Friday, November 30, 2012 120 Comments

Adore the river of meat

Carl Schmitt said that the sovereign is he who decides the exception.  While this is true, Carl Schmitt lived in saner times. 

In the '30s and '40s, the sovereign had a pretty simple way of deciding the exception.  He made his decision and loaded it into his gun.  Propaganda existed, true, but it was remarkably crude.  Really the main thing was the gun.  Sensible, traditional, effective.

Nobody makes decisions anymore.  At least not personal decisions.  At least not in the public sector.  And guns are almost obsolete.  You don't need a gun to herd sheep - much less swine.  All you need is a story.  (And slop for the swine.)

Who is the sovereign?  Not a who but a what.  The sovereign is the story.  Of course, there is no story without a storyteller.  There are a lot of storytellers.  Professionals, even.  They make a good living and they're all quite replaceable. 

(I actually have great sympathy for the professional.  In a bureaucratic oligarchy like ours, the professional both rules and is ruled.  At the top, there is no one on top of him.  Yet he cannot change his mind.  He would simply be replaced.  There are always younger, more eager professionals.  Sovereignty is conserved; it is always humans who rule; and yet, it seems that no one rules.  Who gets to put his hand on the wheel?  He can stand there, and look like a captain.  Chicks dig it.  And yes, sir, it sure does pay.)

When the sovereign is the story, I claim, the sovereign is he who selects the null hypothesis.  What is a null hypothesis?  Have you ever seen the phrase "no evidence that"?  For instance, there is no evidence that voter fraud has a significant impact on American elections.

Like it or not, established religion is an essential attribute of sovereignty.  Cuius regio, eius religio.  Unless you're a crazy person, you believe what the sovereign, personal or institutional, orders you to believe.  Obviously there is a conflict here, or at least a potential conflict.  Because even a normal, non-crazy person will experience difficulty in disbelieving his own eyes. 

Which is fine.  Sovereigns, though asymptotically infallible, err.  They change their mind, or at least have to be thought capable of it.  You can change your mind too.  Maybe you're just the first.  However, the null hypothesis is what the sovereign orders you to believe, at least until evidence (which should promptly be brought to your master's attention) convinces you otherwise. 

Since the sovereign also sets the bar for how much evidence it takes to convince you otherwise, he can order you to believe in pretty much anything short of outright arithmetic violations.  All he has to do is set the null hypothesis to his desired outcome, then set the burden of proof impossibly high.

Is it possible to escape from the null-hypothesis trap?  Reader, it is.  The solution was discovered 250 years ago by a worthless country neighbor name of Thomas Bayes, who pointed out that when evaluating evidence logically, you start not with a null hypothesis but with a prior conviction, which you update on the basis of its consistency with the new evidence. 

Unfortunately, the Rev. Bayes (also a Jesus freak) never did anything else of note, and society has never even come close to applying his insight.  (The Internets have created a very successful cult of Bayesians or supposed Bayesians, whose methods as applied to practical problems of propaganda wrestling remind me most of the claim that tai chi is actually a martial art.  In a sense, it is.  I'm not sure it's really what you want in this kind of a situation, however.)

For instance, our courts - the form of official reasoning we know best - operate on a decidedly pre-Bayesian paradigm.  The defendant is innocent (null hypothesis) until proven (inappropriate use of deductive terminology in inductive context) guilty. 

A Bayesian court would reason as follows: the defendant is a known ghetto gangbanger (prior conviction) accused of slinging rock (evidence).  His attorney asserts that this "rock," which officers somehow mislaid without entering into evidence, was actually Finish brand dishwasher detergent.  However, since defendant has six priors for aggravated narcotics distribution and there is no evidence that he has ever actually done the dishes, we calculate the probability of his story as... etc.

You can see how disruptive this Bayesian stuff is.  Now, of course, one might make an ethical argument that our criminal justice system shouldn't adopt this dangerous new form of logic.  However, what tends to happen in the minds of the innocent is that when they see pre-Bayesian reasoning applied by the sovereign in his capacity as justiciar, they believe that this is the correct approved way to think and they should apply it everywhere.

For instance, they believe, an election should be treated as clean until proven dirty.  Is this one way to think?  It is one way to think.  Applying the same pre-Bayesian logic, we could treat it as dirty until proven clean.  Or we could forget about null hypotheses and try to come up with a reasonable prior.

Now, I gained a strange new respect for Mother Jones when they brought Sir Robert Filmer to their readers' attention, and indeed you'll often see that the oldest, most respectable communist organs can slip sound fascist perspectives into their audience's eternal blank slate.  But on this one, they're really playing fast and loose.

You can't compare election fraud convictions to UFO sightings.  You have to compare them to UFO interceptions.  It's true that only 13 Americans have been convicted of election fraud in the last decade.  Yet in the last decade, not a single UFO has been convicted of trespassing in our solar system.  When I sit down and do the math, I find that American election fraud is infinitely more dangerous than an alien invasion. 

In addition, I note that in the last decade, not a single American has been caught speeding at the Indy 500.    It is of course the case that according to the Pew Center, not traditionally known as an outlet for Faux News, one out of every 8 US voter registrations - that would be about 34 million - is bogus.  Of course, it's quite possible that Americans are so honest that 33,999,987 of these fake accounts have gone entirely unused.  Would Norman Rockwell vote twice?

This is what's wonderful about the null hypothesis:
For the head of Libya's national election commission, the method by which Americans vote is startling in that it depends so much on trust and the good faith of election officials and voters alike.
But that's exactly what you do with a null hypothesis.  You trust it.  Until proven otherwise, of course.  But of course, since there is no evidence that election officials and voters are acting in bad faith, investigating any such unproven claims is itself in bad faith.  It's probably racist, in fact.  (There is no evidence that "Bayesian" is just another word for "racist.")

You have a gay friend who has frequent unprotected anal sex with strangers in bathhouses.  "You should get tested for AIDS," you tell him.  "But there's no evidence that I have AIDS," he protests.  You point out that he has frequent night sweats and looks like a skeleton.  "Sure," he says.  "But lots of things can cause weight loss."  A perfectly true statement.  This is more or less the reasoning of the Brennan Center for Justice.

There are also a lot of things that could have created 200,000 more Ohio votes for B.H. Obama in 2012 than in 2008.  Plenty of things!  On the other hand, given our prior conviction about the popular mood in these years, the outcome seems a bit of a surprise.  Bayes' Theorem is all about surprises.

You have a geek friend who's a system administrator - but not a good one.  You portscan his server.  "You have Microsoft RPC services open to the public internet and your Apache install appears to have been last updated in 2006," you say.  "But the site is running fine," he says.  "Is it?" you ask.  "Has your intrusion detection picked up any anomalies?"  "What's intrusion detection?" he asks.

So, for example, if you really wanted to know what was going on in American elections, you could audit one.  Randomly chosen, after the fact.  We'll take every vote and match it to an actual human being.  In all the other precincts, we'll do what we do now, which is to treat the number as valid however it got into the computer.  But in this one, we'll check every vote.

Has this ever been done?  Of course it's never been done.  It would be a gigantic violation of privacy, probably racist.  And why?  There is no evidence of election fraud.

So, lacking evidence of this character, our tiny but valiant fringe of crazy Americans who for some reason, probably racist, prefer their own prior conviction to the sovereign's null hypothesis, will just have to take our chances believing their own eyes.  Or witnesses whom said eyes find plausible.  It's a humble technique, not in the least scientific.  Yet many have done well to rely on it.

Here, according to one witness I find plausible, is what a 21st-century election in the state of Patrick Henry looks like:
I arrived at the polling place at approximately 5:40 a.m. I went into the polling place and showed my credentials to the Chief who showed me where to sit behind the poll workers who would be checking voters in to receive a voting certificate. All of the poll workers were either African American or Hispanic, with the only Caucasians being the Project ORCA watchers. The voters waited in a long line that went outside the building at all times during the day. At one point, probably around 11:00 a.m., I noted that the line was about 300 people long. The line did not break at any time during the day, and there was no time to take a break during the entire day from 6:00 a.m. until the final person voted at close to 8:00 p.m.

Throughout the day, I took note of many irregularities besides the abnormally long lines. The poll workers who regularly work the elections said that they had never seen turnout like what was present. I believe the lead worker said about three times as many people as usual turned out that day to vote and that it is usually a quiet, slow precinct. There were three parts to the voting process. First the voter waited in line to get to the point where I was standing and watching, which was the voter check in, where ID was checked and verified and voting certificates were given out to qualified voters. After receiving a voting card, the voters then stood in line to cast their votes at one of five voting machines. After voting, the voters stood in line to turn in their voting card. Each phase of the line was long and the lines all snaked around at all times.

I was only able to observe the check in phase. As people approached the station of four poll workers who were checking voters in, the voters presented one of the required forms of ID to the poll worker. The poll worker then stated the voter’s name, found them on the database, and then asked for the voter to state his/her name and address. Many, many people were unable to state their names and addresses without assistance. Many, many people said the name was incorrect on their ID due to them getting married or divorced. Many, many people said that the address on their IDs were incorrect due to them having moved recently. Many could not state either the address on their ID or their current address. Many, many people could not speak English and could not follow the directions of “state your name and address.” On the app from which I was checking names, the voter’s name and age appeared. Many, many times, I did not believe that the voter was the age stated on the app. Many, many times, when I went to check off the voter as having voted, the voter was already checked off as having voted. Several times, I would swear that I saw the same person voting twice or heard the same name voting twice, when the app stated that only one voter in the precinct had the stated name. Many times I saw a person who looked Hispanic answer to a name that he or she could barely pronounce that was obviously representative of some other ethnicity, such as Asian or Middle Eastern.

About half of the time that a person had a name or address conflict, that person was sent to the chief to have his/her credentials validated. Each time, that person was allowed to vote, as I saw no provisional ballots recorded throughout the day. About half of the time the person was allowed to verbally correct his/her name or address and was sent to the next phase of the line without having to go to the chief to be approved. I believe a good 10 to 15% of those who voted had questionable ID and qualifications. At one point in the day, an announcement was made that a complaint had been called in to the Board of Elections that handicapped people were not being allowed into the building to vote. The chief made this announcement and stated that it was an untrue allegation. I did not see any handicapped people going through the voting line.
  [...]
I believe that most people do not have three hours to wait in line to vote, and it is strange that all of these people with fishy IDs had hours to stand in line and vote. I found numerous blue Democrat ticket sheets showing people how to vote strewn around the polling place. With the lines being long and me not being able to talk to voters as a poll watcher, I had no recourse to accuse suspicious individuals of not being who their ID said they were. I did call to the Romney headquarters and report my suspicions several times, but I do not know what they could have done about the situation, as I could not pull suspicious people out of line.
Ha ha!  Joke's on you, lady.  They couldn't have done anything, of course.  So what were you there for?  Oh, that's right, nothing.

Still, look on the bright side.  Your poor guy didn't get elected.  You would have felt like a big winner, but putting a Republican in the White House is like electing a Protestant pope.  An even bigger joke.  A joke of such stupendous magnitude that perhaps it's not even funny at all.

What's neat about this system is that in a sense, it is actually more logical than the old Norman Rockwell America that Republicans want to take us back to - you know, the republican Republic, in which elections are decided by philosophical debates among stalwart pillars of the community.  As though we lived in ancient Rome, or 17th-century Massachusetts, or something.  Do we?  Come on, Republicans - do we?  Is this really the reality-based community?

No, in the reality-based community, elections are decided by Middle Eastern Hispanics.  Or more exactly, whoever can bus more Middle Eastern Hispanics to the booth.  Or more exactly, elections are decided by who has power.  Does it really matter whether all these Vietnamese Hondurans actually exist?  They are not stalwart philosophers - they are numbers in a computer.  If they exist, they exist to make the number bigger.  If they don't exist, their purpose and meaning is the same.

If the party with the most power wins the election, continuity is maintained and people can go about their daily lives.  If the party with the least power, the party which has no way to organize legions of sock or meatpuppets, wins, what happens?  Turbulence, disruption, stupidity, and probably in the end a return to normal conditions.  Don't be turbulent - vote for the winner.








I borrow the term, of course, from Wikipedia, which unlike Virginia is still trying to give the old republican ideal a go.  We read:
High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited.
Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by an influx of single-purpose editors: 
Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. 
In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion.
The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute.
Well, I hate to be derogatory.  But I just can't bring myself to adore the river of meat.

Sometimes I wonder if the Republicans could man it up and propose a Great Compromise with the Moloch of progressive America.  We'd call it a compromise - but I'm really thinking more of a surrender.  The compromise (a consent decree, even?) would run as follows:

We, the undersigned Republicans, admit that we are foul kulak racists and deserve only to lose.  We shall therefore crawl back into our holes and cling bitterly to our guns, etc.  We henceforth dissolve the Republican Party and all its organs, especially Fox News.  All future elections will be won by the Democrats, who are winners and golden in the light of Allah.  May they enjoy eternal diversity.

We, the undersigned Democrats, accept with a heavy conscience the burden of world domination.  We agree to admit that we are the ruling party in a one-party state which controls the entire freakin' planet.  We promise that we will never whine that we're being oppressed when some stupid worthless kulak thinks he can fight back, which he can't, for five minutes. 

And finally, since there are no more elections and no more Republicans to humiliate, we are out of the meatpuppet business.  We will no longer import, bribe, invent, or otherwise create meatpuppet or sockpuppet voters.  Frankly, we didn't want these people in Takoma Park anyway.  The landscaping might get a little scruffy, but come on - Maryland is full of redneck grits.  What do they do all day, farm?  They can drive their F150s down from Hagerstown, and come cut our damned lawns.

120 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh but they definitely do want those people in Takoma Park, especially when the alternative would be country grits from Hagerstown.

November 30, 2012 at 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't have a strong prior against the river of meat, but, like...remember when the left viciously despised George W., yet he won twice? Was there no meat-river to be deployed then? Are the "Chicago" dudes really that much more effective than Gore and Kerry's dudes? I thought there was a lot of overlap in personnel. I'm not saying nothing shady went down, or that Bush's reign changed anything fundamental about the one-party state, but he did rule for quite some time, notwithstanding the extremely strong preferences of all persons of quality.

November 30, 2012 at 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He reigned, it's not the same as ruling.

By and large and for the most part the civil service kept doing what it does. Which is why The Big "O," who came in promising "change," can always defend "his" policies by pointing out that "hey, I'm just continuing an initiative started under the former guy, why are you guys complaining? You didn't complain then. It must be because I'm black.'

November 30, 2012 at 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Typhoon Jim said...

"Was there no meat-river to be deployed then? Are the "Chicago" dudes really that much more effective than Gore and Kerry's dudes?"

For the purposes of this extended post-election sadface, one may as well assume the involved potence of the Communist International, Al-Qaida, and the Illuminati. It's not so much fun if you believe otherwise.

November 30, 2012 at 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush presided; it's not the same as ruling.

This is a counterfactual, but I'm not sure even the Iraq War wouldn't have happened if Gore had been elected instead of Bush - the only thing that would have been different is now the mindshapers would be pointing to all the things we did find in Iraq (including, for example, tons and tons of yellowcake - which, yes, was found there), and all the ties Saddam did have to the terrorist community, instead of claiming nothing was found and it was all lies.

Just remember the "regime change" position didn't begin with Bush, and Gore liked to position himself as a Hawk - until the Bush era.

Possibly we would have had more "green" legislation, but I doubt it. Possibly we wouldn't have had the Bush "tax cuts for the rich." Possibly the prescription drug program would have been a bit bigger, but who knows.

(Typhoon Jim is here to mock with crocodile laughter. No need to try to refute him; after all, it is his prerogative as a member of the top-dog victors to issue forth belches of krokodil humor).

November 30, 2012 at 1:14 PM  
Anonymous nydwracu said...

I heard an interesting story once from the law professor here. Columbia, the planned community in Maryland, was intended to be diverse in terms of class, measured by income... so they trucked in a load of grad students.

As for Takoma Park, the alternative is more people like those who live in Takoma Park. They've got some in places like Berwyn; God only knows what they're doing there. Their kids would learn more mowing the lawns of washed-up hippies than sleeping through classes at the cosmic joke that is Roosevelt. But there's no Schadenfreude rush like hearing that the Berkeley of the East will be sharing a metro stop with El Salv--er, sorry, Langley Park when the Purple Line goes up. Peace, love, and MS-13.

Not that that can happen, of course. Immigration is the reserve army of capital. Obama may dam his river of meat, but Romney's still stuck worrying about stock value. Hell, the left used to oppose immigration!

The college brought in an initiative to recruit poll workers a year or two ago. I signed up, but the papers disappeared into the ether, as did my voter registration. Perhaps I should try again someday, if I decide I'm masochistic enough to deal with the Donna Edwards district for however many hours. It could be interesting.

November 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are the "Chicago" dudes really that much more effective than Gore and Kerry's dudes?

Gore and Kerry didn't bother to cheat on the scale Obama did because they didn't see the need to.

November 30, 2012 at 3:22 PM  
Anonymous Orthodox said...

Re: Bush winning. The first one was a fluke, the meatpuppets didn't understand the ballot.

2004 was post 9/11; think of it as a large scale mugging.

November 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM  
Blogger gwern said...

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence; derives it from Bayes if you're bored.

> There are also a lot of things that could have created 200,000 more Ohio votes for B.H. Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Plenty of things! On the other hand, given our prior conviction about the popular mood in these years, the outcome seems a bit of a surprise. Bayes' Theorem is all about surprises.

And yet, pretty much every predictor and modeler drawing on fundamental trends and hundreds of polls was completely unsurprised come election day. Perhaps the surprise was only for you.

November 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

nydwracu I live in the white half of Edward's district in the sticks of AA county. Even here the meatpuppets showed up, although I suspect in more subtle forms.

I always insist on showing a photo id to vote in Maryland, and the election officials always insist that they do not wish to see it.

November 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Polls were fibbed to cover the fraud.

November 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I live in Chicago and oddly enough don't think fraud matters much for presidential elections here. The state is so solid blue they don't need to cheat. I also scoffed when Dems were crying fraud in the previous elections.

I don't have much to add beyond TyphoonTim & gwern, just a request for MM to wax less philosophical (particularly in the Continental style) about sovereignty. As they say at Less Wrong, philosophy is a diseased discipline, a method of producing broken thoughts.

November 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Also, regarding the claim that GWB was an "aberration", what about Bush Sr? Reagan? The GOP seems to do a decent job of winning elections.

November 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM  
Anonymous James A. Donald said...

what about Bush Sr? Reagan? The GOP seems to do a decent job of winning election

The republicans win elections to move the right hand edge of the Overton window leftwards. The Democrats win elections to move the left hand edge of the Overton window leftwards.

When the Right attains power, it is by becoming something other than itself, betraying its partisans not only incidentally and peripherally, through timidity or incompetence, but centrally and fundamentally, by practically advancing an agenda that almost perfectly negates its supposed ideological commitments. It builds that which it had promised to destroy, and further enthralls that which it had promised to liberate. Its victories mean ever less, its defeats ever more. To win is at most a lesser evil, whilst to lose opens new, unprecedented horizons of calamity, initiating previously unimagined adventures in horror.

November 30, 2012 at 8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pff. Read Bruce Schneier's many, many articles on electronic voting machines.

I suspect you'd basically need third-world levels of fraud for your fraud to be heard above the noise generated by bizarre, unreliable and insanely designed vote tallying systems. None of this piddly-assed 10-15% girlie-slapping. This would mean that most "close" elections are also within the margin of error, but so what? We already know elections don't matter.

Oh, your hyperlink on the word "bogus" is borked.

December 1, 2012 at 12:15 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

Sometimes I wonder if the Republicans could man it up and propose a Great Compromise with the Moloch of progressive America.

This coda reminds me of GBFM's great poem in which he writes "sometimes i wonder if poets and prophets can still change the world?"

December 1, 2012 at 3:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sometimes I wonder if the Republicans could man it up and propose a Great Compromise with the Moloch of progressive America. We'd call it a compromise -but I'm really thinking more of a surrender."

The proposal that follows can be compared to that of a hypothetical junior officer at Verdun begging his generals to just surrender to the other side, anything to stop the carnage and civilizational death produced by this pointless and ultimately provincial in its ambitions contest.

December 1, 2012 at 5:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama received fewer votes in Ohio in 2012 than he did in 2008 by a margin of about 100,000.

Also that's not how Bayesian analysis.

P(A1)= Probability that large scale voter fraud occurred. (A1 used for clarity, see below)
P(B)= Probability of observing anecdotal evidence of voter fraud, of the sort you cited
P(A1|B)= Probability of A given B, that is the odds of large scale voter fraud assuming that anecdotal evidence was observed.

P(A1|B)={P(A1)*P(B|A1)]/P(B)

Of course P(B|A) is very high, let's say .99
P(B) I think is also quite high. Why? Think of P(B) as the weighted average of a series of terms P(B|AN) where AN represents all possible conditions of voter fraud. A1 is the large scale election turning fraud, A2 is fraud on a smaller scale all the way up to AN at which point fraud is nonexistent. P(B) is the average probability of observing the above irregularities under each of these conditions, weighted by our prior probabilities of each condition.

Why is it high? Because there are a large number of precincts, some would see a large number of irregularities and be brought to our attention via blog posts regardless of the state of fraud nationwide (i.e. there is a strong selection bias at work). Let's say it's .95, or some other high, but not super high, number.

Lastly P(A1). How on earth do we calculate this? If we don't we have one equation and two unknowns. So, what prior evidence do we have? (Spoiler alert: the terms we've already estimated (P(B|A)/P(B)=1.04 so P(A|B)=1.04*P(A)).
The problem with the article is that it's completely nonsensical without assessing P(A) (or in terms of the Bayesian cult alluded to above P(A|B) is approximately equal to P(A) where A is whatever Mecnius is trying to convince me of, and B is this article) and that it's just really stupid without looking at the implications of P(B|A)/P(B) WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE THEOREM.

Before I read this article, had I a low P(A) is would still have a low P(A); where it high it would remain high. Bayes theorem is a way of using evidence and what it shows us is that Mencius's evidence is spectacularly awful.

Also, the difference between the 'Sovereign' creating a null hypothesis and imposing a prior is trivial. Yes they're different, but they're hardly unrelated and I can't imagine a society of sheeple and swine who accept everything not rejected at a p-value determined by the government would be able to ignore the influence of the government in determining their priors.

It really seems like Mencius read an intro stats article and got really excited about a new toy.

December 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interested in your thoughts on this:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/what-a-future-american-right-party-can-do-to-win/

And how the Republicans might stave the money flow that gives the Molloch its power

December 1, 2012 at 12:34 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

Anonymous,

Your objection is that there is no evidence of fraud. Mencius addressed that point in several ways.

Let's say you are correct that the outcome of the election was not influenced by illegal voting.

Does that mean you are also against the auditing proposed by Mencius? If so, why?

December 1, 2012 at 1:53 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 1, 2012 at 1:58 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

Anonymous 12:04 1 DEC:

How do you explain the fact that nearly all of the highly esteemed Nate Silver's turnout underestimated Democratic turnout by at least 1%?

If you dismiss this as simple bias, did you accept the Republican theory that Nate's model was in error before the election?

December 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM  
Anonymous James_G said...

The LessWrongians do use "Bayesian" as a buzz word. For example, Yudkowsky comments:

But there's a genuine and open question as to how much you should really assume - how much would be actually true to assume - about the general reasoning deficits of somebody who says they're Mormon, but who can solve Bayesian problems on a blackboard and explain what Governor Earl Warren was doing wrong and analyzes the Amanda Knox case correctly. Robert Aumann (Nobel laureate Bayesian guy) is a believing Orthodox Jew, after all.

Elsewhere:

I've never heard of that being taught in college. Is there a Bayesian stats class involved? Could these alleged evidence-weighers combine two likelihood ratios with a prior?

I mean, I'm sorry, but the above is just a ridiculous assertion. If there were any four-year university degree which taught people how to weigh evidence correctly, the world would look very different from the way it currently does.


I've literally never seen anyone solve a "Bayesian problem" on Less Wrong. Here is an excellent article on Less Wrong which criticised the Knox verdict before the retrial; despite his mention of the "Sword of Bayes", the reasoning is deductive and he makes no use of Bayes's theorem!

Nonetheless, recognition of Bayes's theorem at least constrains one's thinking process in certain meaningful ways. Try watching 12 Angry Men with the Reverend in mind.

Gwern is correct that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but this is orthogonal to Moldbug's point. His implication is that soi-disant Bayesians are hesitant to make adequate use of priors when the results are "discriminatory" or "racist", which is often the case. This inferential mistake can be cloaked by the fact that, for instrumental reasons (e.g. because legal evidence should not be equivalent to rational evidence) the criminal justice system discourages use of peaky prior distributions.

Rigging of postal votes for Labour is well-known in England, and the disproportionate involvement of ethnic minorities is a hatefact. I concur with Moldbug in having a high prior probability for the type of ethnic-minority progressive vote-rigging described in his excerpt.

However, I doubt that this fraud accounts for 200,000 voters in Ohio. My prior for the integrity of American election officials and voters is too high for me to think that fraud of this magnitude is feasible.

December 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM  
Anonymous James said...

I recall that a few years ago, Mencius made and subsequently rescinded an allegation that Obama has a fake Bachelor's degree.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/another-interpretation-of-obama-at.html

December 1, 2012 at 3:55 PM  
Anonymous The cat that didn't bark said...

Absence of absence is not evidence of evidence.

December 1, 2012 at 6:44 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

That heartiste post was idiotic. The super-rich do not lean Dem. Some folks on the right promote that idea, but it just isn't true (read any political scientist who studies the topic, like Andrew Gelman or Larry Bartels). And cable channels are bundled because the real cost is cable infrastructure, not providing a marginal channel. MSNBC, as the name suggests, is part of a much larger conglomerate with plenty of money to spare, you're unlikely to starve it to death. And it's not like the left was all that weak before MSNBC!

December 1, 2012 at 6:52 PM  
Anonymous nydwracu said...

Polling isn't all about data; there's also some amount of statistical magic involved, hence house effects. How do they get their magic? If they take into account the results of past elections (and I can't imagine how they couldn't, although what do I know), and there are no *major* increases in meatpuppetry, the magic will mask the meat.

That's not to say that it does happen, only that it could.

December 2, 2012 at 2:03 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

As they say at Less Wrong, philosophy is a diseased discipline, a method of producing broken thoughts.

I agree philosophy is stupid and there's far too much philosophical navel gazing on fringe conservative websites.

It's time to strip politics of all philosophical jargon and look at it from the perspective of crude material reductionism.

Which leads me to:

In a bureaucratic oligarchy like ours, the professional both rules and is ruled. At the top, there is no one on top of him. Yet he cannot change his mind. He would simply be replaced.

This is the main difference between continental European Communism and Protestant nanny-statism/progressivism: Communism's sovereignty was traceable and Western progressive sovereignty is non-traceable.

In the old hard-left regimes, the bureaucracy did the bidding of either a single Communist dictator or an easily traceable oligarchy of elite politburo shareholders. In the Soviet system, all agencies acted as political subfolders which could be traced back to a single root command, e.g., Joe Stalin. Or, one of the lesser-Soviet successors to the most Soviet of all Soviets.

The Stalinist root command was particularly traceable, if not pleasurable, in its 1930s-1950s heyday. When Adolf Hitler sent Ribbentrop to shake hands with Molotov and sign their ill-fated pact Hitler could be as confident Molotov was representing the will of Joseph Stalin as Stalin could be sure Ribbentrop represented the will of Adolf Hitler. Indeed, from the perspective of a standard engineering workflow diagram, Molotov was Stalin and Ribbentrop was Hitler.

December 2, 2012 at 8:50 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Continued,

The same can't be said for non-Communist leftist foreign ministers. Or any non-Communist left agencies. In the Western system, the inner party elected officials serve the bureaucracy/Cathedral. Their job is to sneak in as many policies that strengthen the unaccountable bureaucracy they answer to as they can before they are voted out and replaced with outer party officials who represent the non-Cathedral national constituents such as the private sector, large corporations, the military, and white business owners.

This was not a flaw of the Soviet model. The Soviet agencies did not give orders to their dictators, the dictators fed commands down to the agencies. In Soviet Russia the KGB would not dream of collectively acting against a strong Soviet premier, unless there was an indication the premier was about to be overthrown by an up and coming root command.

Returning to foreign policy analogies, Kissinger once asked who he should call if he wanted to contact "Europe". His point, of course, was that the proto-EU bureaucratic dictatorship had no central command a la the USSR where the bureaucracy obviously traced back to the Politburo and Soviet premier.

Ironically, Kissinger's question could be thrown back at Kissinger: who should Europe, or anyone, call if they want to contact the American government?

Nixon? What agencies did Nixon control? Did Nixon control anything? Nixon had some control over Kissinger. But Kissinger was a foreign officer molded in the Hohenzollern tradition, not the Rooseveltian. When the Soviets went to speak to Kissinger they could be sort of confident they were dealing with Nixon. If they dealt with the CIA or State Department they had no idea whether they were dealing with Nixon or a Mark Felt who was aiming to overthrow Dick in bureaucratic coup.

And Nixon himself couldn't sure whether any given New Deal bureaucrat could be trusted to do his bidding. So how could the Soviets? The Soviets had much less of a problem keeping their bureaucrats in line with party desires.

December 2, 2012 at 9:05 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The super-rich do not lean Dem. Some folks on the right promote that idea, but it just isn't true (read any political scientist who studies the topic, like Andrew Gelman or Larry Bartels).

It's true the very wealthy are not liberal, but the country isn't run by the rich. We're run by the bureaucracy.

America, of course, is supposed to be ruled by elite white business oligarchs while at the same time giving the commoners enough legal rights so that they wouldn't rebel against the corporate class. Often.

And our government was originally designed to represent the will of the capitalist oligarchs.

From 1776-1860 the country was divided between elite Northern businessmen and elite Southern plantation owners. After the War of Unification, the Hamiltonian Northern business elites had uncontested rule of D.C. from 1865-1932. In the Lincoln-Hamilton epoch, the Republican party was the inner party because the corporations were the ruling elites.

The reason we have fallen off into political bizarro world is because FDR sabotaged the system: He took power away from the elite business owners and gave it to an unaccountable New Deal bureaucracy which is able to survive the defeat of individual Democrat politicians and ignore the will of elected Republican officials who do the bidding of the private sector.

Indeed, creating an unaccountable bureaucracy where government officials could not be fired was was the key weapon the progressives used to defeat the old Republican/Corporatist plutocracy. Before FDR, government officials were chosen through a "spoils system" that was founded by Lincoln where elected officials, especially the president, got to appoint their own political hacks to government jobs. Inevitably, the spoils system led to corruption scandals involving corporations and elected officials, which led to progressive calls for severing control of the government agencies from the corporation's proxy in the form of the Republican party.

The result of these "good" government reforms was to lay the foundations of bureaucratic dictatorship which we are now all enjoying so much: If the Cathedral no longer has answer to elite business owners, or even answer to Democrat politicians if the Cathedral wants to ignore the Democrats, then the bureaucracies are actually in control.

And, bureaucracies that are liberated from having to answer to any conservative or Communist dictator root command inevitably proceed to create propaganda and "beneficial crises" to justify giving more power to the bureaucracy.

This is why almost all Cathedral policy initiatives fail: The failure of Cathedral policies is then used to justify the creation of more bureaucratic powers and money to solve a problem that the Cathedral created.

This is why we see the Cathedral claims to support racial equality when they are actually creating more racial problems via non-white immigration, why the Cathedral diet Nazis insist on making Americans fatter by eating carbohydrytes, why "educators" support policies that make American public schooling more ineffective: The failure of the Cathedral's policies is used to justify demands for more Cathedralism!

December 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

That heartiste post was idiotic.

It was actually on the right track. The way to defeat the Cathedral is to defund their agencies rather than voting out their politicians. The reason the Cathedral keeps winning even when the Democrats are on a losing streak is because the Cathedral is non-traceable and, hence, survives the inevitable Democrat loss at the polls. After Democrat politicians lose, the Cathedral merely bides its time and undermines the Republicans while waiting for the inevitable Democrat victory to start metastasizing again.

The Cathedral is a self-perpetuating feedback loop, and cannot be defeated by fighting one leader as the Soviet Union could be.

The way to defeat the Cathedral lies through unplugging their power centers and knocking out the feedback loop's incentive structure.

With the Cathedral defunded, sovereignty will again be restored to business oligarchs as was the case from 1865-1932 and we would have government as good as we did in high tide of Hamiltonianism.

BTW, Wall Street and the corporate class are not Cathedral because they are demonized too much by the Cathedral agencies who want to plunder them.

From the material reductionist perspective of traceability, mega-Corp is a helpless concentration camp victim at the mercy of Cathedral concentration camp guards.

A bit of a stretch? No. If it's one thing this blog has taught us it's that the truth lies not in the middle but on one end of extreme analogies or the other.

December 2, 2012 at 9:42 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Far too much discussion of the Dems vs the Rs and far too much worry about Romney's loss. Romney himself is probably better off having lost than getting blamed for the failures of Obama's 1st term.

Since the US electoral system of governance is based on representation, the real way to defeat the left is to defund the Cathedral* which is only represented in DC by the Democrats. The Democrat party is not the Cathedral, it's more of a dummy terminal through which the Cathedral passes through sub commands to the governmental server.

Defund the Cathedral and the Democrats will revert back to the weak outer-party they were in 1865-1932 Lincoln conservative glory years.

So how do we defund the Cathedral?

It's as easy as letting college students cut class:

* She makes the mistake of implying pulling funding for liberal arts majors would seriously disrupt the Cathderal's operations. This is incorrect. There aren't enough humanities majors to keep the biggest trouble makers, the non-business and non-STEM departments, solvent.

The funding for the hardcore leftist profs originates from the 50-60 credit hours worth of general education, not humanities majors. If the 80% of students who are not humanities majors are allowed to skip their gened classes 50% of liberal arts professors could be laid off.

With newspapers being gutted by the internet and computer tablets, private and public unions coming under attack at the local level, the next target for defunding should be the university system.

The gened requirements could be eliminated by Republican state level legislators. They could eliminate it either by giving high school students college credit for their basic high school classes. e.g., high school English with any grade better than an F eliminates college level English, high school history eliminates college level history, etc, etc. Or they could just force public colleges to offer all of their bachelor degrees in 60-90 credit formats where there are no gened requirements at all.

And before anyone brings it up, I'm aware there are CLEP tests that high schoolers canco use to cross off gened requirements, but few students know about these tests. In order to get mass defections out of the gened I want a much simpler and faster option to opt out of them.

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2763

Restricting general education courses to a select few will be extremely unpopular with some faculty. There are large numbers of teaching jobs at stake: many departments that now teach popular general education courses could lose half or more of their students. If that were to occur, financial sanity dictates that faculty jobs in those programs be cut. (Of course, new jobs will be created at the same time for specialists in the essential subjects.)

December 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM  
Blogger Son of Brock Landers said...

@The undiscovered jew - The Robert Rubin wing of Wall St has performed a coup on our economy and government. They have the NY Times by the balls, they recruit all their new analysts and salesmen from the Ivy League and Rubin himself is now heading up the CFR. Rubin's wing of Wall St was smart in that they hitched their wagon to Clinton, pushed through numerous reforms with the smiling face of a Democrat in office, and have funded whatever change they want.

I think the Heartiste post was on the right track as well. I'd argue that the need is there to break up the TBTF banks and then go after the higher education racket. Start with the most pressing area of reform Wall St. Once that is reformed and improves things, people will have a taste for real reform, so then go after colleges. A GOP congress or POTUS holder should attack the TBTF banks, which hold a ton of student debt, and when that debt is auctioned off and eventually written down after the TBTF break up, state govts could reform the state uni structure. This may not directly impact Harvard, but it would impact all of the smaller private colleges that follow Harvard pricing but compete more for the good students of their home state. Compare Colby/Bates/Bowdoin in Maine vs. Maine's state schools. A 40K gap may not sway a kid from "Harvard", but no kid is picking Colby over UMaine for 40K annually.

December 2, 2012 at 10:46 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The Robert Rubin wing of Wall St has performed a coup on our economy and government. They have the NY Times by the balls,

If Wall Street is part of the Cathedral apparatus then why does the Times repeatedly attack Wall Street? No other alleged Cathedral subtype gets the wrath of the Times other than IBankers.

Furthermore, Wall Street donations overwhelmingly went for Romney. Newspaper donations were, er, less pro-Romney.

If Wall Street were calling the shots then why such different political tendencies this year?

The reason the Cathedral attacks Wall Street with regulations and slander is because they recognize Wall Street would be the root command without the New Deal system and they want to intimidate Wall Street to accept insults and injuries such as Frank Dodd to keep them from going to far off the plantation.

Wall Street is certainly guilty of cowardice, but it is not naturally the Cathedral. The bankers are more like an occupied Soviet satellite that can't break free of the USSR.

From the perspective of Mencian political theory, Robert Rubin and the boys at Goldman are functionally no different from concentration camp prisoners.

Your lack of empathy for the suffering of IBankers is, disturbing...

A GOP congress or POTUS holder should attack the TBTF banks, which hold a ton of student debt, and when that debt is auctioned off and eventually written down after the TBTF break up, state govts could reform the state uni structure.

Incorrect.

Over 85% of student debt is held by the government.

Again you are blaming the banking industry for a problem created by the Cathedral.

state govts could reform the state uni structure. This may not directly impact Harvard, but it would impact all of the smaller private colleges that follow Harvard pricing but compete more for the good students of their home state.

If we can defund most of the other universities except Harvard the Cathedral would still be gravely weakened anyway because much of the left's propaganda depends on quantity of propaganda. Harvard professors aren't numerous enough to churn out the sheer volume of nonsense studies needed to justify the Cathedral's policies.

Compare Colby/Bates/Bowdoin in Maine vs. Maine's state schools. A 40K gap may not sway a kid from "Harvard", but no kid is picking Colby over UMaine for 40K annually.

Absolutely correct. Sudden price competition from StateU's suddenly offering bachelor degrees in 60 credit hours instead of 120 would force non-HYP private colleges to downsize the fluff departments so they can compete on price with public schools.

December 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TGGP said...
I live in Chicago and oddly enough don't think fraud matters much for presidential elections here.


Definition of deaf, dumb and blind - someone who lives in Chicago and doesn't believe in election fraud. (And I mean DUMB in both senses of the word.)

Now, it is true TGGP is very, very stupid indeed, but even he is (probably) not stupid enough to venture into the areas where the fraud is perpetrated. So he is looking for the keys under the lamppost, but scoffs at the idea there might be keys somewhere out there in the darkness.

December 2, 2012 at 4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wall Street is liberal. It supports things like "gay marriage":

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/gay-marriage-gets-boost-from-wall-street/

It donated more to Romney because it wants more money and is worried about taxes and regulations, not because it's not liberal. It donated overwhelmingly to Obama in '08.

Non-liberal industries would be things like defense contractors, agribusiness, energy, manufacturing, etc.

December 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html

"The story of how same-sex marriage became legal in New York is about shifting public sentiment and individual lawmakers moved by emotional appeals from gay couples who wish to be wed.

But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition."

December 2, 2012 at 8:59 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

TUJ:

I think you overestimate the ability of current public school education policies to prepare someone to write coherently.

Now, you could do a good job of arguing the need to change that but the answer isn't dropping gen ed (yet).

December 3, 2012 at 6:10 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

> a "spoils system" that was founded by Lincoln

Negatory, the system was at its most notorious under Jackson.

Also, the Civil Service Reform took place mostly over 1883-1900 /nach/ wik. Maybe FDR gave it additional teeth, I don't know. I could be wrong but I thought MM's view of a "1933 revolution" in the US was based more on FDR saying "as of this moment you not only cannot secede, but the Constitution is essentially nonbinding on USG" -- rather than on any dramatic enhancement of the invulnerability of the civil servant taking place circa '33. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

December 3, 2012 at 7:12 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

From the SEP article on Schmitt:

What about cases, though, where sovereignty is not just unrecognized in positive law but where there is no one, as a matter of fact, who could successfully take a decision to suspend the law altogether? This condition seems to apply in many contemporary western democracies. Perhaps such polities are ill-prepared to deal with radical emergencies.

Understatement of the modern age.

December 3, 2012 at 7:20 AM  
Anonymous Nah said...

you overestimate the ability of current public school education policies to prepare someone to write coherently.

Now, you could do a good job of arguing the need to change that but the answer isn't dropping gen ed (yet).


They don't need 35 to 40 credit hours of gen ed commie bull in order to learn how to write coherently. That is maybe 6 hours of basic writing, tops, preferably taught by someone sensible (i.e. NOT an English major).

Better yet, return to the entirely appropriate rule from the olden days that if you can't write coherently, then your dumb ass does not belong in college. Buh-bye!

December 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Nah:

Well, obviously. But that's not the solution TUJ proposed. Clearly we have too many people in college. I read once that college success required an IQ>115 which means that 84% of the population doesn't belong there.

Of course, that's racist, so our colleges are full of idiots.

December 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM  
Blogger Son of Brock Landers said...

@The Undiscovered Jew - Dont confuse donations that dont even add up to the bonus pool for one year with actual support. Rubin crept into the White House and molded economic strategy, bailout policy and tax policy. Clinton himself recently stated how it was Rubin who sacrificed middle class tax cuts but kept in the EIC tax credit, which was a sop to the underclass barbell of the Dem voting coalition.

I beg to differ on Wall St. and the Cathedral. The NY Times when it uses its full resources can reduce an industry to crumbs through its methods of "persuasion". If the Times were serious about Wall St reform, we'd be reading about ways to dismantle the TBTF banks non-stop with expert opinion. It would be on the tip of everyone's tongue. Instead we get half covered stories, cop outs to the banks and DC regulators and a very mild approach to the TBTF banks.

I blogged about how the banks get their way at my blog. http://28sherman.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-two-pronged-threat-banks-use.html

December 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Ryan said...

'Many, many people were unable to state their names and addresses without assistance. Many, many people said the name was incorrect on their ID due to them getting married or divorced. Many, many people said that the address on their IDs were incorrect due to them having moved recently. Many could not state either the address on their ID or their current address. Many, many people could not speak English and could not follow the directions of “state your name and address.”'

Let's see how this checks up against my baesian priors:

The left hand side of the bell curve are so fucking stupid they cannot be expected to remember their previous address, much less what name they were going by at the time they registered to vote. They probably moved multiple times, due to divorce, eviction, criminal conviction, the like. Updating their drivers license with a new address would require a) giving a shit and b) risking arrest for how ever many outstanding warrants they have. Even the most rudimentary command of the English language is far too rosy an expectation.

Yeah, OK, evidence checks out, prior does not move.

December 4, 2012 at 2:52 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

TUJ,

To the extent the Cathedral has a will, it is the tax exempt fundations, the venture capitalists of pseudo scientifically justified social engineering policy. Care to guess who controls the tax exempt foundations?

December 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As they say at Less Wrong, philosophy is a diseased discipline, a method of producing broken thoughts."

I've finally worked out the less wrong, sailer-sphere, moldbuggian crowd out.

You are all nerds. Millennialist nerds to be exact. There is no grand high theory of nerd-dom, or insight-porn, as per that recent blog post. The simplest explanation is that you are all a community of semi-religious nuts that believe that a major change is coming. You are like the 2012 Mayan crowd, but in the case of this blog, everyone believes progressive millennialists are going to make something catastrophic happen. It is millennialists watching millennialists. How recursive. You are more higher functioning than 2012 mayans, I'll give you that. More like medieval scholars and logicians using logic and philosophy to prove god. Nevertheless, all the hallmarks of millennialism is in this part of the blogosphere, i.e. collective, imminent, total transformation of society. Another attribute of millennial movements is charismatic authority. Moldbug has plenty of that.

Less wrong also believes that the nerd rapture will come soon, be it catastrophic or progressive. In sociological terms lesswrong is avertive apocalypticism. It shouldn't be any surprise that someone like lukeprog (a former religious nut), is trying to shove competing memes like philosophy out of the way through charismatic authority (see his latest post over there, his position has gotten to his head, notice the outlining of sacred texts to be read by the faithful).

It makes sense that there is cross over between less wrong and here, as most of you are already memetically infected with some form of millennialism.

December 5, 2012 at 5:04 AM  
Anonymous K_C said...

Anonymous:
" The simplest explanation is that you are all a community of semi-religious nuts that believe that a major change is coming."

Well, I think we all can agree a major change is coming; the only real discussion is the pace of said change.

I personally believe it will be much slower yet nonetheless as complete as the 'millennialist nerds' predict.

I guess we'll see, huh?

December 5, 2012 at 10:57 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I think you overestimate the ability of current public school education policies to prepare someone to write coherently.

College graduates are also terrible writers. What's the point of keeping the gened if they can't even teach basic writing skills anymore? And why does teaching writing require college? Basic writing skills were taught successfully for centuries before the Industrial Revolution.

Now, you could do a good job of arguing the need to change that but the answer isn't dropping gen ed (yet).

You've missed my point completely. My interest in eliminating the gened requirements is PURELY partisan. Eliminating the gened is intended as a way to gravely weaken, maybe cripple, the Cathedral.

I don't care if the gened is the only way to teach people how to write (is it? Couldn't an iPad app teach writing and at less cost?) Even if there were a worsening in college graduate's ability to write, it would still be worth eliminating the gened because there aren't enough humanities majors to make up for the loss of non-liberal arts students who will jump at the opportunity to junk classes unrelated to their major. Defunding the Cathedral is paramount (more so even than presidential elections) because without the Cathedral the Democrat party is nothing:

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2763

Restricting general education courses to a select few will be extremely unpopular with some faculty. There are large numbers of teaching jobs at stake: many departments that now teach popular general education courses could lose half or more of their students. If that were to occur, financial sanity dictates that faculty jobs in those programs be cut. (Of course, new jobs will be created at the same time for specialists in the essential subjects.)

December 5, 2012 at 8:48 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Looks like we have UR agents enrolled at UVa:

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2012/12/a-more-liberal-education

I would propose, not only for our University but for all institutions of higher learning, a complete lack of general education requirements — with the one caveat that the writing requirement remains intact

snip

Degree programs typically require between 30 and 45 credit hours, while students need a total of 120 to graduate. Rather than dictating that an additional 46 credits be accounted for by way of requirements, why not allow students to control their own academic discovery? Broadness for its own sake will accomplish little — if students are not engaged in what they are learning, their education was for naught. Additionally, with the credits and time we would gain from eliminating the degree requirements, we could more easily pursue a second major or specialize more fully in our chosen area of study. We could learn comprehensively, but with our own interests in mind.

December 5, 2012 at 8:51 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

To the extent the Cathedral has a will, it is the tax exempt fundations, the venture capitalists of pseudo scientifically justified social engineering policy. Care to guess who controls the tax exempt foundations?

The liberal think tanks are simply smaller, more specialized extensions of the larger, federally funded college social "research" apparatus. If the liberal arts financially implode, Brookings and related institutes would not be large enough nor have the money to pick up the slack in liberal output on behalf of their newly unemployed colleagues.

December 5, 2012 at 8:59 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Clearly we have too many people in college.

Yes, but that's not strategically relevant. What's important is to use eliminating geneds as a way to defund most liberal arts departments while pretending our main objective is to "make college affordable for everyone." Saying we want to make college more affordable by eliminating anywhere from 18 months to two years of tuition is more popular than saying your kid's too dumb to be in college.

Defund the Cathedral first and then we can talk about improving education for the sake of reforming education rather than using education reform as a cover for sneaking a trojan horse through the Cathedral's gate.

December 5, 2012 at 9:08 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Negatory, the system was at its most notorious under Jackson.

I was referring to the spoils system under the Lincoln/Hamilton golden age of 1865-1932, not pre-Civil War America. The Guilded Age spoils system served the Northern Industrialists. Prior to the civil war, the civil service changed hands between Northern businessmen and Southern plantation owners.

Also, the Civil Service Reform took place mostly over 1883-1900 /nach/ wik. Maybe FDR gave it additional teeth, I don't know.

Yes, and this was the original progressive sin because it lead to the creation of a body of power, the Cathedral/bureaucracy, that was intentionally designed to be independent of politics and electoral shifts in order to reduce corruption and minimize corporate corruption over American politics, which was real. Unfortunately, creating a beaurocracy that was independent of politics meant creating civil service agents that cannot be held responsible for the failure of their policies. Indeed, the modern Cathedral does better when their policies fail. When, for example, the Health Department's high carb diet guidelines create the obesity epidemic, the Health Department does great because they get to hire more bureaucrats and and demand more power to solve the problems they either created or made worse. Advising high fat Atkins style diets (which is what a competent health department would do) would be disastrous for the Health Department because if the obesity epidemic goes away, the dieticians at the Health Department would not be able to justify expenditures to solve a problem that has just vanished. The job security of Cathedral commissars DEPENDS on failure.

FDR took the late 19th century civil service reforms and expanded them so much that control of the country passed from businesses to the unelected Cathedral which never is held to account for its failures because it can't be voted out of office like Democrat politicians can. Only disrupting the progressive feedback loop can defeat the progs, not worrying about elections.

December 5, 2012 at 9:24 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Btw, the reason the WASPs were conservative before FDR and went from resisting Roosevelt through most of his four terms but then turned liberal immediately after WWII is because of the New Deal. During the Guilded Age, the country was run by corporate WASP plutocrats who managed the country politically by using the militarily victorious GOP to guide pro-business legislation through DC.

After the New Deal, the WASPs became either liberal or useless Rockefeller Republicans because the New Deal transferred sovereignty away from corporate oligarchs and to these shiny new Ivory Towers where unelected "expert" academic managers would succeed where the Corporate oligarchs failed.

When the WASPs realized they had to go through the Cathedral to run Washington they quickly defected to the New Deal structure in order to maintain control of the political machinery.

FDR's evil trick was to move the levers of power away from corporate oligarchy and into the hands of the bureaucracy by arguing that unelected beurocrats would make better managers than the JP Morgans. Of course, in our time the actual result of severing the levers of power from the private sector has lead to governmental corruption and incompetence in our time that far exceeds any corporate/political scandal from 1865-1932.

My thinking, as an avowed Hamiltonian/Lincolnian apologist, is that if the Cathedral were defunded and sufficently weakened (such as, oh, by eliminating gened reqs) the vacuum of governance would would be restore back to its rightful owners: corporate oligarchy.

And make no mistake, the founders wanted America to be ruled by wealthy businessmen since most of the founders wanted voting rights to be restricted to only wealthy landowners.

December 5, 2012 at 9:41 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Dont confuse donations that dont even add up to the bonus pool for one year with actual support. Rubin crept into the White House and molded economic strategy, bailout policy and tax policy. Clinton himself recently stated how it was Rubin who sacrificed middle class tax cuts but kept in the EIC tax credit, which was a sop to the underclass barbell of the Dem voting coalition.

Wall Street donated to Obama in hopes they could corrupt him into leaving them be like Clinton did during his regency.

Unfortunately, Wall Street couldn't control Obama and get him to restrain the fringiest radicals in the Cathedral (because Obama is one of them) and so Wall Street turned towards Romney.

The country club Republicans are more guilty of cowardice in fighting the Cathedral than being actual appendages of the Cathedral. Certainly if Wall Street were the inner party, they wouldn't be subject to Occupy Wall Street rallies anymore than the KGB be would be threatened by the Red Army. Occupy has barely protested the college tuition scam and the federal government's role in creating in it. Instead they've wrongly blamed the banks for the tuition crisis even though 90% of all student loans outstanding are owned to the Feds, not Wall Street big cats.

December 5, 2012 at 9:47 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

"The liberal think tanks are simply smaller, more specialized extensions of the larger, federally funded college social "research" apparatus."

I'm talking about the grant-writers. The bureaucracy is the biggest grant-writer by far, but is not the avant guard. New programs and new research first prove their worth as a project of the Ford, Rockefeller, Gates, etc. Foundations. Some are then purchased wholesale by the bureaucracy. There are many historical examples of this such as the Gray Areas program or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_Studies

But this is still how it works. The presidents of the major foundations as well as the reps of the UN security council still meet once a year at the barns at Rockefeller's house to coordinate goals. I realize this is crazy, but I read it on the website for Kykuit before taking my daughter there to see the gardens and the art collection.

Now, are the great financial powers against competition from upwardly mobile hedgefund dickheads? Of course. This is what is reflected in the NYTimes.

December 6, 2012 at 3:30 AM  
Blogger Debra said...

Undiscovered Jew, I am surprised that, with your background, you seem to have not yet picked up on the idea that the Cathedral is not... PEOPLE, the Cathedral is... words.
That's right. A technoLOGOS.
An attentive reading of "Macbeth", written in the 16th century, shows how a powerful flesh and blood leader with authority (but without legitimacy) gets foiled by the words...
As I have perhaps said here before (repeat myself a lot, sorry...) the words call the tune.
They always have, in fact.
Way back when, we were perhaps a little more intelligent on this subject, but cartesian positivism has truly blinded and crazed us.
A sorry day.
In my more nostalgic moments, I climb on my stationary bicycle (in bad weather) and read "Beowulf" aloud to myself.
Now... that guy was a leader... a real man, too.
Undiscovered Jew, it would perhaps be a good idea if more freshman college, even high school students got to listen to "Beowulf" being read aloud in the Chickerring translation ?
Then perhaps there would be more people who would not settle for presidents like Obama...

December 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And make no mistake, the founders wanted America to be ruled by wealthy businessmen since most of the founders wanted voting rights to be restricted to only wealthy landowners.

"Wealthy landowners" and "wealthy businessmen" are quite different classes. They're by no means the same.

December 6, 2012 at 4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After the New Deal, the WASPs became either liberal or useless Rockefeller Republicans because the New Deal transferred sovereignty away from corporate oligarchs and to these shiny new Ivory Towers where unelected "expert" academic managers would succeed where the Corporate oligarchs failed.

WASPs never became liberal. New England was the most solidly Republican and anti-New Deal region during FDR's reign. After FDR it remained Republican until the 60s, when it started going Democrat due to demographics. The WASPs in New England were dying out by then and replaced by non-WASP ethnics.

December 6, 2012 at 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if the Cathedral were defunded and sufficently weakened (such as, oh, by eliminating gened reqs) the vacuum of governance would would be restore back to its rightful owners: corporate oligarchy.

Nevermind that the idea of weakening "the Cathedral" by eliminating gen ed reqs is just silly. We already have an oligarchy. And it isn't right-wing at all. It's internationalist, globalist, licentious, decadent, pro insourcing and outsourcing, etc.

December 6, 2012 at 4:25 PM  
Blogger Son of Brock Landers said...

@The Undiscovered Jew - Obama has made moves that have strengthened wall st and their control of financial assets in the US. Look at the data. Citigroup is the welfare queen of wall st. The entire Occupy focus on the 1% shifts attention from pinpoint Wall St reform to a broader attack on the 1%, which becomes a broader attack on any business person who can do well on their own.

I do agree that wealthy landowners and wealthy businessmen are two different things. A wealthy landowner more likely has an interest in the region which he or she lives and a tie to the people around him.

December 6, 2012 at 5:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama has made moves that have strengthened wall st and their control of financial assets in the US. Look at the data. Citigroup is the welfare queen of wall st. The entire Occupy focus on the 1% shifts attention from pinpoint Wall St reform to a broader attack on the 1%, which becomes a broader attack on any business person who can do well on their own.

Yes, good point. There has been a tremendous centralization of wealth -- that is net assets -- that has occurred during recent decades and been taken to catastrophic levels by the so-called "rescue" of Wall Street.

Occupy Wall St. does not attack this centralization. It promotes a similar con to the "New Deal" when FDR passed a so-called "Wealth Tax" in 1935 that was simply a graduated income tax.

December 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

@Debra:

That was a good king.

Have you seen the Sullivan-Murphy (Longman edition) translation?

December 7, 2012 at 4:30 AM  
OpenID eradica said...

That River of Meat
Opened long ago
What you see now
Is Only Overflow

December 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM  
Blogger Debra said...

No, G.M. Palmer, how does it stand up to Chickerring ?
Lots of luscious alliteration in Chickerring, so it reads aloud well.
Yes, that was a good king.
The... republic has a very short memory span...
For milleniumism (my God, does that word exist ?), the world is always ending...
And beginning tomorrow.
From my French perspective MY world is ending too fast for my tastes, and I am becoming.. obsolete at a frightening pace. (But then, several years ago I started listening to Mahler/Rückert "en boucle", "ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen", "I am lost to the world" in English translation.)
When I think what our utilitarian society reserves for obsoletes.. well, certain unfortunate incidents during the twentieth century come to mind.
In Beowulf's time, people were perhaps naturally.. pessimistic ?
Not to be confused with milleniumism.

December 8, 2012 at 1:52 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Undiscovered Jew, I am surprised that, with your background, you seem to have not yet picked up on the idea that the Cathedral is not... PEOPLE, the Cathedral is... words.
That's right. A technoLOGOS.


If by words you mean a dictatorial bureaucracy then, yes.

December 8, 2012 at 5:38 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

WASPs never became liberal. New England was the most solidly Republican and anti-New Deal region during FDR's reign. After FDR it remained Republican until the 60s, when it started going Democrat due to demographics. The WASPs in New England were dying out by then and replaced by non-WASP ethnics

False. Moldbug and TGGP, who disagrees with Moldbug about pre-FDR WASP politics, agree that elite WASPs have been either left-liberal like David Souter and Howard Dean or useless Rockefeller Republicans. The Supreme Court was WASP dominated from 1969-1994 and the court during this period wasn't exactly conservative.

It is true as TGGP has pointed out that New England was the most FDR resistant region during his reign. But after the war the WASPs moved way left well before the 1960s revolution. Even during the late 19th and early 20th centuries the American university system had large minorities of progressives.

Where Moldbug errs is where he claims that the WASPs were on average liberal even before WWII. This, as TGGP has pointed out is incorrect. But Moldbug's history of leftist WASPs post FDR is largely correct.

December 8, 2012 at 5:49 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Btw, WASPs did not disappear. They are being undercounted because many of them have left the Episcopalian Church, intermarried with other greater wave ethnics (the super left WASP Howard Dean is married to a Jewess) or moved outside the Northeast.

Pinch Sulzberger is actually a lapsed Episcopalian, rather than a Jew, to the limited extent Reform Judaism differs from the Episcopalians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger,_Jr.

Sulzberger was born in Mount Kisco, New York, the son of Barbara Winslow (née Grant) and the previous Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, grandson of Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, and the great-grandson of Times owner and publisher Adolph Ochs. His mother was of mostly English and Scottish origin[2] and his father was of Jewish origin (both Ashkenazi and Sephardic). His parents divorced when he was five. He was raised in his mother's Episcopalian faith, but no longer observes the religion.[3]

December 8, 2012 at 5:53 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

kObama has made moves that have strengthened wall st and their control of financial assets in the US. Look at the data. Citigroup is the welfare queen of wall st. The entire Occupy focus on the 1% shifts attention from pinpoint Wall St reform to a broader attack on the 1%, which becomes a broader attack on any business person who can do well on their own.

Wall Street gave money to Obama in 2008 in order to Clintonize him, i.e., turn him into a Democrat who would go easy on Wall Street. Obama, however, was too ideological to be swayed and he has implemented as many anti-Wall Street initiatives as he can such as the widely hated Dodd - Frank.

While Wall Street can tolerate a business friendly Democrat such as Bubba, they cannot tolerate giving too much power to the nuttiest segments of the left.

This is why Wall Street heavily backed Romney. This is also the reason the mainstream GOP is suddenly nervous: If Wall Street couldn't get a WASP plutocrat elected in the face of an extreme leftist president then this may signal the Cathedral has, after metastasizing for 67 years, finally become more powerful than the private sector.

I do agree that wealthy landowners and wealthy businessmen are two different things. A wealthy landowner more likely has an interest in the region which he or she lives and a tie to the people around him.

Wealthy businessmen almost inevitably own the most land. So any representative oligarchy system (e.g. the US from 1776 to 1932) will end up with wealthy businessmen as the de-facto oligarchy.

The reason American politics has sucked so hard since 1932 is that the businesses (represented by the GOP) can't clear out Cathedral appartchiks like they could before progressive reforms and the New Deal made the Ivory Tower philosophy kings unaccountable to either Republican or Democrat politicians.

Wall Street is basically a helpless victim of the Cathedral. From the perspective of Mencian political theology, there is no fundamental difference whatsoever between a Fortune 500 CEO and the average concentration camp victim in 1944.

December 8, 2012 at 6:04 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I'm talking about the grant-writers. The bureaucracy is the biggest grant-writer by far, but is not the avant guard. New programs and new research first prove their worth as a project of the Ford, Rockefeller, Gates, etc. Foundations. Some are then purchased wholesale by the bureaucracy.

The non-college non-profit centers such as Brookings have both revenue and total assets that are completely dwarfed by the federally funded (and also non-profit) colleges. Harvard alone has a trust worth 31 billion and that doesn't include alumni donations, research grants, federal and private tuition dollar loans, and physical assets such as buildings and brand name.

Without the college system, the think tanks and activist groups would have no hope of reproducing the output of Cathedral propaganda that the colleges produce.

December 8, 2012 at 6:10 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The Republican governors, led by the gov Scott Walker, may be starting to get the message: Defund the Cathedral rather than defeat Democrat politicians:

Michigan Governor Announces Support for Right-to-Work Legislation

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/06/Michigan-Governor-Announces-Support-for-Right-to-Work-Legislation

National unions spent $23 million trying to pass Proposal 2, which would have added collective bargaining to the state constitution and overruled 170 laws already on the books. But Proposal 2 failed with 58 percent of Michigan voters deciding against it in last month's election.

Now Governor Rick Snyder and the state's Republican legislature have teamed up to push something that once would have been unthinkable in Michigan, right-to-work legislation. For the first two years of his term, Governor Snyder affirmed that he supported collective bargaining and denied any interest in right-to-work legislation. That changed with a video he release this morning. Governor Snyder makes two arguments in support of the legislation. First that it is fair to allow workers to choose whether or not to be part of a union and second that it will help Michigan compete with states like Indiana which recently passed similar legislation:

December 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM  
Blogger Debra said...

Undiscovered Jew, Macbeth was foiled by the words, and there was no dictatorial bureaucracy in sight.
The... um... exposure that the word "equal" was getting was considerably reduced in the 17th century compared to what it is now.
The Enlightenment... Verb ? gets short shrift.
It just can't stand up to all those abstract substantives.
Too many abstract substantives create... bureaucracy, Undiscovered Jew.
Unless... bureaucracy creates abstract substantives (and not flesh and blood.. entrepreneurs, to pay lip service to a .. dirty ? word) ?
It probably works both ways, though...

December 9, 2012 at 1:17 AM  
Anonymous Lawful Neutral said...

Debra, your punctuation is giving me a brain tumor.

December 9, 2012 at 3:36 AM  
Blogger Son of Brock Landers said...

@The Undiscovered Jew - Walker, Daniels, Snyder and even perry understand attacking the cathedral at its root. Please read some sites like Naked Capitalism, Zero hedge and other financial blogs to see that Dodd-Frank is not widely hated by the banks and actually strengthens their dominanca on banking. Don't fall for the propaganda that they are scared of it.

Example: Citigroup received a $38 billion tax break to repay their tarp loan by Obama. You're oh so right, Obama has been so tough on Wall St. whatever will they do with him in charge? Many of them must be in jail! If Wall St had wanted him gone, they would have crashed the market in october to panic people for change just like they did in '08 to cement his win. I agree with the Cathedral concept, but let's think about where the money comes from.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504534.html

December 9, 2012 at 6:31 AM  
Blogger Debra said...

Lawful Neutral, since this is disembodied internet land, and we are not looking earnestly into each other's eyes, I am going to take your comment as a.... compliment. ;-)
What is the difference between a wealthy Roman landowner and a wealthy American landowner ?
For the Roman (B.C. at any rate, and even afterwards), the land was a refuge value that he believed ? he could fall back on if all hell broke loose.
The wealthy American businessman cum landowner doesn't believe in the land at all, and has few, if no, ties with it. (What DOES he believe in ? that's a good question...)
Is this the result of bureaucracy ? Na. This is the result of sticking a price tag on everything in order to make it accessible to the largest number of people. In part, at least.

December 9, 2012 at 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is true as TGGP has pointed out that New England was the most FDR resistant region during his reign. But after the war the WASPs moved way left well before the 1960s revolution.

Not true. Eisenhower won New England in 1956. In 1960, Nixon won Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, which were the relatively more WASP parts of New England, while Kennedy won Mass., Rhode Island, and Conn., which were the relatively less WASP parts. In 1968, Nixon won Vermont and New Hampshire. In 1972, Nixon won New England except for Mass. In 1976, Ford won Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Conn. In 1980, Reagan won New England except for Rhode Island. Reagan won New England in 1984, and Bush won New England except for Mass. and Rhode Island in 1988. 1988 was almost a generation ago, and by now the WASPs in New England have been dying out and replaced by non-WASPs.

December 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pinch Sulzberger is actually a lapsed Episcopalian, rather than a Jew, to the limited extent Reform Judaism differs from the Episcopalians:

Sulzberger is not a WASP. His name is, um, "Sulzberger".

December 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Republican governors, led by the gov Scott Walker, may be starting to get the message: Defund the Cathedral rather than defeat Democrat politicians:

Michigan Governor Announces Support for Right-to-Work Legislation


Except Michigan auto unions and the like aren't part of "the Cathedral".

This is about corporations replacing higher wage, unionized white American labor with insourced, low wage Latin American labor. If anything, it will strengthen "the Cathedral".

December 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there is no fundamental difference whatsoever between a Fortune 500 CEO and the average concentration camp victim in 1944.

"CEO Pay Grew 127 Times Faster Than Worker Pay Over Last 30 Years"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/ceo-pay-worker-pay_n_1471685.html

"American CEOs saw their pay spike 15 percent last year, after a 28 percent pay rise the year before, according to a report by GMI Ratings cited by The Guardian. Meanwhile, workers saw their inflation-adjusted wages fall 2 percent in 2011, according to the Labor Department.

That's in line with a trend that dates back three decades. CEO pay spiked 725 percent between 1978 and 2011, while worker pay rose just 5.7 percent, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute released on Wednesday. That means CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay.

Income inequality between CEOs and workers has consequently exploded, with CEOs last year earning 209.4 times more than workers, compared to just 26.5 times more in 1978 -- meaning CEOs are taking home a larger percentage of company gains.

That trend comes despite workers nearly doubling their productivity during the same time period, when compensation barely rose. Worker productivity spiked 93 percent between 1978 and 2011 on a per-hour basis, and 85 percent on a per-person basis, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Meanwhile, workers saw their inflation-adjusted wages fall in recent years as corporations postponed giving raises while adding to their record corporate profits."

December 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is why Wall Street heavily backed Romney. This is also the reason the mainstream GOP is suddenly nervous: If Wall Street couldn't get a WASP plutocrat elected in the face of an extreme leftist president then this may signal the Cathedral has, after metastasizing for 67 years, finally become more powerful than the private sector.

The Wall St. and big money backers of Romney were liberals who support "the Cathedral". They just want lower taxes and support Israel. Or something.

"SuperDonor Backs Romney — And Gay Marriage"

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150426158/superdonor-backs-romney-and-gay-marriage

"Sheldon Adelson: ‘I’m Basically a Social Liberal’"

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/12/05/sheldon-adelson-im-basically-a-social-liberal/

December 9, 2012 at 4:23 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Example: Citigroup received a $38 billion tax break to repay their tarp loan by Obama. You're oh so right, Obama has been so tough on Wall St.

The conservative industries you listed also pry money from the feds.

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree on Wall Street.

December 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Undiscovered Jew, Macbeth was foiled by the words, and there was no dictatorial bureaucracy in sight.

It's in sight now and the most efficient way to get rid of it is to defund it.

December 9, 2012 at 8:50 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Not true. Eisenhower won New England in 1956. In 1960, Nixon won Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, which were the relatively more WASP parts of New England, while Kennedy won Mass., Rhode Island, and Conn., which were the relatively less WASP parts.

They preferred Rockefeller Republicans who were essentially as liberal as the Democrats (Nixon's 1960 platform doesn't differ far from JFK's).

Since the Republicans have become more conservative than they were under Gerald Ford, Nixon and GHWBush, the WASPs have split between supporting Democrats and the few remaining Rockefeller Republicans.

WASP politicians like Howard Dean, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ned Lamont and the like either moved to the far left or are now wimpy RINOs like Lincoln and John Chafee, before Lincoln Chafee became an independent.

December 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Sulzberger is not a WASP. His name is, um, "Sulzberger".

His mother's name is Grant and he was raised an Episcopalian. Pinch is a WASP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger,_Jr.

Sulzberger was born in Mount Kisco, New York, the son of Barbara Winslow (née Grant) and the previous Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, grandson of Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, and the great-grandson of Times owner and publisher Adolph Ochs. His mother was of mostly English and Scottish origin[2] and his father was of Jewish origin (both Ashkenazi and Sephardic). His parents divorced when he was five. He was raised in his mother's Episcopalian faith, but no longer observes the religion.[3]

Except Michigan auto unions and the like aren't part of "the Cathedral".

Unions are one of the heaviest financial backers of the Democrat party. And this legislation also bans mandatory public union dues, not just the private sector.

The Wall St. and big money backers of Romney were liberals who support "the Cathedral". They just want lower taxes and support Israel.

The entire Cathedral was in the bag for Obama. If Wall Street wasn't on board with Obama and heavily favored Mitt then this indicates they are part of the outer party. What other organ of the Cathedral is demonized in the media than as much as Wall Street?

December 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They preferred Rockefeller Republicans who were essentially as liberal as the Democrats (Nixon's 1960 platform doesn't differ far from JFK's).

Since the Republicans have become more conservative than they were under Gerald Ford, Nixon and GHWBush, the WASPs have split between supporting Democrats and the few remaining Rockefeller Republicans.


Presidential platforms never differ very much. And the Republicans have not become more conservative. Nixon was arguably the last president that sympathized with populist-nationalism. And he was the last president of 100% colonial stock: https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/the-hated-richard-nixons-ancestry/

WASPs have died out and been replaced by other populations in much of New England.

December 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His mother's name is Grant and he was raised an Episcopalian. Pinch is a WASP.

And Obama's mother's name was Dunham. Neither Obama nor Pinch are WASPs.

December 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unions are one of the heaviest financial backers of the Democrat party. And this legislation also bans mandatory public union dues, not just the private sector.

Auto and industrial unions aren't really part of "the Cathedral". Public and service employee unions are. Auto and industrial unions have largely been destroyed and are small and irrelevant. The Dems abandoned them decades ago but just pay lip service to them.

This legislation is mainly about corporations replacing the last remaining vestiges of higher wage, unionized white American labor with insourced, low wage Latin American labor. "The Cathedral" was instrumental in bringing about this state of affairs.

If Wall Street wasn't on board with Obama and heavily favored Mitt then this indicates they are part of the outer party.

No, it indicates that they're liberals that just want lower taxes and support Israel or something.

December 9, 2012 at 9:58 PM  
Blogger gwern said...

James_G wrote:

> I've literally never seen anyone solve a "Bayesian problem" on Less Wrong. Here is an excellent article on Less Wrong which criticised the Knox verdict before the retrial; despite his mention of the "Sword of Bayes", the reasoning is deductive and he makes no use of Bayes's theorem!

I am amused at your claims and choice of link, because Komponisto, on the exact same subject of Amanda Knox, produced what I thought was one of the more beautiful and unexpected uses of Bayes's theorem I've seen: http://lesswrong.com/lw/35d/inherited_improbabilities_transferring_the_burden/

(As usual with people who claim there are no uses of Bayes's theorem on LW, I must conclude that we are reading different pages or have memories of differing quality.)

December 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Nixon was arguably the last president that sympathized with populist-nationalism.

Nixon had populist sentiments? The same Nixon who created Affirmative Action, the EPA and imposed price controls?

WASPs have died out and been replaced by other populations in much of New England.

WASPs have not died out. They're being undercounted because they've intermarried with descendents of Great Wave immigrants (such as the lapsed Episcopalian and WASP Sulzberger), left high protestant churches, or moved to other parts of the country besides the Northeast. Romney for one is a Harvard bred WASP.

The non-WASP whites in the Northeast are also assimilated into WASP norms, which, as mentioned above, have unfortunately been liberal norms since WWII.

Ethnic whites such as mayor Bloomberg, the Kennedys, the Cuomos, the Pelosis have all adopted elite WASP norms no matter how much they may bleat about their immigrant past or being ethnic.

Auto and industrial unions aren't really part of "the Cathedral".

Then why is it that over 90% of private sector union political donations go to the Democrats?

And Obama's mother's name was Dunham. Neither Obama nor Pinch are WASPs.

Dunham wasn't a WASP because she wasn't born into an upper crust high protestant family. She was a generic anglo-Protestant American.

Pinch is a classic liberal WASP in terms of 50% ancestry and his politics which is a spitting image of David Souter and John Paul Stevens, two other model "conservative" WASPs.

December 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM  
Blogger Debra said...

Fascinating, this discussion about the WASPS.
It has allowed me to realize that (my husband) and I have raised both of our French children to be Wasps..
(Except that I have a decided interest in the Catholic Church. If for no other reason than that the French... iconoclasts who were church bashing during the Reform AND the French Revolution had decidedly Protestant visions of God.. and society.)
New England is the historical cradle of the New (ugly word) world. American institutions, including the sacred Constitution, were born and raised from the cradle of NEW England. (Listen to the way that sounds : NEW England. Sometimes the obvious is SO obvious that it goes right over our heads.)
French people who head for Boston (and Philadelphia where I spent some time as a child) feel at home in cities that have a European flavor to them.
Now, Los Angeles ? No European flavor to that city.
From my point of view, the U.S. has been bursting out of its swaddling clothes for quite some time now, and no longer feels ties, or obligations to the mentality that produced its.. constitution, and institutions.
Undiscovered Jew, I think you have a quaint belief that money makes the world go round...
Many modern people seem to believe that money makes the world go round.
That's called idolatry of filthy lucre, and it is a very subtle idolatry, that your... people ? had a lot to say about. In fact they stuck it under a microscope to study it...
Idolatry of money takes your civilization down.
Don't take my word for it. Our world's literature goes on and on about it.

December 11, 2012 at 12:32 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

UJ,

Not Brookings! I'm not talking about Brookings. I'm talking about the avant garde. Harvard as a body is not the avant-garde. The extreme left of Harvard is part of the avant-garde. Harvard and the bureaucracy are conservative institutions, almost entirely reactive, thought very closely attuned, to the the zeitgeist. The zeitgeist is moved left by the avant-garde and the overton window is dragged left by the rest of the Cathedral, including, as James Donald points out the Republican party (they move the right side of the overton window).

The avant garde of the left for the past century has been the giant tax exempt foundations. Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Tides, etc. They are one giant interlocking network. The venture capitalists of revolution. I understand that direct funding from the bureaucracy dwarfs these, but a) the same people move from the top spots at the foundations to the top spots in government, academia, and finance b) nobody who is not in this class in government is allowed to initiate research into a new field. The field exists (as formed and nourished by the foundations) and they bureaucracy grows it.

December 11, 2012 at 4:41 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"Nixon had populist sentiments? The same Nixon who created Affirmative Action, the EPA and imposed price controls?"

Nixon was an ambitious man.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2010/07/nixon-rockefeller-ok-platform-in-secret-talk-goldwater-furious.html

December 11, 2012 at 4:47 AM  
Anonymous Matt said...

This is a totally unrelated comment/question to this particular blog post; but perhaps I can receive an answer here. Does anyone know what book regarding the American Civil War that Mr. Moldbug recommends in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZluMysK2B1E ? I ask this here in the hope that the regular readers have seen this discussed before. Thanks in advance for any assistance

December 13, 2012 at 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nixon had populist sentiments? The same Nixon who created Affirmative Action, the EPA and imposed price controls?

Yes, Nixon had populist-nationalist sympathies. He was arguably the last president that sympathized with populist-nationalism. In addition to the things you mention, he also tried to establish a guaranteed minimum income, another populist proposal.

Then why is it that over 90% of private sector union political donations go to the Democrats?

Auto and industrial unions aren't really part of "the Cathedral". Auto and industrial unions have largely been destroyed and are small and irrelevant. The Dems abandoned them decades ago but just pay lip service to them.

The major private sector union that arguably is part of "the Cathedral" would be the SEIU, the Service Employees International Union.

December 13, 2012 at 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASPs have not died out. They're being undercounted because they've intermarried with descendents of Great Wave immigrants (such as the lapsed Episcopalian and WASP Sulzberger), left high protestant churches, or moved to other parts of the country besides the Northeast. Romney for one is a Harvard bred WASP.

WASPs have declined and been replaced in parts of the country such as much of the northeast and New England. Intermarriage is population replacement.

Romney is a Mormon. Mormons are related to WASPs and largely descended from them, but they're not the same thing.

The non-WASP whites in the Northeast are also assimilated into WASP norms, which, as mentioned above, have unfortunately been liberal norms since WWII.

Ethnic whites such as mayor Bloomberg, the Kennedys, the Cuomos, the Pelosis have all adopted elite WASP norms no matter how much they may bleat about their immigrant past or being ethnic.


The northeastern and New England WASPs were Republicans and were conservative relative to the ethnic whites who were Democrats. The ethnic whites didn't adopt WASP norms. The ethnic whites came to dominate and define northeastern politics.

Dunham wasn't a WASP because she wasn't born into an upper crust high protestant family. She was a generic anglo-Protestant American.

Pinch is a classic liberal WASP in terms of 50% ancestry and his politics which is a spitting image of David Souter and John Paul Stevens, two other model "conservative" WASPs.


Neither Dunham nor Pinch are WASPs because they're half-Jewish. If you mix two breeds together, the product is a mixed breed, not one of the parental breeds.

December 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM  
Blogger James_G said...

Matt: I am quite certain that the book is The Origin of the Late War by George Lunt.

December 14, 2012 at 5:44 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Anon:

>Neither Dunham nor Pinch are WASPs because they're half-Jewish.

You're discussing race. TUJ is discussing behavior.

December 14, 2012 at 7:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gentlemen,

We have identified and agreed on the problem. The American education system has been usurped by the left. The American left has played a long game strategy for about a hundred years to reshape the moral and intellectual make up of our society through indoctrination in state schools. Home schooling and private schooling, while laudable, cannot address the root problem because these systems do not and cannot reach a majority of the American people. We must take a long view calculated to reach a broad sampling of the population if we are to solve the problem.

I propose the following solution: We establish a non-profit organization (Libertas via Veritas) to 1) identify and select conservative undergraduates for placement as teachers in the so-called “Social Sciences” within the existing state education system. I select the social sciences as the starting point simply because they are the are most prone to distortion and interpretation. Math and science are objective studies, history never is. 2) we encourage the best and brightest conservative minds to take this path through loan forgiveness or salary supplements of an amount sufficient to make the positions appealing to undergraduates with lucrative prospects.

Selecting the desired individuals must occur through “invitation only.” In order to avoid “moles” or pretenders who are simply out for a free lunch, the program must be by invitation only and invitation must only be made to those who have demonstrated their conservative grounding and aptitude. The program’s first step must be identifying recruiting professors at several conservative institutions (George Mason, The Citadel, VMI, etc.) These professors would work with the Board of Directors of the foundation to identify selection criteria. The program would necessarily grow from these initial institutions to colleges and universities across the nation.
Once the selection criteria is identified, the recruiting professors would be charged with identifying promising and qualified “true believers” in the American free enterprise system and founding principles. These candidates would be quietly offered full student loan repayment or a salary stipend sufficient to bring their salaries as educators to a level in parity with their prospects in the private sector. In exchange, the candidates would contract to teach for six years in the public school system within a district selected by the program.

The program must start at the beginning, i.e. preschool or kindergarten. To be effective, the program must begin at the beginning of the public school pipeline and follow a cohort of students through graduation. As the program matures and the cohort advances, the curriculum would be designed to work within the constraints of the State approved curriculum but to do so in such a way as to require students to have meaningful exposure to primary documents regarding classical liberalism, the enlightenment and our nation’s founding and history, thereby inoculating the students to the distortions foisted upon them by the State’s doctrinaire educators. A student with a firm grasp of first principles and grounded in the enlightenment is unlikely to be duped by the left’s hackneyed propositions that liberty should be subordinate to equality.

Fundraising: Obviously, this project would be expensive. However, I believe existing non-profits (such as The Heritage Foundation) may have an interest in lending their fundraising clout to the project or even adopting the project as a wing of their own efforts.


This is obviously a thumb nail sketch, but it addresses and ongoing conversation we have had for months now. What are your thoughts? e-mail me. dylanwgoff@hotmail.com

December 14, 2012 at 7:32 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

"(Except that I have a decided interest in the Catholic Church. If for no other reason than that the French... iconoclasts who were church bashing during the Reform AND the French Revolution had decidedly Protestant visions of God.. and society.)"

FDR was partly descended from French Huguenots. So if you're wondering why FDR's progressivism in particular was so weird even compared to other American progressives, well, there's part of your answer.

Undiscovered Jew, I think you have a quaint belief that money makes the world go round...

No, my belief is that the default governing root command of America should be corporate oligarch.

You disagree with my assesment? Many of the founders were nearly as wary of giving anyone except wealthy whites the vote as Moldbug is.

December 14, 2012 at 9:36 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Romney is a Mormon. Mormons are related to WASPs and largely descended from them, but they're not the same thing.

Romney is ethnically Anglo Saxon, wealthy, Harvard educated, and a former governor and venture capitalist from the Northeast. This makes him a WASP even if Mormonism's strict theological connection to Protestantism is iffy.

December 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Fundraising: Obviously, this project would be expensive. However, I believe existing non-profits (such as The Heritage Foundation) may have an interest in lending their fundraising clout to the project or even adopting the project as a wing of their own efforts.

Why build an alternative to higher ed when you can just defund it?

Again, get rid of the geneds to shutter a majority of liberal arts departments for reasons outlined already (which include cutting tuition expenses by 40-50% because students would be able to get a bachelor's degree taking only 60-80 credits instead of the current 120 credits):

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2763

Restricting general education courses to a select few will be extremely unpopular with some faculty. There are large numbers of teaching jobs at stake: many departments that now teach popular general education courses could lose half or more of their students. If that were to occur, financial sanity dictates that faculty jobs in those programs be cut. (Of course, new jobs will be created at the same time for specialists in the essential subjects.)

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2012/12/a-more-liberal-education


I would propose, not only for our University but for all institutions of higher learning, a complete lack of general education requirements — with the one caveat that the writing requirement remains intact —

snip

Degree programs typically require between 30 and 45 credit hours, while students need a total of 120 to graduate. Rather than dictating that an additional 46 credits be accounted for by way of requirements, why not allow students to control their own academic discovery? Broadness for its own sake will accomplish little — if students are not engaged in what they are learning, their education was for naught. Additionally, with the credits and time we would gain from eliminating the degree requirements, we could more easily pursue a second major or specialize more fully in our chosen area of study. We could learn comprehensively, but with our own interests in mind.

December 14, 2012 at 9:46 AM  
Blogger Debra said...

Undiscovered Jew, perhaps you would care to translate your answer to my challenge that you believe that money makes the world go round.
As yet I see no evidence that your answer proves me wrong in this assessment.
On education : mea culpa, I have not read all of Rousseau's "Emile", but quite a few pages of it.
Rousseau believes that elevation (not education...) is achieved through mentoring, not through farming one's offspring out to any kind of SOCIALIZED public education SYSTEM.
My own personal experience in college where I was mentored in literary studies backs Rousseau up.
I agree with many here that children can learn how to write without going to college. Like they can learn how to read, too. Write.. WHAT ? Read... WHAT ? Letters to the IRS ? blog contributions ?....
One of my friends made the visionary comment that it is at the time when we can say what we want all over the planet in real time that we discover.... that we have nothing to say.
Because we no longer have the time to think.
But.. do we really WANT to think ? There's the rub.

December 14, 2012 at 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Romney is a Mormon. Mormons aren't WASPs. Mormons are closely related to WASPs and largely descend from them, but they aren't the same as them. They are their own distinct group.

December 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Propaganda existed, true, but it was remarkably crude

Remarkably is not the word. Did no one else catch 0:20-0:33?

LIBERTY OF ASS!
LIBERTY OF ASS!
LIBERTY OF ASS!

...pretty amateur fare for y money.

December 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Mormons aren't WASPs.

You said that WASPs were an ethnic group. Which is not correct because they've never been reproductively isolated from other white ethnic groups that assimilated into their elite tastes even prior to the Great Wave immigration. The WASPs are more of a social class. But lets for the sake of argument pretend that WASPs are an ethnic group:

Neither Dunham nor Pinch are WASPs because they're half-Jewish. If you mix two breeds together, the product is a mixed breed, not one of the parental breeds.

If, as you claimed above, WASPs are an ethnic group then Romney is ethnically as WASP as they come.

December 16, 2012 at 6:20 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Undiscovered Jew, perhaps you would care to translate your answer to my challenge that you believe that money makes the world go round.

You didn't listen to anything I said. I never claimed "money makes the world go round".

I wrote that USG was originally wired to be governed by wealthy business oligarchs and that most of the founders were nearly as skeptical of mass democracy as Moldbug is.

December 16, 2012 at 6:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with many here that children can learn how to write without going to college. Like they can learn how to read, too. Write.. WHAT ? Read... WHAT ? Letters to the IRS ? blog contributions ?....

And you think going to college is going to give them something to say? Everyone I know went to college, and none of them has any interest in writing or much in the way of intellectual interests to write about.

Most everything written before the 1960s was written by someone without a college education, and read by someone without a college education. Did it all lack value?

December 16, 2012 at 7:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASPs are an ethnic group, not a "social class". That's why they're called "WASPs". Mormons are closely related to WASPs and largely descend from them, but they aren't exactly the same as them. They are their own distinct group in their own right.

From a Time magazine article from 1969:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,838862,00.html

"Exactly who it is that will take over the center is a problem of definition. Wasps are not so easily characterized as other ethnic groups. The term itself can be merely descriptive or mildly offensive, depending on the user and the hearer; at any rate, it has become part of the American idiom. In one sense, it is redundant: since all Anglo-Saxons are white, the word could be Asp. Purists like to confine Wasps to descendants of the British Isles; less exacting analysts are willing to throw in Scandinavians, Netherlanders and Germans. At the narrowest, Wasps form a select band of well-heeled, well-descended members of the Eastern Establishment; at the widest, they include Okies and Snopeses, "Holy Rollers" and hillbillies. Wasps range from Mc-George Bundy and Penelope Tree to William Sloane Coffin Jr. and Phyllis Diller. Generously defined, Wasps constitute about 55% of the U.S. population, and they have in common what Columnist Russell Baker calls a "case of majority inferiority."

A Quiet Retreat

Sometimes Wasps are treated like a species under examination before it becomes extinct. At the convocation of intellectuals in Princeton last month, Edward Shils, professor of social thought at the University of Chicago, announced: "The Wasp has abdicated, and his place has been taken by ants and fleas. The Wasp is less rough and far more permissive. He lacks self-confidence and feels lost." Other observers feel that the growing dissension in American life is a clear sign that the Wasp has lost his sting, that his culture no longer binds. The new radicals and protesters are not in rebellion against Wasp rule as such, but they deride the Wasp's traditional values, including devotion to duty and hard work.

Although it is possible to exaggerate the decline of the Wasp, who has never really left the center of U.S. power, he is indisputably in an historical retreat. The big change came with the waves of migration from Europe in the 19th century, when many of his citadels—the big cities—were wrested from his political control. In a quiet fallback, the Wasps founded gilded ghettos—schools and suburbs, country clubs and summer colonies.

Lately, the non-Wasps have pursued them even there. A few years ago, Grosse Pointe, a Wasp suburb of Detroit, was notorious for rating prospective homeowners by a point system based on personal characteristics; Jews, Italians and "swarthy" persons almost invariably got so few points that they could not buy houses. Now all that has been abandoned, and Grosse Pointe has many Roman Catholic and Jewish residents. Downtown private clubs remain bastions of Wasp exclusiveness, but doors are opening. One recent example: Jews gained admission to the Kansas City Club in Kansas City, Mo., after an uproar over exclusionary policies; a rumor got out that the Atomic Energy Commission refused to locate a plant in the city because of private-club discrimination.

Non-Wasp groups are far better represented in Ivy League schools than they used to be: Jews, for instance, constitute about 25% of the student bodies. So traditional an Episcopal prep school as Groton now includes some 25 Roman Catholics, a dozen Negroes and three Jews. Jews stand out sharply in the nation's intellectual life, and Jewish novelists are beginning to overtake the fertile Wasp talent. Scarcely a single Wasp is a culture hero to today's youth; more likely he is the bad guy on the TV program"

December 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM  
Anonymous The Undsicovered Jew said...

Purists like to confine Wasps to descendants of the British Isles; less exacting analysts are willing to throw in Scandinavians, Netherlanders and Germans.

And since Romney is descended from Anglo-Saxons which means he is a WASP.

December 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Not Brookings! I'm not talking about Brookings. I'm talking about the avant garde. Harvard as a body is not the avant-garde. The extreme left of Harvard is part of the avant-garde. Harvard and the bureaucracy are conservative institutions, almost entirely reactive, thought very closely attuned, to the the zeitgeist. The zeitgeist is moved left by the avant-garde and the overton window is dragged left by the rest of the Cathedral, including, as James Donald points out the Republican party (they move the right side of the overton window).

Ford, Carnegie, etc, are politically indistinguishable from academia proper. They are all too small to make up for large layoffs in the university system.

Once more, some defunding trojan horses that can be sneaked in by under the cover of "Let's make college cheaper for the middle class" are:

1) Automating liberal arts professors out of existence by allowing full-time on campus undergrads to get full college credit freshman and sophmore level classes taken via online MOOCs.

2) Make federal and private loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy court.

3) Eliminate gened requirements.

4) Place price controls on college tuition hikes.

December 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM  
Blogger Debra said...

Undiscovered Jew, you don't have to say "money makes the world go round" to believe it.
But promoting defunding the "Cathedral" as an answer for our problems appears to be giving some heavy clout to filthy lucre.
But who can be blamed ? When we spend so much time chalking up dollars and cents, that is already a symptom of the evil.
Like the tacit assumption that the guy who raises the most in campaign contributions is the guy (or gal ?) who's going to "win" the election ?
Comparable maybe to the belief that the guy who has the most material possessions, fame, and the most filthy lucre is one of God's chosen ?
Rationalizing grace.
The national myth set up the U.S. to be a new promised land. A new Jerusalem.
For White Anglo Saxon Protestant settlers.
But not just, I think.
Remember : the NEW world.
That word gets some outrageous coverage in our publicity hungry civilization.

December 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

But promoting defunding the "Cathedral" as an answer for our problems appears to be giving some heavy clout to filthy lucre.


Sorry for my delayed response. I see what your objection is: You doubt cutting the money flow to the Cathedral will defeat the left. My answer, in brief, is of course it will.

I will have a more comprehensive explanation for why defunding the Cathedral is the route to victory tomorrow.

For now just understand that the Founder's designed the governing system to be representative oligarchy (not representative democracy) and that the post-FDR crisis of government is, at its base, a war between two tectonic political forces: the Hamiltonian/Lincolnian private sector vs the Wilsonian/Rooseveltian bureaucratic sector.

The parties are only empty vessels through which the warring oligarchical factions enact their preferred legislation via elected representatives.

Erase from your mind any concern over electoral politics. What ultimately matters is defeating the Cathedral itself rather than the Democrat party. The Democrats are merely a dummy terminal for the Cathedral.

December 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM  
Blogger Debra said...

Undiscovered Jew, over here in the country that developed the ideas that govern the cathedral, the Democratic party is... the socialist party.
It is rather logical that the origins of bureaucratic (system) domination go right back to the monarchy. No political ideology emerges ex nihilo. It emerges out of the preceding dominant ideology. What you call the Cathedral was already emerging under Louis XIV, who had an important number of bourgeois civil servants. And before Louis XIV, the Catholic Church had developed an important bureaucracy during its European empire.
I think that I have already said here that the bourgeoisie is only accessorily a class ; it is primarily a way of seeing, and living in the world, and a way of organizing society... the Cathedral, Undiscovered Jew. The bourgeoisie has morphed into "the middle class"...
There was a time when people usurped an aristocratic identity, and enviously aped aristocrat behavior. It would appear no longer.
Now, la fin du fin is to be as "normal" as possible. Not one hair sticking out on top. Not one hint of any form of "elitism", a dirty word. While all the while cultivating one's personal idiosyncrasies.
On filthy lucre : some people appear to believe that money is used to create propaganda to indoctrinate us. I rather think that money tends to .. naturally ? migrate to the places that we believe in, particularly under the, um, capitalist bourgeois/middle class system. When the money migrates elsewhere, it is that we have ceased believing.
These days, life is tough for us... and money, because we have ceased believing...

December 19, 2012 at 12:02 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I was too busy today to respond earlier so I will get to it tomorrow.

December 19, 2012 at 8:55 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

But promoting defunding the "Cathedral" as an answer for our problems appears to be giving some heavy clout to filthy lucre.

Our crisis of government has everything to do with filthy lucre because the filthy rich are who are supposed to be running USG according to the founding fathers.

You wonder why defeating the Cathedral will crush the American left. The answer is: Because in the absence of the Cathedral American governance and sovereignty will naturally revert back to the private sector root command.

To understand why restoring corporate oligarchy, which is to say Hamiltonianism (the ism which most closely follows my own conservatism) we need to break US history into three structural episodes:

1) The Ancient Structure (1775-1860)

2) The Old Structure AKA the Lincoln/Hamilton Structure (1865-1932)

3) The New Structure (1932 to present)

I am going to primarily focus on the conflict between the Old Structure and the New Structure because the Old Structure is what USG would revert back to if the New Structure malfunctions.

But first let's briefly look at attributes the Old Structure inherited from the Ancient Structure supertype it succeeded.

Under the Ancient Structure the founders established a system of free market oligarchy where only the wealthiest, AKA, Jefferson's "aristocracy of merit" were given the most voting shares in American politics. Parties were supposed to be irrelevant under the Ancient Structure. The parties were simply dummy terminals to be used by elite shareholders via a representative system whereby the parties were tightly controlled by their clients. The founders wanted to make sure the parties would not become sovereign bases in and of themselves and they succeeded. The parties even today are only of minor importance compared to the clients they represent.

December 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Continued,

As for the presidency, the POTUS is actually more of an regent than a sovereign. The American regent/president is allowed room to govern only within certain parameters granted to him by his clients. The regent/president is given a set amount of time to serve/represent his clients before he must step down and be replaced with another regent.

Back to the Ancient structure, as America approached the Age of Jackson, we begin to see the franchise expanded beyond only the wealthiest white Americans and to a more broader swath of the white electorate - which is very much against the initial desires of most of the founders who feared mass democracy. Interestingly, their fears were unfounded. Mass democracy didn't loosen the control the wealthiest Americans had over USG. The parties still responded to the whims of the corporate oligarchs.

Now we come to Old Structure. During the "Disputed Period" of 1860-1865, the Hamiltonians - led by the greatest of all Hamiltonians, Abraham Lincoln - destroyed the Jacksonian-Jeffersionian alliance. As the victorious party, the Yankee North was justly given free reign over the government of America from 1865-1932. However, the functioning of USGov, representative oligarchy, and the system of regency in the form of the presidency, survived the destruction the Disputed Period.

The main change between the Ancient and Old Structures was that the Hamiltonian Northern industrialists and their Midwestern farmer allies were unopposed by the Southern plantation aristocracy.

December 21, 2012 at 7:08 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued

It's important to remember, though, that the Old Structure was a conservative system. The war between the North and South was merely a contest of wills between two conservative powers much as the German Unification War was a contest between Catholic Hapsburg Austria and Protestant Hohenzollern Prussia.

The disastrous shift from Old Structure conservatism to New Structure progressivism occurred because the progressives created a power base, the Cathedral and related agencies, that was independent from the other three branches of government and even is independent of the private sector.

Remember that parties under the American system are only as strong as their clients. The parties are not power bases unto themselves. The fact the Republicans failed to elect an uber-WASP tycoon in the form of Mitt Romney only indicates the Cathedral is becoming more powerful than the private sector. The election has little to do with the candidates themselves.

If time explorers replaced William Howard Taft with Gerald Ford and vice versa, Taft would have been every bit as useless in the 1970's as Gerald Ford was. Likewise, had Gerald Ford been president from 1909-1913 Ford would have been every good as Taft was.

Why?

Because the older corporate oligarchs of the Guilded Age were the ones actually doing the macro-governance of the country from 1865-1932. The parties were, and are, nothing more than dummy terminals where oligarchs could meet up and smoke cigars.

Unfortunately, we are no longer run by corporatists. We are run by progressives bureaucrats who are unaccountable to any sovereign agent, Republican or Democrat. The private sector can still get things done but only with increasing difficulty against a completely insane Cathedral apparatus.

The wealth of the private sector masks its weakness as a sovereign: If the private sector were the inner party it would not struggle to get simple pro-business legislation passed through Congress such as making the Bush tax cuts permanent. During Warren Hardings time and during an age where the GOP was an actual ruling party capable of spreading terror and bringing order to the galaxy, the corporate oligarchs would have made temporary tax cuts permanent without breaking a sweat.

December 21, 2012 at 7:27 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Continued,

At last we come to the Cathedral, the cause of our misery.

What is the Cathedral? The Cathedral is self-perpetuating feedback loop, which is to say, an out of control progressive bureaucracy that becomes more powerful by:

A) Creating new problems (global warming taxes) or making an existing problem worse (non-white immigration).

and then

B) Demanding more regulatory power to "fix" a problem they either created Ex Nihilo or made worse.

Result: The Cathedral is an incentive structure that rewards failure and becomes more powerful the more its policies screwup. The Democrat party is not the problem. The actual government root command as of 1932 is the Cathedral, which is it is not a root command at all because there is no one in control of the Cathedral. It is an infinite loop which feeds the Cathedral apparatus, AKA, it gives more power to the universities, the public sector unions, federal workers, the media, the private sector unions, the think tanks. In other words, it gives power to the philosopher kings, the progressives who all work in agencies that are completely immune to reality and where failure is rewarded handsomely.

It is important to realize that Western progressivism is NOT Communism. Under Soviet Communism, the Communist agencies were directly controlled by the Soviet Premier and Politburo.

Under American leftism there is no dictator to control the bureaucracy, the Cathedral is an out of control Frankenstein monster that regulates for the sake of regulating rather than to serve the will of a Communist dictator.

When Molotov officially did anything we are 100% sure it was only done with the approval of Stalin. Are we this confident when a presumed Obama functionary does something? No. Pelosi put Obama on mute. And got away with it. Under Stalinist Russia nobody would dare to even dream of putting Stalin on mute. Let alone get away with by keeping their governmental title as Pelosi has.

Progressivism is not Communist because it's sovereignty is Non-Traceable leftism. This is arguably worse than Communism because at least under the Reds we could trace who was calling the shots over there, even during the Gorbachev wind down.

December 21, 2012 at 7:43 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Conclusion,

Why did the Cathedral become and independent source of power and how the heck do we power it down?

The Cathedral became independent of politics because Progressives spent their time during the Guilded Age trying to sever the control the Regent/president and the Congress/representatives enjoyed over the Civil Service. During the Ancient and Old Structure systems, the president was able to fire most civil servants and replace them with their own partisans. This ability to fire the previous civil service was known as the spoils system.

Progressives ended this just, if not perfect, practice and began creating other regulatory agencies that were independent of Congress and the president, especially during the New Deal. The result was that defeating Democrat politicians made no difference in reversing leftism because the Cathedral apparatus was immune to sovereign action by the Republican president. In fact, the Cathedral is able to constantly sabotage and hamper Republican agendas because they are immune to corrective action by the regent/president.

Worst of all, the Republicans have been fighting the left via the old model - the GOP is only concerned with winning elections because the Old Structure GOP was able to remove rogue civil servants. Of course this strategy fails because the Progressives occupy agencies where they immune to corrective action by a properly elected regent/president.

Elections are now pointless because the Cathedral survives the defeat of Democratic politicians. If Romney had beaten Obama by a Reagan scale landslide it would have changed nothing because the regulators would not have been brought under control by an Obama loss.

A Romney win would arguably have been WORSE because a Romney victory, just like the Nixon, Reagan and Bush victories, would have created the ILLUSION of a conservative triumph when in fact the Cathedral would only grow at a somewhat slower pace.

Of course, when the Cathedral is in power it does not only focus on defeating GOP candidates. The Cathedral actually wages war on the private sector by hobbling it with welfare entitlements, bad economic policies that harm private industry and benefit the Cathedral and demonizing the private sector.

Fortunately we have been shown by Moldbug's theoretical gymnastics and, most recently, by governor Scott Walker how to fight the Cathedral - stop worrying about defeating the politicians of the Left and focus on defunding their power centers.

I'm frankly surprised that Moldbug even raised a single eyebrow in aloof amusement on the night of Romney's loss given his understanding that the party system is simply an dummy terminal. The real way to defeat the Cathedral is to unplug it.

December 21, 2012 at 7:58 PM  
Blogger Debra said...

It's Christmas, Undiscovered Jew, and I can't respond in the way I would like to right now, cause I gotta put food on the table for eleven people.
Back in a couple of days. Cheers.

December 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM  
Blogger Debra said...

A few general points on the limits of your analysis, Undiscovered Jew, from my perspective.
First general observation : I could spend at least an hour carefully reading, and taking notes of your intervention, and proposing a contradictory rebuttal of many of your individual points.
I will not do that. I have read you in a rather cursory manner, much as... you have read me, moreover.
Taking the time to go through your individual points and rebutting them would be a talmudic approach, and you have noticed, I hope, that the Internet does not favor a talmudic approach. Because the Internet is a "tool" designed to give voice to the masses, Undiscovered Jew. It does not encourage the talmudic approach. Indeed, it is even hostile to the talmudic approach. This is very important.
...
First general criticism of your approach to the Cathedral : it limits itself to an encapsulated vision of the U.S., viewed exclusively from U.S. soil.
But.... the U.S. is a country initially founded by European colonists, and its institutions were modeled on European ideas. This means that, from my perspective, the U.S. represents an ideal in the minds of European civilization, and this role STILL exerts considerable influence on the American people, unbeknownst to the American public, and, for the most part, the European general public, too. (Particularly the countries most heavily involved historically in colonization.)
Example : the slave trade in the South was heavily coordinated from France, while slavery was outlawed on French soil. That is rather convenient : because NOT ONLY were big bucks to be made from slavery, slavery itself as a social organization was still present in the minds of Europeans, still possible, as long as it was going on.. far from the mother country.
You should know, Undiscovered Jew, just how complex a colonial relationship can be.
...
The ongoing relationship between French institutions/French society and American institutions/society continues to exert considerable influence, while individual actors blithely esteem that there is NO relationship because... THEY don't see the relationship.
There are serious limits to ignorance.
You will agree, I hope that what you can't.. SEE sometimes has a determining influence on you.
...
On the Cathedral : the Cathedral is the socialist manner of organizing the relationship between the individual members of a social body, and the social body itself.
The socialist manner privileges disembodied structure, and diffuse power over power incarnated in entrepreneurs, kings, presidents.
More later. Gotta go open my presents...

December 24, 2012 at 1:25 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home