and exploiting how almost no politician has been willing to make the full-throated case for trade liberalisation as a boost to prosperity rather than a cost or a concession. Liberalism depends on a belief in progress but, for many voters, progress is what happens to other people. While American GDP per person grew by 14% in 2001-15, median wages grew by only 2%. Liberals believe in the benefits of pooling sovereignty for the common good.
Take a man's job and then tell him not to cry about it, he can go on welfare, he will be enraged.He wants a job that pays as much or more. The bums are happy to be slaves to the corporations and banks as long as you tell them the government is in charge. They are the Cathedral's useful idiots, but America still has too few of them for the Cathedral to offset mass middle class anger.

How to create higher wages and remain competitive? The best way is to be growing so quickly that labor supply is absorbed and capital is accumulating faster than labor+productivity growth, such that capital begins bidding up wages. Then inflation risk rises as the transfer of wealth to labor accelerates. In the absence of rapid growth, restricting labor supply and support for domestic businesses in needed. There are ways to do this while maintaining a globalist posture. Low taxation and low regulation works. If foreigners subsidize their companies, then some type of general tariff may be needed, but there's a lot for globalists to implement before they would need to become explicitly nationalist in their agenda. A mildly nationalist policy would also work, which would consist of targeting key parts of industry. For example, Japan is now building jets and China will have Boeing's technology within 20 years. They require technology transfer for market access, and also require the multinational use local suppliers, which supports knowledge acquisition, capital accumulation and research. When they have accumulated enough capital, experience and technology, they cut off the foreign company. Instead of even this mild form of nationalism, the globalists instead implement policies that destroy domestic industry (Affordable Care Act being one of the latest).

Halting immigration to drive up domestic wages is a completely non-racist policy for globalists to implement. Yet is there any major globalist party anywhere in the West proposing to near halt immigration and enact a program to drive up wages? One of the arguments against Brexit was that it would make wages rise, making Britain less competitive. That's not a joke. The Remain camp openly said British people should vote to Remain to keep low skilled wages from rising. Props for honesty, but is it a surprise much of Labour's base voted to Leave?

Burning Down the Commons

Channeling The War on Social Capital, the nation is an asset. For the socialist or collectivist it is a parasitical relationship, the nation operates as a shell company through which theft of private property is made possible. The globalists treat it as if it were a local market product. USG or ROK or FRG are just brands slapped on the same global governance product. Like the factories that make corn flakes for multiple brand names, what's in the box is the same. For market differentiation, there are even more flavors available in European parliamentary democracies. You can try Italian Green Party flavored globalism.

For most people, the nation is seen as the highest collective organization. It's not there to violate individual rights, it exists to promote the "general welfare," to pursue policies that benefit the majority of the members. It is a joint asset held among the people. Every person in a democracy is to some degree a shareholder.

Where the socialist comes to steal from the rich and give to the poor, the globalist comes to steal from the poor their last remaining asset: joint "ownership" in the nation. On top of that, nearly all globalists run debt-driven growth models that steal accumulated wealth by inflation. They further open the borders to foreigners, diluting the value of existing "shares" in a rapidly depleting asset.

Economic disruption wrought by globalization destroys the value of monetary assets for many people, leaving only their non-monetary assets: nation, community and family. The value of these assets may not be rising, but as monetary assets (wages, home, 401k, less debt) depreciate, the personal balance sheet is increasingly made up of "goodwill" and intangible assets. The wealthy have capital as their largest asset; the talented have their abilities, the poorest have their family and the commons. Globalization and mass immigration destroys the commons, devaluing it by printing up more units of citizens, and often times bringing in destructive people who are given "space to destroy."

The globalists fundamentally reject the concept of group membership, of loyalty to the group, of loyalty to the nation. If globalists ran the prairie, they'd tear down fences and tell ranchers: let your cows eat as much grass as they like! They would have no sympathy for local ranchers who made private agreements and put up fences. Bring in all the cows you like, the more the merrier. It'll drive down beef prices too. Private property is a concept that we can say is human nature, but some people are weird (abnormal) and may really have no issue with private property. The globalists are also abnormal and WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) in that they lack the ability to identify with the nation. Some on the alt-right mistakenly attribute this to a subset of globalists, but all globalists are effectively a foreign tribe who view the natives as hostile. An American State Department attache views Germany as Japan as Egypt as America: they all have hostile native populations (nationalists) that need to be kept away from power so that the globalist project can continue.

It takes time, but once the money is gone, the only thing people have left are the very things the globalists want to destroy most of all. With nothing left to lose, the nationalists are willing to throw everything they have into the fight. It is said that bankruptcy happens slowly, and then all at once. The all at once phase of monetary destruction lies in the future, as does peak nationalism.

Sunday, July 03, 2016

Truth Wins

The progs think exactly the same way. They do not understand where these right-wing ideas come from.

Jesus started with 12 guys. He got killed and so did 11 of 12 apostles, with the last exiled.

Stop immigration. Make babies. Keep the kids off the poz. A victory strategy for the majority of the Alt-Right.

Today’s Inquisition is energized by a similar sense of fragility. The liberal establishment lives in terror that the people will rise in revolt. Its program has failed. After eight years of the most liberal administration in American history, most Americans believe the economy still is in recession. Labor force participation is at the lowest level since the early 1930s, and real household median income remains almost a tenth below its peak.

Half a century of affirmative action and anti-poverty programs have not lifted the fortunes of black Americans. Seventy-two percent of black children are born out of marriage. The New York Times observed, “Remarkably, black women who are 25 to 54 and not in jail outnumber black men in that category by 1.5 million. For every 100 black women in this age group living outside of jail, there are only 83 black men. Among whites, the equivalent number is 99, nearly parity.”

Even the liberal elite has suffered from liberal hegemony. What has liberal intellectual life accomplished in the past fifty years? The universities train legions of students in deconstructionist literary criticism, ethnic studies, gender studies, postcolonial studies, and similar ideology-driven claptrap. It has created an incomprehensible language in which it can talk to itself but to no one else. And it cannot find jobs for its most committed cadre.

Liberal intellectual life is a scam, a goof, a fraud, a hoax. There are no reasonable liberals to whom Christians might appeal in the name of fairness and free speech.
The breakdown of the Narrative shows Progressives can no longer prop up the Narrative with more energy. They cannot combat the signal strength of the Truth, no amount of noise will do it. So they try to stop the signal.

The Long Shadow of Brexit

This article shows how Leave won a lot of territory. Think USA presidential election map by county.
Here’s Why A Pro-EU Party Could Be Screwed At The Next General Election

Which refutes these Corbyn hate articles.

If you want a one-party state, convince Labour to dump Corbyn and run on Remain in the next election.

If you want two-party state, have a lot of Tories run on Remain as well, ceding the issue to UKIP.



Blog Archive