Radish explains what racism means

This is an old post of Radish’s, but it took a while to sink in, so now I summarize it.

Radish is replacing Moldbug, with lengthy, slow essays, that marshal all the facts without clearly pushing the conclusion, leaving a mental time bomb to slowly detonate as the implications slowly dawn.

Racism, racist, etc are new words. We did not have them before 1930 or so (earlier sightings in google ngrams appear to be false positives). Now if one looks up the official supposed meaning of “racism”, the alleged meanings are incoherent, stupid, and mutually contradictory, originally the babbling of clever sillies, now the babbling of the merely stupid. So not only did we not have a word that meant what it supposedly means, we still don’t have a word that means what it supposedly means.

Words mean what they are used to mean: When a bunch of blacks go looking for some white person to beat up, and beat the hell out of him, without bothering to steal anything:

Do progressives call them racist?
No.
Do conservatives call them racist?
No.
Do libertarians call them racist?
No.
Do reactionaries call them racist?
No.

So “racist” is merely a hostile epithet for white, same meaning as “honky” or “cracker”, a mere term of incoherent abuse, a preparation for ethnic cleansing as in Detroit, or genocide as in rural South Africa.

And that is all it ever was. All the other supposed meanings were mere rationalizations by clever sillies.

Words mean what they are used to mean. If we look at actual usage, rather than claimed usage, “racist” is merely a hostile epithet for white, preparatory to state or private violence against whites.

Tags:

123 Responses to “Radish explains what racism means”

  1. Discipline says:

    Well-said.

    What is ‘white privilege’ but a typical conspiracy theory used to blood libel some ethnic group that you intend to get rid of later? The whites have unjust privileges and unearned property, therefore we’re justified in seizing it from them. Their culture is corrupt and evil therefore we’re justified in insulting and supplanting it.

    Who knew that Serbs, Croats, and Muslims would be at one another’s throats in glorious Yugoslavia so soon after it began to fracture?

    • Zach says:

      Just heard a fella calling the absurd “white privilege” the liberal version of original sin. Whites are born racists. Just as Catholics are born sinners.

  2. Stirner says:

    Bob Whitaker and the BUGS crew have been attempting to push this point in the form of a “Mantra” they post in youtube comments and news forums.

    http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/the-white-mantra/

    The main point of it being that “Anti-racist is just a code-word for anti-white.”

    I am not sure of the efficacy of the approach, but framing diversity, immigration and cultural displacement in terms of genocide does seems to have interesting effects on weakly affiliated liberals.

    Their Anti-Racist Hitler video is a hoot as well:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDeyuM0-Og

  3. Nick Land says:

    I’m not so sure. Did you see this?
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324853704578587610461933172.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

    Money quote: “But the results for blacks are a big surprise. Blacks are more likely (by 7 percentage points) to think most blacks are racist than to think most whites are. Moreover, they are 11 points likelier than liberals (regardless of race) to think most blacks are racist, and 9 points likelier than Democrats. And blacks are 3 points less likely than liberals to think most whites are racist.”

    Outside the circles of psychotic white liberalism, the usage of ‘racism’ seems quite down-to-earth and empirically adaptable. Blacks themselves think they’re more racist than whites. The word clearly doesn’t belong to ethnomasochistic white Brahmins, even if they’s like it to.

    • Nick Land says:

      [sorry for messy speed typing — ‘they’d’ of course]

    • Discipline says:

      Blacks are permitted to observe differences in race in public. Why do whites love black comedians? Black comedians can be honest about racial differences.

      White comedians who observe racial differences will usually not make it out of local circuits these days, and even then will attract some boos, at least from an NYC crowd.

      In freshman orientation at a good Ivy league school, you’ll be exposed to bell hooks and Cornell West, and learn their definitions of racism and white privilege.

      Blacks are generally not going to get an elite education and have a different, more vulgar definition of racism.

      • Nick Land says:

        “a different, more vulgar definition of racism.” — a far more sensible, realistic one, you’d agree?

        • Discipline says:

          Less virulent, yes, more realistic, perhaps. Good elites use ‘racism’ to flagellate themselves. The degree to which you’re willing to self-mortify is the degree to which you get closer to the gods of the Brahmins.

          There’s the ‘racism’ of this show tune (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM), and the ‘racism’ that a good liberal arts kid learns about.

          Educated whites would generally almost never call a negro racist. In this, Jim’s correct. Growing up in yea, the most privileged of white privileged urban enclaves, I’ve heard my peers needle one another over ‘racism’ many times, but never in my memory have I heard one criticize blacks for racist attacks, even in the context of, say, the Crown Heights riots, which was a pogrom.

          Although I suppose that undermines my argument, because Giuliani won the mayor’s office by insinuating that Dinkins had black nationalist sympathies and that the riots were a pogrom. Giuliani restored order to the city by persecuting blacks and enforcing soft apartheid.

          It’s funny because whenever the apartheid slips, the press goes apoplectic. A Hispanic guy murdered a black homosexual in the West Village recently, and naturally, the community is in shock! What’s funny is that Greenwich Village is 83% white and 8% Asian and this little vibrant argument of glorious diversity is never supposed to happen there because the cops will usually harass/arrest NAMs who enter the area.

          Those guys were introducing real diversity into the neighborhood and now all the SWPLs are enraged.

          What’re you getting at, Nick? The definition of racism that commoners use is less politically salient than the definition that Cathedral officials and their adjuncts within racial minority communities use.

          The right-wing Louis Farrakhan uses ‘racism’ in similar ways to the left-wing bell hooks. Those poll respondents aren’t inciting people and providing moral suasion for violence against whites, so their opinions about what racism is aren’t as important, at least in my opinion.

          • Nick Land says:

            There are two obvious reactionary-inclined options:
            (a) “Racism is a code-word for anti-white”
            (b) Racism is what common sense (and ordinary people) think it is (not what Cathdral apparatchiks say). Which is to say:
            i) Average group difference are real and significant
            ii) Tribal loyalties are typical (and, reciprocally, ethical universalism an extreme anomaly)

            The (b) option seems to me to have more legs. (a) is too pointy-headed to spread much, but not intellectually rich enough to keep smart people entertained.

            • jim says:

              the b option has no legs, for if it had legs, we would have had such a word before 1930.

              If average group differences are real and significant, and tribal loyalty real, normal, and virtuous, what can “racism” possibly mean?

            • jim says:

              If racism is just awareness of reality, we don’t need a special word for it.

          • jim says:

            Giuliani won the mayor’s office by insinuating that Dinkins had black nationalist sympathies and that the riots were a pogrom. Giuliani restored order to the city by persecuting blacks and enforcing soft apartheid.

            True, but not only did he not say what he was doing because it would have been politically incorrect to say it, he could not say what he was doing because there were no words to say it with.

          • Alex J. says:

            There was no word for racism because there were no racial universalists to be contrasted to. (“extreme anomaly”) Once an influential group of people needed to point out how non-racist they were, they needed a name for all of the people who were unlike themselves.

            I gather that English people refer to the kind of faucet where two knobs control hot and cold water, but the water comes out through one spout into the sink as a “mixer tap”. Americans have both kinds of faucet, obviously, but we don’t have different names for them. (When I heard this, the point then was that Americans are richer and have less “legacy” housing.)

            • jim says:

              A plausible theory, but contradicted by observed usage. I just don’t see reports of hostility towards whites by blacks called “racist”, even when reported by white nationalists.

              The force of epithet formation simply overwhelmed the intellectual logic of making meaningful distinctions, and did so from the very beginning.

        • jim says:

          If “racism” had a realistic meaning, there would have been a word meaning the same thing before 1930.

          If there was a sensible realistic meaning for the word racism, how did we get along without such a word for the past few thousand years?

          • Nick Land says:

            Language evolves, and it’s also high resistant to political engineering. The Cathedral-endorsed meaning of ‘racism’ is being subverted from below (like ‘queer’, ‘nigger’, ‘cracker’, and innumerable other terms).
            My expectation is that we’re entering the intermediate zone:
            “… but I guess that’s super-racist.” (Shrugs and laughter)

          • Alrenous says:

            I don’t see why you can’t both be right as long you’re careful and precise about who is using the language.

            • jim says:

              Words that are epithets inexorably end up with only their epithet meaning. Their intellectual meaning becomes unreal, a mere rationalization.

              If racism meant what it supposedly meant, people would call blacks that attack whites racist, people who believe that racial differences matter would call themselves racist.

              That is how we wound up with so many words for gay.

    • jim says:

      Working class blacks are often race realists, but if a black is privileged, he is going to refer to black race realists, blacks who think that whites are, on average, smarter and less likely to engage in evil violence, blacks who think that it is safer to be a black person in a white suburb than a black person in a black suburb, as “racist”, meaning the same thing as “oreo” – black on the outside, but white on the inside.

      So that “9% more likely” is a mixture of black race realists accusing their fellow blacks of being irrationally hostile to whites, and blacks accusing their fellow blacks of being race realists.

      I don’t have data about the proportion of the mix, but with elite blacks, pretty much all them use the term “racist”, when applied to a black person, to mean “oreo”.

      • Nick Land says:

        Sometimes you’re too ingenious for your own good.

      • VXXC says:

        Equality before the Law with no racial codes whatsoever combined with rigorous Constabulary solves most problems, and is what most Americans can live with, that being what they were sold. Not current policy which is another in a line of serial betrayals by their own elites.

        Who gotta go – the elites gotta go. Quis Vincit. They’ve run out of people to fuck over. They’ve run outta money and their creating it like mad. Gotta.Go.

        =====================
        Jim – consider that if you don’t work, you’re not working class. Indeed even Prole is a bit much, it’s demeaning to actual working class proles who define themselves by being working breadwinners , something the elites seem successfully determined to deny them. Which is quite disorienting to the victims. That’s not just a fair point Jim, it’s leverage. With any “working class” people regardless of Hue.

        • jim says:

          Equality before the Law with no racial codes whatsoever combined with rigorous Constabulary solves most problems,

          But, obviously, need to profile some groups, which is not exactly equality before the law.

          Further, profiling can pretty rapidly shade into unequal application of the laws, or different laws for different groups. For example drug consumption is a very reliable indicator of bad behavior among blacks, not so much among whites. So there is an eminently practical case for enforcing prohibition on blacks and not whites.

          If you don’t want members of group X around, and you really, seriously, do not want intoxicated members of group X around, that is going to wind up looking a lot like making intoxication illegal for members of group X, but not group Y. Zimmerman did not profile Trayvon as a black, but as a black on drugs. He was obviously correct to do so.

          • VXXC says:

            Dear Sir – equality before the law combined ruthlessly enforced penalties, along with restored freedom of association and a quiet return of traditional constable powers [thrashings] has the effect you desire, if your desired effect is the return of decency and order.

            If your desired effect is Jim Crow, then it does not.

            • jim says:

              I think you have accepted the demonized account of Jim Crow. Jim Crow was not a hostile action taken against blacks to be nasty, but an early politically correct effort to elevate them and civilize them. It was, in large part, affirmative action for elite blacks, to artificially provide black leadership for blacks by protecting the best blacks from white competition.

              The core of Jim Crow was the historically black universities, and the primary intent and effect of the historically black universities was to give blacks a high level education who would not have been qualified to enter an historically white university.

  4. Matthew says:

    I am a racist.

  5. Red says:

    The question is what to do about the term. In a couple of situations I’ve just come out and said I’m racist during innuendo phase of heretic hunt. It’s been effective in shutting people up because a person calling themselves racist makes about as much sense as a man calling himself a fucking asshole. Their brains simply can’t deal with it. However, I don’t know how the HR departments would react so I’m not sure about expanding it’s use.

    • jim says:

      If you say

      “I am a racist”

      within hearing of HR, you are likely to be permanently out of a job.

      If instead you say

      “‘Racist’ is hate speech for ‘white’, it is just another word for ‘cracker”

      either their brains will not be able to process it, or, if their brains are able to process it, they will not admit that their brains are able to process it.

      • VXXC says:

        Not showing fear is something else their wonderful cognitive elite brains can’t process either.

        Now cunning by being clever, such as “Racist is a code word for cracker, a code word for white person” is perfectly within the bounds of manhood, you’re being cunning on top of not showing fear.

        Don’t get “Buffaloaded” any more. Fuck HR. Their brains can’t process an utter lack of intimidation.

        And as far as the “Das Rayciss” crowd: Mark this – if G/Z walks on NG and he should…and there are no riots….then the power of fear by dat crowd is BROKEN.

        They’re on their way out for several reasons – gays don’t like being beaten/killed, war on drugs, crime attrition, replacement by Mexicans, Obama – but they’re on their way out, and they sense they’re on their way out .

  6. Konkvistador says:

    I don’t know why you are impressed by this. It is an old white nationalist argument made many times at great lenght and tedious variations over past decades. The argument in itself seems likely correct because the Machiavelian shoe fits. But replacing Moldbug? Please, if that happens we are fked. Radish is just showing its roots (nothing wrong with that many reactionaries begun there).

    • jim says:

      Cite please.

      The argument I see white nationalists making is that that people who say they are anti racist are really anti white – a subtle but important difference.

      The distinction is that the white nationalist says “You won’t say a black mob that attacks a white guy is racist because you hate whites”

      While Radish, and now me, say “I will not say a black mob that attacks a white guy is racist, because that is not what the word racist means.”

      Big difference. The white nationalists walks into his enemy’s frame. Radish walks out of his enemy’s frame.

      The white nationalist says “When you say you are anti racist, you are lying, you are really anti white.”

      While Radish, and now me, say “When you say you are anti racist, you are telling the truth, and so is the black guy who invaded a white woman’s house to beat her up.”

  7. So the reason the word racist didn’t exist before 1930 was that virtually everyone on earth (irrespective of race) believed there were natural differences between the races that were useful (but rarely fully determinative) for predicting various, and in some cases very serious, outcomes.

    So racist is just a word that describes what was perfectly normal thinking for virtually everyone on earth in 1930.

    Since the proposition that there are natural differences between races that are useful (but rarely fully determinative) for predicting outcomes is obviously and trivially true, we could therefore see “racist” as a synonym for “logical”, “sensible”, “realistic”, “truthful”, “honest”, “correct”, and “humanitarian”.

    We’ve accepted the badge “reactionary”. We may as well accept the badge “racist”. (And while we’re at it, homophobe, misogynist, elitist, fascist, and nazi, which also are today merely terms of derision devoid of any practical meaning.)

    • jim says:

      If racist meant that, we would be more inclined to call groups of blacks that beat up white guys “racist”.

      Actual usage fails to reflect alleged meaning.

    • SMERSH says:

      “We’ve accepted the badge “reactionary”. We may as well accept the badge “racist”. (And while we’re at it, homophobe, misogynist, elitist, fascist, and nazi, which also are today merely terms of derision devoid of any practical meaning.)”

      We can’t. Racism is illegal and crime is for black people.

      If you say you are racist, you are liable to get in real legal trouble (or at least lose your job).

  8. Red says:

    This is bit off topic:
    There’s a trend with police behaving badly videos were in people will get very upset if dogs/blacks/disabled are abused by the police and are largely indifferent when middle class/lower class whites receive similar abuse. Is this the normal progressive imperative to care about people who different and hate your own kin?

    For example this is a big deal:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDBZr4ie2AE
    And this doesn’t even warrant comment:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq4JrGNFRrQ#at=38

    To my mind the second video was quite evil and the first video was typical black incompetence dealing with thuggish cops leading to his dog being shot.

    • jim says:

      Because these days everyone carries cameras everywhere all the time, lots of police bad behavior is winding up on you tube.

      It is clear that bad behavior against blacks attracts vastly more righteous indignation than bad behavior against whites, because if you attack cops for bad behavior against blacks, you are displaying loyalty to the Cathedral and denouncing the cops for insufficient loyalty to the Cathedral, whereas if you attack cops for bad behavior against whites, you are attacking the Cathedral.

  9. Zach says:

    Too bad a flash mob couldn’t have a conversation like this before it went into action:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lP_KAYsxjw

    Perhaps the biker that got the piss beat out of him would be out of range at that point.

  10. […] Radish explains what racism means « Jim’s Blog […]

  11. Samson J. says:

    What bothers me about the word “racist” is the way that it has become a noun. When I was growing up, it was an adjective, and thus held some genuine, legitimate meaning (with apologies to the OP’s thesis). Now that it has by some mysterious means become a noun, it carries the definition described in the OP.

  12. […] Donald interprets Radish’s Karl Boetel on the meaning of racism. “Racist” is an epithet. Pure and simple. Never has been anything but that. Racism […]

  13. Zach says:

    GZ a free man.

    JEW FOOLS -Mel Gibson

  14. JustSaying says:

    Note I tried to post this on Esr’s blog as follows, but he has banned me. Thought you might be interested in my logic.

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4994&cpage=1#comment-405779

    That is the most convoluted way of stating simply that racism is profiling based on race (due to a race possessing a higher mean propensity) instead of the actual measured value of an individual’s propensity.

    Racism is not stupid and rather quite rational when the individual measures of propensity are not available, such as when I venture into the hood. And if you are truly concerned about individual freedom, then you must recognize that even if the probability of an individual measure points to a higher propensity, it doesn’t insure it is independent of another measure of dis-propensity which an individual might posses. The myopia of statistics is what was not sampled.

    • jim says:

      How did you get banned?

      I want to get banned from his blog in a way that obviously violates his purported principles, so that I can dismiss him to the category of evil commie nazi hypocrites pretending to libertarianism and/or anarcho capitalism while actually sucking progressive dick, people with no enemies to the left and no friends to the right, who therefore hate their friends and love their enemies. The fact that he has occasional signs of principle bothers and confuses me. For the sake of moral clarity I would like to poke him so that he is forced to react in a such a way that he has to know he has chosen the dark side.

      I don’t want to get banned. I want to get wrongfully banned. It makes things so much simpler and easier if you force your enemies to come out under enemy flags.

      • Alrenous says:

        Tolerance of cognitive dissonance is probably mainly genetic and thus it may be that ESR has less tolerance of it than his position demands, and thus a real thought escapes from time to time.

        Can I get examples of his principles? Preferably two or three?

        • jim says:

          I think he is unlikely to agree with my interpretation of his principles – as you said, he suffers considerable cognitive dissonance.

          • Alrenous says:

            Sure, but I’m not asking him what his principles are, I’m asking you what you think are flashes of principle from him. I’m asking because I’m not sure what you mean, and it might be useful to me.

            • jim says:

              His criticism of the beatification of Saint Martin Trayvon was entirely accurate, informative, and appropriate.

              On the other hand, I am disturbed by his stubborn and entirely circular demonization of Victorian beliefs on race. If the Victorians were demonic, it logically follows that poor Saint Trayvon deserves beatification for his cruel martyrdom at the hands of white privilege.

              People seem to be trying to find some middle position between “Jim Crow was good for blacks, and slavery at least sometimes justified for some people”, and bowing down in worship before the holy bones of martyred Saint Trayvon, but no middle position is logically consistent. If Trayvon needed killing, people like Trayvon were better off enslaved. If you take the first step on the path that led to leftism, each subsequent step logically follows.

              Leftism was only made tolerable by a collection of ad hoc unprincipled exceptions, and, as we progress to ever truer leftism, each unprincipled exception gets rightly repudiated as hypocrisy. If men are equal to women, men are interchangeable with women, if men interchangeable with women, then men claiming to be lesbians in women’s toilets. So, nineteenth century female emancipation implies a man claiming to be a lesbian waving his little man around the ladies toilet.

              If, on the other hand, you have a problem with a man claiming to be a lesbian waving his little man around the ladies toilet, you have to give fair consideration to the proposition that female emancipation was evil and insane, treat it as a factual issue about the nature of men, women, sexual desire, and marriage, rather than a self evident moral truth.

          • Alrenous says:

            I see, thanks.

            Well, ESR clearly believes the Victorians were different than the Victorians actually were. He probably has some strong and important (maybe even true) position that is (invalidly) justified by demonic Victorians, and thus he can’t allow himself to consider that he might be wrong. Of course he knows better than to bring up this idea anywhere near a debate about Victorians.

            I guess I’ll have to read his bits about the Victorians. I usually ignore his side of the debate – I just get too embarrassed for him.

            The middle ground between Saint Trayvon and The South Was Right is simply hold people responsible.

            “There’s enough evidence that he committed burglary to convict him in a court.”

            Similarly, all the crimes in the Radish newsletter you linked were committed by people who should already have had a lifelong jail residency. What’s amazing isn’t the number of blacks in jail, but the number that aren’t in jail.

            I don’t agree with involuntary slavery. However, in general, the point stands. It has to be slavery, or lifelong jail, or execution. I expect given the choice, the potential executees would probably pick slavery. But I would give them the choice.

            You say we have to profile because individual evidence isn’t available. Actually, it’s available. Find me one of these horrific crimes committed by someone without a feet-long rap sheet, and I might change my mind.

            The idea is that you don’t have to let the rap sheet get that long. Take the three strikes rule serious, and it would prevent dozens of crimes per convict all by itself.

            I very strongly suspect blacks know they’re not being held responsible, and are being irresponsible as a result. The Ashantee empire shows that they can be disciplined, and the fact that they’re not being discipined even by white standards is almost certainly relevant.

            • jim says:

              The middle ground between Saint Trayvon and The South Was Right is simply hold people responsible.

              Australian progressives have found that it is huge problem allowing Australian aboriginals to drink. If you see a full blood Australian aboriginal drinking, he is going to commit a crime and probably has already committed several crimes.

              Treating everyone as they deserve is hard. Sometimes, people fit a profile, and people who fit that profile make life intolerable, so you just don’t want anyone who fits the profile around.

              The progressive elite in New York found too many black people inside their bubble, so they did something about it, because a significant proportion of those black people caused problems, and they wanted those problems to go away.

              If you ignore blackness as part of the profile, you are suffering for superior holiness, you are making a sacrifice to the gods and priesthood of your enemies. And then they destroy you.

            • jim says:

              You say we have to profile because individual evidence isn’t available. Actually, it’s available. Find me one of these horrific crimes committed by someone without a feet-long rap sheet, and I might change my mind.

              If we could get by without profiling, New York and Australia would not be profiling on race. Progressives in Australia are full of progressive rationales for profiling. Supposedly, they are not applying different laws by race, but by residence – but when US banks and South Africa used that rationale, progressives were unimpressed.

              More to the point, if we stop profiling by race, we should also stop profiling by age and drug consumption. People who propose to stop profiling by drug consumption are bubble residents, and people who propose to stop profiling by age are pretty much insane.

              If we refuse to profile by race, we are making a sacrifice on the holy altars of a priesthood that hates us and intends our destruction.

          • Alrenous says:

            I suppose for completeness I should mention that profiling is fine for individuals. You don’t have the rap sheet on hand, nor my own peculiar skill in soul-reading.

            Also for completeness, what about people with feet-long rap sheets who don’t commit terrible atrocities? I do kind of wonder what the proportion is. Nevertheless, crime is bad, lock them up anyway.

            • jim says:

              We profile because there are dangerous people around and we cannot soul read.

              Laws against drugs, laws against young people carrying alcohol, are profiling laws. If men with guns are going to profile on youth, alcohol and drugs, why not profile on blackness? Truth is, no one is very worried about middle class people on drugs. They are legitimately worried about underclass people on drugs, and they are a lot more legitimately worried about underclass black people on drugs. If you see a black man on drugs, it is totally legitimate to want him out of circulation. If you see a black female on drugs, it is totally reasonable to consider her rape proof for lack of chastity. We absolutely should not allow blacks to buy Robitussin over the counter. We absolutely should allow affluent respectable middle class people to buy cocaine over the counter.

          • Alrenous says:

            ESR refuses to engage with your sources and resorts to ad-hominem. Clear signs of panic and fear.

            This is probably related to his self-image as Hacker Alpha. He can’t admit he’s factually wrong about something in public. Especially if the person who told him is by him considered low status.

            It would similarly imply he was fooled when he was young; that he is less epistemically competent than he wants to believe. Someone as smart as ESR is not going to miss these implications.

            Instead he’ll miss the implications that admitting you’re wrong means you just became more right. More competent.

          • Alrenous says:

            Okay, so quadruple comments are a bit silly, but what can I say, I need an edit button. I’ll forget if I don’t post this now, and I won’t post if I attempt to wait and incorporate all these into one thing.

            I’d like to see an article on government as tribe. I buy the bit about Madoff and Corzine, because I’m somewhat familiar and it’s what I would expect. I haven’t heard any details about Saudi Arabia.

          • Alrenous says:

            I have this vignette in my head of Madoff and/or Corzine meeting some of the actual inner party for lunch, where they promise certain political contributions. The lunch goes well and Madoff heads off thinking he’s in the clear, regulatorily speaking. But when push comes to shove, he gets jacked. He calls his contacts and finds that none of them were allies. Oops.

            Incidentally this is also where I think your elites-are-stupid model breaks down. Sub-elites are indeed dumb and getting dumber, but there’s that glass ceiling between them and those really in charge. I’d rather hear about Arabia than argue about this, though. Just be aware of the idea and keep your eyes open.

            • jim says:

              But Madoff was protected until he just could not bring in ever increasing numbers of fresh investors to pay off the old investors. His ponzi scheme self destructed by itself, and then his protection went away.

              Jon Corzine pissed away other people’s money on virtue expenditures. He is fine. He purchased political influence with other people’s money. The elite love him and continue to protect him. The very wealthy, or formerly very wealthy, people whose money he stole do not, but are powerless to do anything about it. He still has protection.

          • Alrenous says:

            “he is going to commit a crime and probably has already committed several crimes.”

            ‘Already committed’ So, go find them?

            “If we could get by without profiling, New York and Australia would not be profiling on race.”

            Laziness and that fallacy that needs a name where if something can be done a certain way, it seems as if it can only be done that way. Their thought process only admits of standard law or racist law as possibilities.

            “we should also stop profiling by age and drug consumption.”

            Yup.

            “stop profiling by age are pretty much insane.”

            Lots of people call me insane. It isn’t an argument when a proggie does it and it isn’t when you do it.

            You seem to refuse to see the middle ground between not enforcing the laws and profiling.

            The middle ground is to profile suspicion. If indeed these profiles suggest propensity for crime, then direct investigation there and you’ll find crime. Or not, if not.

            (And to actually enforce laws. And to use punishments that in fact deter or incapacitate.)

            In other words, you’re committing the exact same fallacy but in the other direction. That won’t help. To assume these profiles prove innocence is as epistemically vicious as to assume they prove guilt.

            Similarly, if certain profiles are really so intolerable, you don’t need to make these profiles illegal. You just have to legalize freedom of association again. Neighbourhoods have to use dollars to keep out undesirables only because it is illegal to do it on purpose.

            If the proggies are correct, the neighbourhoods who profile will suffer, relatively.

            If you’re right, then what, investigating the profiled will not find crime, even though they’ve committed some? If so, how do you double-check the profiles in the first place?

            (Or: Anglo-Saxon Common Law. It fuckin’ works, bitches.)

            • jim says:

              “If we could get by without profiling, New York and Australia would not be profiling on race.”

              “Laziness and that fallacy that needs a name where if something can be done a certain way, it seems as if it can only be done that way. Their thought process only admits of standard law or racist law as possibilities.”

              I don’t think they are being lazy.

              Consider the alternative: Allow blacks to get drunk, then lock them up when they kill, rape, and burn. This was unacceptable on two grounds: Too much killing, raping, and burning, (which they did not worry much about, because the victims were usually black) and they had to lock up far too many blacks (which they did worry about). Banning black alcohol consumption required imprisoning far fewer people.

              Indeed this is precisely their rationale – that the white people are making blacks behave badly by plying them with evil demon rum.

              I am pretty sure Australian progressives are suffering spiritual agonies, about what is obviously a “racist” law – a law that not very furtively treats black alcohol consumption differently from white alcohol consumption. They would not have done it if there had been a realistic alternative.

            • jim says:

              Similarly, if certain profiles are really so intolerable, you don’t need to make these profiles illegal. You just have to legalize freedom of association again. Neighbourhoods have to use dollars to keep out undesirables only because it is illegal to do it on purpose.

              So because we cannot penalize a drunken gang of young black underclass males for being young, drunk, black, and underclass, we will ban middle class blacks who have the means to buy a house from buying houses in our neighborhood.

          • JustSaying says:

            @jim

            he suffers considerable cognitive dissonance.

            All of us do.

            No one is omniscient, because the universe is not finite. And it is impossible to perfectly isolate just a portion of the signal in spacetime and make it independent from infinity in the frequency domain. Thus logic and correlation are never complete truths. Godel’s incompleteness theorem applies.

          • JustSaying says:

            @jim
            Imagine what happens when fledgling anarcho-capitalism and rising interest rates render statism impotent for some period of time. So then arguments about what the collective should do vis-a-vis race is moot– every man (tribe) will fend for itself. Those who excel won’t have time to waste disciplining based on race, they will simply move away from the problem area so they can be productive. The ghetto will spread and be chaotic, and there will be no resources to organize it. The fault I find in your logic is you argue against the least common denominator outcomes of collectivism (e.g. feminism, anti-racism victimization, etc), yet you only need this argument while collectivism is able to enslave the individualists.

            I abandoned collectivism long ago, because I excel individually instead of wasting my time complaining about collectivism.

            ESR’s correct point seems to be that those who focus on racist causes and solutions are collectivist losers.

            As an individual, I won’t ignore race, because I don’t have their individual profile of IQ, legitimacy, etc.. But I won’t seek anti-anti-racism as you do.

            • jim says:

              You observe that whenever a black is intoxicated, he will probably commit a crime.

              You observe that any large group of young black males hanging out together will probably commit some act of vandalism and theft, and also probably a hate crime against some random white.

              You see, in your street, near your house, which you own, and have spent a lot of money on, a house which contains your wife and children, a large group of young black intoxicated males.

              Should you move out or they be moved out?

              Because one or the other is going to happen.

              Refusal to profile is a recipe for being ethnically cleansed by those who do profile.

              Refusal to profile has made white housing unaffordable in the US, and is preventing family formation. It has made air travel unbearable.

            • jim says:

              Those who excel won’t have time to waste disciplining based on race,

              Blacks can only thrive under considerably stricter discipline than whites.

              they will simply move away from the problem area so they can be productive.

              Moving away from problem areas got us into the present situation where white family formation is impossible to afford. Time to make problem areas move away from us.

          • JustSaying says:

            You are conflating issues. Although housing is more expensive in white exclusive areas, housing prices in general are inflated because of pulling demand forward by 30 years with 30 year mortgages. The house-to-gold price ratio will return to 5 – 10 after this dead-cat bounce (due to capital fleeing bonds, Europe, and Japan) which will die circa 2016 as the strong dollar and higher interest rates choke the global economy. See Martin Armstrong’s blog for complete understanding.

            So many whites are going to end up in the ghetto because they did not obtain high tech skills and the global economy is moving to robotics and automation– most other jobs can be eliminated, e.g. computers than drive and answer phones intelligently.

            I simply don’t believe you can perfect society along groups of race, because as you admitted about the Dunbar number and the flexibility required by free markets and Coase’s theorem (2nd law of thermo)– the number is too large.

            I pay $300 per month for awesome house in mountain where natives live in a third world country and they don’t even steal if I leave something outside while I am away. Individuals can find individual solutions, and they will do so only when the government and debt stops paying for them not to do so.

            That is why I am working on anarcho-capitalism, so as to destroy these dysfunctions of collective, so individuals will have to be responsible for themselves.

            As for roots of wife and kids, education will move to online education and home schooling. Jobs will be virtual and high tech and individualized contracting. Families can seek alternatives to the morass of socialism in the west which is about to implode into chaos.

            There is no solution for the majority. The individuals have to decide if they will be in the minority that prospers or the majority that self-culls.

            P.S. see your recent two Bitcoin blogs, I have new highly technical comments there awaiting your review.

            • jim says:

              You are conflating issues. Although housing is more expensive in white exclusive areas, housing prices in general are inflated because of pulling demand forward by 30 years with 30 year mortgages.

              The supply of safe housing suitable for raising kids is what it is, which is to say, not much. For it to be greater, have to push back undesirables.

              One of my sons decided to move out of California to Nova Scotia to get married and buy a house in which to raise children, because he considers the whole state is turning into a third world hell hole, and no one wants to raise children there for that reason. So he has been wandering around Nova Scotia getting advice, and asking about “unfavorable ethnic trends”, which is PC talk for the risk of getting ethnically cleansed out of the house after he buys it. To buy a nice house, a big house with magnificent views and lots of land, about one hundred thousand. To buy the same house without risk of getting ethnically cleansed, three hundred thousand.

              I pay $300 per month for awesome house in mountain where natives live in a third world country

              I also live in a paradise overlooking a tropical sea – but most people cannot make money in such locations.

              Fleeing can never be an option for most whites. Only a tiny proportion can successfully flee. If large numbers attempt to flee, we become refugees.

          • JustSaying says:

            A welfare state and widespread debt destroys society, regardless of racial homogeneity.

            You are conflating the repetitive failure of collectives (i.e. the ideal of top-down control) and abuse of debt with race.

            The coming implosion of the welfare after 2016 which will cut off the funding for the unproductive races, will also impoverish the whites who can’t currently move away.

            Only a collective or debt can promise what has never existed. Your dystopian (fictional utopia a la Hitler’s) ideal of safe middle class communities for all whites never existed even for homogeneous white nations over any extend period of centuries. All societies (regardless of racial homogeneity) have inequality (and using massive debt to make it appears not so, only makes the blow back worse), because humans are not equally productive.

            A collective mixed with lower IQ races, is probably going to be even more expensive. Nevertheless your ideal of a collective of whites managed top-down (to keep out other races, etc) is still going to be dysfunctional because some whites are less productive than others, and through the collective and debt they will demand and obtain more than their earning power.

            An example of the dystopian ideal of a collective of whites where the unproductive are rewarded more than the productive, note France, Spain, and Italy have accumulated more net assets per capita than Germany.

            Blaming the repetitive failure of top-down social systems on race is extremely irrational. Top-down social systems are inherently cyclical, because they promise what isn’t earned.

            To a hammer everything is a nail. To an unobjective racist, statism == racial integration.

            • jim says:

              Your dystopian (fictional utopia a la Hitler’s) ideal of safe middle class communities for all whites never existed even for homogeneous white nations over any extend period of centuries

              Safe white communities were completely normal, were affordable to all whites. Safe middle class white communities were completely normal, were affordable to all middle class whites, until the 1960s, when they started to become less and less affordable. Why not affordable now?

              It is highly abnormal that the poor live in the center of cities, and the affluent on the outskirts. This is a result of a history of black people ethnically cleansing white people, and white people building new suburbs, from which they get ethnically cleansed in turn. The normal system is that the richer you are, the less your commute.

            • jim says:

              You are conflating the repetitive failure of collectives (i.e. the ideal of top-down control) and abuse of debt with race.

              Whites did not flee detroit because of abuse of debt.

          • JustSaying says:

            I’ve seen you write about how inferior races have more of the faulty mortgage loans. The Europe example I cited is to refute the claim that the USA would have avoided the creeping socialism if we had a super-majority of whites.

            Unobjective racism is a way for you to escape reality and dream about a utopia that can’t exist (even if you were the King).

            My racism is bounded at the limits of rationality, i.e. if I don’t know an individual’s IQ, legitimacy, etc.. I may infer the average of their race in moments of expedient need. When afforded the luxury of non-expediency, I may look for clues of individual excellence.

          • JustSaying says:

            Safe white communities were completely normal, were affordable to all whites.

            Aliasing error (because the sampling period was insufficient which is the mathematical dual of the Nyquist rate was too low). Proof is this has never existed stably over centuries.

            Collectivism failure exists over and over again in history regardless of homogeneity of (the white or any) race.

            For brief period of time, post-WW2 there was a semblance of utopia, but now we see it was just the early stage of the exponential collective dystopia.

            Why not affordable now?

            Because collectivism has misallocated capital (human lives).

            One of a zillions of example manifestations, look at the college debt situation with most having degrees that will be useless in the coming hitech revolution (3D printing, automation, nanotech, biotech, etc).

            It is highly abnormal that the poor live in the center of cities, and the affluent on the outskirts. This is a result of a history of black people

            No it is a result of debt pulling earnings forward by 30 years to stimulate building, and it is cheaper to build flat than vertical, especially when the collective is funding the highways with more debt.

            The normal system is that the richer you are, the less your commute.

            The suburb dwellers aren’t rich, they are bankrupt with debt once the value of the homes plummet to 5 to 10 times the gold price. This will accelerate anew after 2015.75.

            Also communication efficiency has improved with teleconferencing, the internet, and private jets (even timesharing of the jets for millionaires).

            Whites did not flee detroit because of abuse of debt.

            They fled because Detroit had a near mono-economy around car industry, which died.

            A luxury that people do not have when establishing a safe place to raise their children.

            Yeah if you can’t borrow as much as the others who are moving into shiny suburbs (and the debt drove the prices skyhigh), then you can’t move there.

            But if you (and your mate) are flexible and have a hitech skill in high demand and can market yourself well as a virtual contractor, you can live in many places in the world which are safe for children and much less inflated by debt. That is if the the debt and collective system didn’t so badly skew your priorities that you did not pursue this direction in your career education.

            Besides the less debt inflated price you pay for housing, the less worried you have to be about the value imploding later when those who can’t get credit move in.

            You see it is all about debt.

            • jim says:

              Safe white communities were completely normal, were affordable to all whites.

              Aliasing error (because the sampling period was insufficient

              Whites have never before in human history been ethnically cleansed, except by other whites. The normal historical rule is that the whiter race forces the less white race to move over and takes their stuff.

            • jim says:

              Why not affordable now?

              Because collectivism has misallocated capital (human lives).

              You piously assert abstract verbs without concrete meaning.

              If you look at the price of houses, that one suburb is substantially more expensive than another, it is obvious that the problem is ethnic cleansing and the threat thereof. Blacks are taught in school that it is their duty and right wage race war, whites taught the opposite, race war ensues, whites lose. Ethnic cleansing deprives whites of houses and security to build them. Houses become expensive. Environmentalism restraining urban growth is also a factor. Blacks remove some of the supply, environmentalists prevent new supply from being created.

          • JustSaying says:

            And that is what is happening now. The whiter banksters are getting rich on the backs of all these fools who idolize the collective.

            • jim says:

              The money was not lost on white banksters: Most the money was pissed away on politically correct loans – Angelo Mozillo lending to blacks and Hispanics, Jon Corzine guaranteeing Greek debt. Only a minute proportion stuck to the fingers of Mozillo and Corzine. They were buying political influence through political correctness, rather than directly stealing money.

          • JustSaying says:

            You piously assert abstract verbs without concrete meaning.

            I understand it sounds like I’m just pulling it out of my arse, perhaps this is because I have a deep understanding that I can’t explain completely in a short blog comment. I will blog about it someday, if I have time.

            Misallocation of human capital means that availability of debt causes people to take paths with their lives which are not optimally tuned because debt attempts to pull the future into the present, but life is dynamic and requires incremental dynamic annealing (as in simulated annealing, i.e. knowledge is accretive and anneals) in real-time in order to be optimally organized.

            I thought I made it clear already that blacks can’t get credit, thus when they move into an area the prices deflate from their credit induced false values, to a value that can be paid from actual earnings. Whites borrow (falsely increasing demand by spending the future 30 years of earnings in the present) to drive the prices of their communities skyhigh.

            Btw, did you see the Chinese are buying up Detroit, as predicted by Martin Armstrong’s Pi model. Capital flows in response to debt cycles are much more powerful than race. Chinese have higher IQs (105) than Anglo-Saxons (100).

            If you look at the price of houses, that one suburb is substantially more expensive than another, it is obvious that the problem is ethnic cleansing and the threat thereof.

            Again, to a hammer everything is a nail. Correlation is not cause and effect. You know this very well since your career is in cryptography.

            P.S. I won’t be able to continue this discussion forever, because I have too much more productive work to do and I assume you are not open to discovering new truths on an issue which you see some race correlation (because of your subjective bias of the omnipotence of race). Remember correlation is not cause and effect. Thanks for the discussion.

          • JustSaying says:

            Whites have never before in human history been ethnically cleansed, except by other whites. The normal historical rule is that the whiter race forces the less white race to move over and takes their stuff.

            And that is what is happening now. The whiter banksters are getting rich on the backs of all these fools who idolize the collective.

            The money was not lost on white banksters: Most the money was pissed away on politically correct loans – Angelo Mozillo lending to blacks and Hispanics, Jon Corzine guaranteeing Greek debt. Only a minute proportion stuck to the fingers of Mozillo and Corzine. They were buying political influence through political correctness, rather than directly stealing money.

            Whites have more in loans globally than non-whites. This is why the global economy will be destroyed soon.

            Indeed debt destroys the debtors (“pissed away”), including all those whites such as your son if he takes out a loan to buy a house now before the big crash of the global economy circa 2016.

            The financial and political elite remain in power, e.g. include Warren Buffet and many others in your list.

            • jim says:

              Indeed debt destroys the debtors (“pissed away”), including all those whites such as your son if he takes out a loan to buy a house now before the big crash of the global economy circa 2016.

              I expect a hyperinflationary crisis, rather than a deflationary crisis. We are experiencing a bubble in fiat money.

          • JustSaying says:

            I meant including many others NOT in your list of the lower players (fall guys). The point is the middle class is being destroyed by debt and the financial and power elite don’t care as long as they maintain theirs.

            Btw, the Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ at 110. And anecdotally they seem to have a disproportionate share of the financial elite. For readers, blacks are at 70 or 80 (I forgot) and aboriginals are lower.

            • jim says:

              No, the middle class is not being destroyed by debt. What is destroying it is that the cost of middle class education and housing is going up faster than middle class incomes are going up.

              Also, higher education, which used to be the defining middle class characteristic, is becoming more expensive and is selecting less on ability – less valuable and more expensive.

              The cost of middle class housing is going up because of ethnic cleansing of whites and because of restrictions on development.

          • JustSaying says:

            In your example of upthread about your son, the reason the $100,000 house can decline locally so much in price (independent of a decline in the national GDP) is two-fold. The non-whites can encroach bringing increased crime, and the $100,000 was higher than what the whites could afford if they couldn’t get debt. The blacks unable to get debt, pay only what they earn (or get in welfare).

            THE USE OF DEBT BY WHITES IS WHAT CAUSES THE DRASTIC PRICE DROP. NOT RACE. Even with encroachment, if whites paid only out of current earnings and savings, then they would not pay $100,000 for that house in the same community, rather probably more on the order of $30,000 (i.e. 5 – 10 times the gold price, which is where housing goes to when debt disappears)

            Whites can gate their $100,000 community, just as the $300,000 white community likely does. But the $100,000 level is not rich enough to create private schools, parks, and thus a large enough community-wide moat to prevent encroachment.

            Now imagine there is no welfare (i.e. no national debt). The problematic non-whites wouldn’t be able to encroach, because their earning power would fall so low they can’t even afford to rent in a $30,000 priced area.

            Even if you remove all the problemmatic non-whites, there is still the problemmatic whites who use debt to drive up the asset values, spend (misallocate) the increased (illusionary, temporal) equity, and then the whole thing comes crashing down. Three current examples are Europe, Japan, and China, all extremely white.

            So race is not the fundamental driver here. The fundamental driver is debt and statism. Is that still arguable?

          • JustSaying says:

            Indeed debt destroys the debtors (“pissed away”), including all those whites such as your son if he takes out a loan to buy a house now before the big crash of the global economy circa 2016.

            I expect a hyperinflationary crisis, rather than a deflationary crisis. We are experiencing a bubble in fiat money.

            This is an egregious error that is going to cost you and/or your son dearly. Jim let me try to help you, because I think you desire to be rational and I think your intentions are good (you just want safe communities and production) despite your errors. Also I think once you understand, you might temper the racism to the more narrow realm that is applies objectively.

            THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ENTIRE WORLD CASE (i.e. reserve currency) THAT RESOLVED IN HYPERINFLATIONARY OUTCOME. Never. Never! Never as in never. All cases of hyperinflation occur to smaller nations that lose the confidence of the global community which then pulls all capital out.

            Even Rome was deflationary at the end 500 A.D. (in spite of an inflationary crisis about 300 A.D.).

            The reason is because the there is nothing to run to. Hyperinflation occurs when there is another liquid asset to run to and everyone runs. Gold is not liquid enough with a $4T marketcap, given the hedge funds alone have $20T, and the total debt of the world is $200T (debt is money in our current monetary system).

            Martin Armstrong has explained this in great detail on his blog (every body on Wallstreet reads him, but nobody quotes because their game would be revealed) and he has called every major turn in the markets correctly since 1987, because he understands international capital flows better than any other human on the planet.

            As I explained in great detail in the one email I sent you (I won’t “spam” you again unless you ask me for more info), what is happening right now is Europe, Japan, and China are collapsing, so the capital of those countries is starting to flee to the dollar and the USA. This is why commodities (and China’s stock market) have diverged from the DJIA.

            So the Fed is starting to see this as a bubble (it is) and it preparing to taper QE. This will accelerate and eventually the rest of the world will be crashing while the USA is still going up due to capital flows into the safe haven from the rest of the world. The has a feedback loop, because much of QE went to the developing world as dollar loans (never mind that the reserves sat at the Fed, we are talking leverage here on those reserves). So the rest of the world owes in dollars and thus is short dollars, as capital flees to dollar making dollar stronger, thus the rest of world needs more dollars to service loans, so crashes faster, so capital flees faster and so on into the abyss we go.

            This will cause interest rates to skyrocket (already started) and so by 2015.75 (Sept), the USA will begin to collapse because the real economy will be suffocated by this rise in interest rates, even while the dollar assets had been going up due to these inflows from rest of world. This is what happen just before 1929 where the capital of rest of world was pouring into the USA causing the roaring 20s with bubbles in Florida.

            Then it will all collapse into deflation. Forget about the Fed printing. The Fed is already going around telling the major banks it won’t bailout trading losses, and the deposits are going to take second priority to the derivatives, thus the Fed is planning on a total deflationary wipeout.

            The G20 will go ballastic with taxes and tax everything, including Spain now taxing sunlight. They will hunt everything down.

            It has to be this way. Because the elite never give up their power. Never. And the middle class has no where to run to.

            And so yes, the middle class is destroyed by debt.

            No, the middle class is not being destroyed by debt.

            Another egregious error. Yes it is for the reasons I stated above and also because use of debt forces statism which brings on the top-level promotion and manipulation of the special interests, e.g. welfare, feminism, anti-racism, regulations so motivated, etc.. The reason statism is forced by debt is because debt requires a top-down (political, not asset) backstop, because on a non-fractional reserve gold standard there can’t be debt.

            Also, higher education, which used to be the defining middle class characteristic, is becoming more expensive

            Because of student loans pulls future earning power into the present driving the price of education skyhigh. Law of supply and demand.

            • jim says:

              THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ENTIRE WORLD CASE (i.e. reserve currency) THAT RESOLVED IN HYPERINFLATIONARY OUTCOME. Never. Never!

              The original paper money, Chinese paper money, was issued by an empire that ruled the known world.

              The Roman empire 300 AD had a hyperinflationary fiat crisis. The Roman empire 500 AD had a deflationary crisis because no one would take imperial fiat money.

              If it was true that there has never been a world currency that resolved in hyperinflation, we would still be using that currency.

          • JustSaying says:

            You have provided no counter example. No empire has ever collapsed with hyperinflation. As you admit, Rome survived the inflationary crisis and only collapsed with deflation when the people abandoned the currency and the city too. Hyperinflation is where a country can’t sell its bonds and pays its bills by printing money. The key difference is that in hyperinflation you can get more fiat for your gold. In deflation, you get less fiat, or you don’t want the fiat because no one will accept it anymore at any valuation. Deflation is the state vs. the people madmax scenario, hyperinflation is running on a treadmill where people lose confidence but the government is not attacking the people, rather just printing money to fund its operations in an exponential spiral. You will pray for hyperinflation, when you see what is coming to us. You don’t understand that Rome had a two-tier money system. You can’t argue with Martin Armstrong, he has spent $millions on researching the history of world. He spent $million just to create a chart of the silver price during the Roman era, by collecting every silver coin from the era. He had researchers compile information from the media archives in London and else where. Read How Empires Die.

            Note the empire rotates around the world from Europe to America to Asia. USA is peaking and Asia is next up. Britian handed it to USA, but we had our 1929 at the handoff, and China will have its 1929 in 2016.

            China wasn’t an empire when they hyperinflated, they were an isolated Yuan Dynasty in middle ages or the socialist failure of the Republic of China in the 1940s.

            • jim says:

              You have provided no counter example. No empire has ever collapsed with hyperinflation

              But every fiat money has – there are no ancient fiat money’s surviving.

          • JustSaying says:

            There was a point I forget to make and also a typo.

            You don’t understand that Rome had a two-tier money system, and the people abandoned their land and the currency, because of the onerous taxes that had to be paid in the first tier currency that wasn’t debased!! The G20 is going to hunt everyone down and tax them to death. You can’t argue with Martin Armstrong, he has spent $millions on researching the history of world. He spent $10 million just to create…

            • jim says:

              Rome fumbled its way into two tier money system because people stopped accepting worthless money. The same is going to happen here. Rome did not fall from hyperinflation, and neither did the Chinese empire – but fiat failed.

          • JustSaying says:

            My prior explanation didn’t pointedly clarify what is different from hyperinflation and the deflation where people discard the fiat (for anything they can until no one will accept it). In both cases, there is deflation relative to the value of hard assets (e.g. gold and land that wasn’t fiat financed overvalued, e.g. undeveloped rural land that banks won’t get loans for).

            The pointed distinction is that in the hyperinflationary case the government prints 10,000, 100,000, 1 million notes (or physically debased the physical coin to the same effect). Thus you see the value of gold go to 10,000, 100,000, etc. You will not see $100,000 dollar notes during this crisis.

            The debasement of storing QE generated reserves at the Fed by the banks, caused massive dollar loans (leveraged on those reserves) in the developing world (not in the USA). Now those (fractional reserve created) dollars are returning home causing this bounce in the USA that will end 2015.75 because of the feedback loop effect I described upthread. That feedback loop is causing rest of world to collapse in deflation.

            At the death of the empire, the powers that be maintain control by squeezing the middle class between inflation and deflation simultaneously. The currency is debased (but not exponential spiral unless they create a two-tier currency where the monetary unit for paying taxes isn’t debased, note even 500 A.D. Roman coin was only debased 1/50, not 1/100,000) while increasing taxes. The middle class eventually disappears and flees the cities where the powers are extracting unlivable taxes, to places where they can produce without interference of the pathological end-game of statism.

            The key difference is there is no state to run to with the collapse of the global empire, you can only run away to the mountains (the Madmax outcome depending on how the handoff from one empire to the next transpires, hopefully we won’t get a Dark Ages this time, probably not because Asia is so rich in billions of educated youth with good family values that the western empire hasn’t destroyed yet). Whereas, with hyperinflation, you can run to another state and its currency and continue functioning normally.

            The global empire collapses in deflation and then the center of the empire transfers to where there isn’t this huge statism taxing the economy, i.e. as Heritage Foundation data shows Asia (including China) has much lower government share of GDP than the West (with the exception of Switzerland). I explained why China and Asia are the future.

            • jim says:

              Rome during and after Diocletian attempted to tax above the Laffer limit. If people will not work, said they, we will make them work. Economy collapsed and population declined. It was extremely unpleasant, and the collapse of empire did not make things better.

          • JustSaying says:

            Anarcho-capitalism is the technical mountains this time around. 😉

            You were there at the beginning with Satoshi. Now stay with me as I fix Bitcoin. But you won’t be able to prove it is me doing the work 😉

            • jim says:

              If bitcoin is fixed – made scalable so as to remain truly peer to peer all the way to volumes comparable to Visa, that would be a huge win. Also, being in on that at the start would get one rich.

          • JustSaying says:

            > Be careful. Going to 1/50th the value is still hyperinflation, even if he
            > does not like to apply that word. A 98% loss of value of the currency is
            > still loss, still hyperinflation, still devaluation, still deadly if you
            > hold that. Armstrong is master of confusion and
            > illusion.

            1/50th of the value, but you still had to pay your taxes in Rome in 99% gold! A two-tier money system. We have the same thing now.

            Your gold investments will go up from $1000 to $3000 – $5000, but they will tax you at 90%. Go look at the tax rates after 1929.

            You are missing the point. In empire collapse, you are squeezed between deflation and inflation.

            Now the things you must use go up in price, but the things you invest in (houses) go down in price (and even if you invest in gold, they will make sure you lose just as in Rome).

            You can’t beat the empire. There is no place to run to, except the mountains.

            This time the mountains is Bitcoin. But Bitcoin has flaws. I am working on it.

            Armstrong is not at all confusing for me.

            He has never said that gold won’t go up. What he said was that gold would go down first from 2011 to 2013/4/5 (three possibilities for the bottom). Then gold will NOT make a new all-time high until after 2015.75.

            And gold will NOT go to $50,000! It will go somewhere in the $3000 – $8000 range, probably $5000.

            He has not said that gold isn’t money. He has said that a strict gold standard is never sustainable, and he explained why. Society must oscillate between gold and fiat money, because of at least two reasons:

            1. Debt isn’t possible on a strict gold standard (no fractional reserves)

            2. Strict gold standard means savings is 100% more important than production and knowledge formation, because savers (who do nothing but sit on their gold) always get wealthier. You can’t pay investors more, because the supply of gold doesn’t increase as fast as the increased production value.

            Really this is so elemental. Armstrong is just a lot smarter than most people.

          • JustSaying says:

            Apologies for this long comment, but I wanted to make it very clear that when empires fall, it is very dangerous for the citizens of the empire.

            Rome during and after Diocletian attempted to tax above the Laffer limit. … Economy collapsed and population declined. It was extremely unpleasant, and the collapse of empire did not make things better.

            Indeed, when empires collapse, there isn’t hyperinflation, rather the empire state exerts its power until it has destroyed itself (and the citizens) from within. Armstrong wrote more about that today quoted as follows.

            http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/05/nsa-collects-word-for-word-according-to-pbs/

            [QUOTE]…

            This is all about the financial crisis and this is how ALL governments have collapsed – sheer economic implosion as they turn against their own people. As I have said before. You will pray for the hyperinflation where government simply prints and does not try to confiscate assets. That has just never been the case in developed nations where assets exist. Hyperinflation is associated with governments that are typically new and revolutionary where hard assets are hoarded and not present in banks and there is not debt market for nobody will lend to them. We are not at that stage at this time. We first have to see confidence collapse and the bond market implode with nobody buying. But where does ca[ital then go since there is no alternative? The future is just not going to be such a easy way out.[/QUOTE]

            http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/05/how-empires-collapse-a-orderly-path-to-conclusion/

            [QUOTE]A number of people have asked what does the future really hold with the civil unrest/war cycle turning up next year. Government NEVER collapse because of revolution. Let’s get this one very straight. Any government as long as it is strong will crush into dust any resistance. The key to the collapse of empires is the die from inside normally by their own hand. Communism fell of its own accord. We did not do a damn thing. Communism was economically unsustainable. As that worked its way through the veins of power, their economies simply imploded.

            This is why I am warning that socialism is collapsing. Government is hunting down every penny it can find. It will destroy the economy in the process and that is the ultimate irony. Western government are simply unsustainable. We cannot constantly confiscate assets and pour them into interest and pension to sustain government. The economy grows weaker and the revenues decline as they become more and more aggressive.

            The Barbarians were at the gates of Rome for more than a century. They could not make any headway until the 3rd century when the financial of Rome were imploding. Undermine the economy, you weaken the government, and then it falls. The rise of people in arms is NEVER the actual event the changes the cycle. It is the final act that completes the cycle. The cycle is already declining and then when the people cannot take it any more, they will rise up. They get the credit, but in fact, the government is declining just as we saw in China. When the man stood before the tanks, it did not take long for the government to really fail.

            Revolution is the final act, never the first. Here is a famous Maryland Propaganda Note intended to justify war because of the injustice of the King. The king of England played a game with the American colonies. Anything they bought from England had to be paid in silver or gold. However, whatever they sold to England was paid in copper. Hence, he was extorting the American Colonies and bleeding them dry. First comes the economic decline – then comes the Revolution. So what must take place FIRST is the economic collapse and that will then lead to discontent. Why do you think they are passing all these [dracronian] laws one step at a time that follows a planned path only an idiot cannot see because they do not wish to.[/QUOTE]

            http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/05/obama-trying-to-cover-up-another-investigative-program/

            [QUOTE]Bloomberg News has reported that Federal courts now allow the IRS to issue summonses to US banks at the request of the Norwegian government, to hunt down their citizens with assets in the USA. All of these government are hunting money – not terrorists. This is the collapse of fiscal mismanagement. Forget the hyperinflation. These people will not go quietly into the night or light. They are kicking and screaming and will die like an insane madman in a violent oppression of the people.[/QUOTE]

            You wrote more about that here:

            @Winter:

            Indeed, probably due to plagues of various kinds

            Pinker attributes the entire population decline to the fall of Rome, even though it set in before the fall or Rome.

            In fact, what happened was that Rome was in financial trouble because, like much of Europe, it was taxing well above the Laffer limit. Well, thought Diocletian, if overtaxed people will not work, make them work. So he in large part instituted a command economy, which probably caused rises in the death rates for the usual reasons that we observe command economies killing people today and during the twentieth century. Basically, in a command economy, you have to murder people to get stuff done.

            Before I was banned, I also rebutted Winter’s theories on the decline of Rome here:

            @Winter:
            You attempt to remove blame from the effects of top-down governance. Agriculture in Western Europe declined for numerous reasons all of which can be attributed to mismanagement due to top-down control and the funding of such misallocation. Socialized debt is a future tax. The agricultural sector was suffering under increasing taxes after the hyperinflation of the 3rd century had adversely impacted funding for the military while there were increasing military threats to the east. Pottery records indicate production increased through the 4th, as the rural sector was squeezed for every drop by Rome. As with all debt funding, growth was too rapid, and irrigation was polluted by clearing for too many new settlements. The resultant malnutrition, declining production, localized warlords, and thus disease coincided with the collapse of Western Europe due to the bankruptcy of its top-down militarized, servitude model.

            We will likely find the same top-down cause applies to of all Dark Ages– even the famines in Africa.

            And here:

            The population of Rome plummeted -97% from 1.4 million in 450AD to 40,000 over the next 1000+ years.[1]

            Dark Ages where the population abandons cities occurred in Greece from 1600 – 1200BC (with coinage only re-appearing in 7th century BC), after the collapse of Rome that lasted 600 years, and in Japan for 600 years during which no coinage was created.[2]

            [1] Sovereign Debt Crisis Conference, Armstrong
            [2] Are we Headed into a Mad Max Scenario?, Armstrong

          • JustSaying says:

            If bitcoin is fixed – made scalable so as to remain truly peer to peer all the way to volumes comparable to Visa, that would be a huge win. Also, being in on that at the start would get one rich.

            😉

            I hope you saw my proposed solution.

            I also feel strong anonymity is very important, because I think the government may become oppressive as end-stage Rome. The only way I can see to obtain digital coin anonymously is through mining (not an exchange) using a mix-net or dc-net that is more anonymous than Tor, i.e. tradeoff high latency for better anonymity (become impervious to timing attacks). Mining in Bitcon is falling fast (as a % of existing coin supply) to be at 0 in 2033.

            • jim says:

              I hope you saw my proposed solution.

              Not a solution. Has the same scaling characteristic as current bitcoin, in that every peer has to receive and process every transaction.

          • JustSaying says:

            I hope you saw my proposed solution.

            Not a solution. Has the same scaling characteristic as current bitcoin, in that every peer has to receive and process every transaction.

            Why do you think that won’t scale? At Visa-scale of 16 million transactions per 10 minute block, that is within the upper-range of 1GB per 10 minutes bandwidth for non-hosted ISP accounts.

            For peers with less bandwidth, a decentralized pooling strategy can collect the transactions and forward only the hash to the peer to computer the Proof-of-Work. These low bandwidth peers never need to see the transaction data. And someone could maintain anonymity by running a transaction collection service on a non-anonymous hosted server, while obtaining anonymity of the winning peers for Proof-of-Work.

            Afaics, the key breakthrough for scaling is my above linked proposal to limit the size of the blockchain without limiting the number of transactions that can be processed.

            I believe I’ve fixed the Bitcoin design.

            • jim says:

              I don’t want to download and process a hundred megabytes a minute, twenty four hours a day. And I don’t want some big company handling my transactions for me either.

              And I want to handle more transactions than Visa – Visa plus mastercard plus the bank checking system.

          • JustSaying says:

            I don’t want to download and process a hundred megabytes a minute, twenty four hours a day. And I don’t want some big company handling my transactions for me either.

            And I want to handle more transactions than Visa – Visa plus mastercard plus the bank checking system.

            Is that an ideological protest? Because I don’t see a technical point. For $100 monthly + server cost, one can get unmetered 100Mbps (i.e. 7.2 GB/10 mins)– no need to rely on a big company. Then peer off of that server to obtain anonymity.

            Send only the hash of the transactions for the block to the peers.

            If you are worried about the non-anonymity of that server causing it to be a point of failure (e.g. government can shut it down), then mix-net and encrypt all the data incoming to it and outgoing to the anonymous peers. The peer that wins the Proof-of-Work can relay the full block so the server is not identified as correlated with anonymous mining.

            As I wrote upthread, trading Tor’s low latency for better anonymity against timing attacks is a crucial technology we need (or some improvement on dc-nets, I need to review more recent work on that).

            • jim says:

              If it is running on a server farm, I don’t control it.

              Plus, that is a lot more than I pay for a check account. I want a peer to peer money system that runs on my desktop in the background with only minor impact on my bandwidth and processing.

          • JustSaying says:

            Using sponge construction of the hash, e.g. SHA-3, the mining peer receiving the intermediate state machine of the hash function could add transactions without it being detected that they were added by that peer.

          • JustSaying says:

            If it is running on a server farm, I don’t control it.

            Unmetered 100 Mbps colocation is available for $100/mo at the link I provided. I think you can even arrange to put special hardware+s/w on your server, so it can’t be tampered with even by their employees if you are concerned about that.

            If you claim you don’t control the connection, you never will in any non-hosted scenario also. Unless it can be suspected or proven that server is involved in enabling anonymous mining, it is not at great risk of legal attack by the powers that be. The one weakness is it is publicly known node, in order to receive incoming transactions (mix-net won’t mitigate that). It can periodically win a Proof-of-Work to make the claim that it is not just sitting there to enable anonymous mining of another peer. There will be this encrypted ingress and egress traffic, but we can set the protocol for this alternative Bitcoin that all transactions must be sent encrypted (mix-nets are vulnerable otherwise), thus it is not possible to determine if this encrypted traffic is incoming transactions with reply confirmations and relaying the transactions, or if the hashes are being sent out to anonymous mining peers.

            A problem is that big chunk of encrypted data that needs to be broadcast out when the anonymous peer wants to relay it because it solved the Proof-of-Work. The solution is the hosted server should relay these in chunks to the anonymous peer. So our protocol should allow the transaction data to follow the announcement of the Proof-of-Work solution. The problem with this is peers can’t immediately start working on a solution to the next block’s Proof-of-Work if they aren’t sure if any of the transactions in this next block are disallowed by transactions in the prior block. However, assuming the mining peers that relay transaction data also send their latest hash of transactions, then all those peers will already have the transactions, so if the winning peers relays them delayed, this is not a problem.

            Plus, that is a lot more than I pay for a check account.

            You will be earning money from mining, which will offset the costs. It will earn more money overall for you than your existing checking account.

            I want a peer to peer money system that runs on my desktop in the background with only minor impact on my bandwidth and processing.

            I’ve described one. But if you don’t have 1GB/10 min bandwidth, then you will need to use a transaction collection peer server to augment your desktop peer as I described above.

            There is no way to lower bandwidth requirements without forking the system, and forked money means not fungible. The bandwidth math was in your other blog, which I linked upthread.

            See also my article, No Money Exists Without the Majority. Since writing that, I have become more convinced that we can temporary defeat the majority with better anonymity and with a higher debasement rate for the digital coin, so that mining is more profitable. In the end though, society can require us to the 666 chipped (no religiosity is attached to this statement). So my article will remain correct in the longer-term.

            • jim says:

              Plus, that is a lot more than I pay for a check account.

              You will be earning money from mining, which will offset the costs. It will earn more money overall for you than your existing checking account.

              If everyone in the world earns that much money from mining, we will have to allow significant inflation.

          • JustSaying says:

            If everyone in the world earns that much money from mining, we will have to allow significant inflation.

            To reach Visa-scale, we need roughly 20 Mbps minimum, which for non-hosted account is roughly $60 in the USA today, yet 500 Mbps for only $25 – 30 in Japan, Hong Kong, and Korea. Google is bringing 1 Gbps to the USA for $70.

            So by the time we reach Visa-scale (after the 2016 global economic implosion which will likely force the end to these telcom monopolies in the USA), expect for many places in the world sufficient bandwidth to cost $30 per month to run a non-hosted mining peer without a separate hosted transactions collection server.

            The bandwidth consumed by the mining will be much less than the total bandwidth of the user’s ISP connection. The ISP connection is an expense that every person is paying any way.

            Not every person is going to need to mine the money they have in order for it to be anonymous. They could also receive payments anonymously, e.g. if I license some code I wrote with only my private key listed as the author.

            P.S. L4 microkernel (provably correct) perhaps L4 Linux is a means to raise security.

            ====================
            Why neither gold (nor Bitcoin) can be the ONLY money

            2. Strict gold standard means savings is 100% more important than production and knowledge formation, because savers (who do nothing but sit on their gold) always get wealthier. You can’t pay investors more, because the supply of gold doesn’t increase as fast as the increased production value.

            Point #2 above hasn’t been explained clearly enough for most people to understand.

            Martin explained this very abstractly by saying the supply of gold can’t expand with the expansion of the economy. Goldbugs ignore this explanation, because they say the value of gold can increase accordingly.

            What is missing is that when investors invest in a productive business, they expect to get a ROI which is greater than just sitting on their gold. So if via such investments, the economy grows at X% where X is greater than the expansion of the physical gold supply, then some of the investors can’t be paid, i.e. the savers in gold take the gains from the investors in the form of price deflation.

            Some people point to the Byzantine empire (Eastern Rome) as an example of a sustainable gold standard. In every case where there was a gold standard, either it wasn’t the only money (i.e. banks were creating gold receipts which were backed only by fractional reserves) and/or gold was being imported into the economy thus expanding the supply of gold faster than the 2% per annum expansion of global supply due to mining.

            P.S. Bitcoin is worse than gold, as the increase in supply stops entirely in 2033. Clearly a flawed design, for the reasons above, and also because mining of new coins is the only SURE way to anonymously obtain bit coins (other than receiving an anonymous payment).

            ====================
            Top-down inflation = bad, Decentralized inflation = good

            Inflation is not a problem, because it benefits the working class, whose wages will rise proportionally and depletes the idle capital of the capitalists who are not investing in new technology and productivity.

            The problem with inflation as it is created now, is that the elite get their hands on the levers that create inflation and thus route the debased money to themselves.

            This elite capture won’t be possible in a better Bitcoin, that contains sufficient continuous debasement (i.e. inflation), because no entity can control the rate of debasement.

          • JustSaying says:

            Nominal GDP grew on average 5% since 1790, thus an improved Bitcoin could continue creating new coins at 5% of the money supply per annum to support such growth.

            http://www.measuringworth.com/growth/

            Wage + population growth (dilution factor) = nominal GDP growth until 1970. Since then we’ve been losing 1.5% per year to someone.

            Velocity of money can rise or fall but over time it can’t continue rising or falling, thus the rate of money supply growth should attempt to match the optimal rate of nominal GDP growth to get a balanced meritocracy between risk investors and savers. There is no way to perfect this dynamic balance given so many variables, which is why an economy must have multiple stores-of-value, i.e. money, so the market can choose.

            • jim says:

              Bitcoin is controlled by a two thirds supermajority of minting power. I think this potentially leads to a conflict of interest as mints are few and large.

              If there is a disagreement in which none of the sides have two thirds of the power, chaos ensues – which deters everyone from making potentially controversial decisions that sacrifice some groups interests for other group’s interests.

              I think that ideally the system should be controlled by a two thirds supermajority of money owned or controlled by users actively processing transactions – and most people doing transactions actively process transactions, rather than relying on someone else to process transactions for them. This would give everyone an incentive that money should be issued at the appropriate rate.

              But, circularly, will only work if the costs of processing transactions are reasonable.

          • JustSaying says:

            I’ve had the long technical discussions at bitcointalk.org, where I came the conclusion that only Proof-of-Work can inject the entropy necessary to prevent gaming the system. All other methods (e.g. Proof-of-Stake and Proof-of-Consensus) either can be forked with less than 51% of the peers or must centralize control.

            Using Scrypt, users’ existing general purpose computers are on a more level playing field for Proof-of-Work. Owning a computer and an internet connection is owning some capital in the system. Difficulty must be scaled as high as possible to make 51% attack unlikely, thus mining is not a wasted effort.

            The solution to the dilemma of conflicting decisions, is to find ways for differences to co-exist, e.g. increasing degrees-of-freedom. This is why many money alternatives are superior to one, especially where there is a liquid exchange between them. Top-down systems are more expedient but less annealed over the long-term.

            Money tends to be a winner take all phenomenon (Gresham’s Law) because government can declare the legal tender given the power to require taxes be paid in the legal tender. Bitcoin and coming alternatives may allow for competing currencies within the same nation.

            We appear to be entering the era of anarcho-capitalism.

            If I’ve missed your point, feel free to clarify.

            • jim says:

              For proof of consensus, see:

              Efficient threshold signature, multisignature, and blind signature schemes based on the Gap-Diffie-Hellman-Group signature scheme

              By Alexandra Boldreva

              Published in Public Key Cryptography (PKC) 2003, LNCS 2567, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2003

              Your link does not appear to be about anarcho capitalism, but rather argues that much of China’s growth is bogus malivenstment – roads to nowhere and houses that no one lives in. While this could well cause problems for China, does not see likely to lead to anarcho capitalism.

          • JustSaying says:

            Group signature thresholds don’t address the problem of how to limit the number of signers the attacker can provide. Proof-of-Work requires each signer to provide computing resources. I suppose Proof-of-Stake could be used to award the number of signers. That creates at least two problems:

            1. You need own coin before you can mine it, i.e. you can’t anonymously obtain coin until you’ve non-anonymous obtained coin (other than being paid in coin).

            2. Voting on consensus is skewed to those who have the most IDLE capital. This is worse than Proof-of-Work, where at least users can reuse their existing non-IDLE capital which is their computer.

            The point of my link to the China blog is that the demand for anarcho-capitalism will increase because the west is becoming as top-down and socialist as the east, so there is no where to turn other than the digital frontier.

      • JustSaying says:

        @jim

        How did you get banned?

        Here is the post where ESR stated he banned me (for the 3rd time; prior instances he banned my real name and a female name).

        http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-404269

        I think this last time he banned me on the principle of ego, i.e. he didn’t forgive due to any increase in quality of my comments lately, because he had written on the prior ban that if I ever returned under any pseudonym, he would ban me. His stated principle for banning my prior pseudonym was he claimed my comments were too noisy (as in low S/N ratio), argumentative, and numerous.

        He did me a favor. I’ve hence wasted less time blogging thus faster progress on my new language Copute.

  15. Sam says:

    “jim says:
    2013 July 7 at 4:24 pm

    If racism is just awareness of reality, we don’t need a special word for it.”

    Sam says: I guess we don’t need a special word for tables or chairs or glee or sorrow because it’s just awareness of reality.

    “jim says:
    2013 July 7 at 1:03 pm
    …If there was a sensible realistic meaning for the word racism, how did we get along without such a word for the past few thousand years?”

    Sam says: It wasn’t needed. Whites naturally assumed they were superior. It wasn’t a bad attitude or evil state of mind. It was taken for granted to be correct.

    “jim says:…While Radish, and now me, say “I will not say a black mob that attacks a white guy is racist, because that is not what the word racist means…”

    Sam says: Which nonsense just goes to show you really are Anti-White. You shouldn’t be called Libertarians or whatever you call yourselves. You should be called Nonsenseatarians or Irrationalitarians or Sillyitarians.

    “Nick B. Steves says:
    So the reason the word racist didn’t exist before 1930 was that virtually everyone on earth (irrespective of race) believed there were natural differences between the races that were useful (but rarely fully determinative) for predicting various, and in some cases very serious, outcomes.

    So racist is just a word that describes what was perfectly normal thinking for virtually everyone on earth in 1930.”

    Sam says: Oops. Missed that comment. I agree.

  16. […] Radish explains what racism means « Jim’s Blog […]

  17. […] witch-craze seems to be running out of juice, according to some  thought-provoking Ngram data organized by […]

  18. […] ‘Radish explains what racism means’ […]

  19. JustSaying says:

    Jim perhaps you can pass this along (since I am banned) to ESR’s Armed & Dangerous blog, the UN prepares to disarm the USA. Remember it was Kissinger who said there would be “blue hats” on USA soil.

    • jim says:

      This reads like something from the onion – but then it is hard to tell the difference these days between the onion and reality.

      Can you properly source this – can I look up a UN site that has this on it?

  20. idesignac says:

    idesignac

    go here for idesignac.com anywhere

Leave a Reply