June 24, 2016

Brexit wins!

Panic - The Smiths from Larry Darrell on Vimeo.


  1. https://twitter.com/hashtag/WhatHaveWeDone?src=tren

    Young people are suddenly sticking up for the top 0.0001% -- so much of the butthurt is about the plummeting pound, stock market woes, etc.

    Do any of these dumbass Millennials actually own any stock? No. Are they involved in currency arbitrage? No.

    The top of the class pyramid is going to get decapitated, just like during the Great Depression, which will close the inequality gap -- supposedly one of their pet causes.

    Of course, they don't give a damn about reducing inequality, otherwise they would be cheering on the less-educated and working-class for voting Leave, when in reality they're gloating about their loss in the referendum as proof of being smarter and upper-class.

    You can bet that a good number of progressives here in America will be saying the same thing when they wake up:

    "OMG, racists totally destroyed the bankers -- uh.... what, which one is worse? Oh right, #SolidarityWithTheOnePercent!"

    These progs are aspiring professional-managerial people. If there isn't a bubble economy, their overhyped worthless "skills" won't be able to secure them a spot in the upper-middle class.

    Therefore, they love the bankers and the stock markets more than they do the working class -- their moralistic preening about inequality notwithstanding.

  2. This was a stunning defeat for the entire establishment in Britain.

  3. It's also a resounding defeat for defeatist cuck citizens. I kept reading about how the results would be rigged, gaslighting from the media, yadda yadda yadda.

    But the financial media were panicking for the last several weeks -- meaning they didn't know the outcome. If it had been rigged, word would have gotten around, and the financial media would have been playing it cool. They have to be at least somewhat clued in to reality, since their audience has real skin in the game.

    The ones who were acting smug and complacent were the mainstream media, not the business press. You think that the media are just cunning shills who know the score but are paid to spew BS -- nope, they really are as dumb and deluded as they sound.

    A cunning shill does not sound very persuasive to the target audience. So the media executives hire only people who can be fooled into believing the official narrative -- the earnestness and sincerity is supposed to be more convincing.

    But just being sincere won't make your message become accepted, if the audience just does not want to buy what you're selling.

    The greatest defeat in this vote was against the propaganda machine and the gullible morons who serve as its cogs.

  4. I heard that the betting markets had put the chances of Remain at 80% or higher within 24 hours of the results being announced.

    That's not a small mistake with small consequences -- you make that kind of mistake, you're dead.

    So now we have another example of BIG DATA getting destroyed by the unfamiliar:


    We won't stop seeing the up-ending of the conventional wisdom by the unfamiliar, and yet the politicians, media, and a good chunk of voters will go right back to telling us, non-ironically, what the conventional wisdom predicts will happen next.

  5. Agnostic, what's your opinion on more authoritarian factions of the AltRight, like guys who want dictatorships and extinguish democracy?

  6. I just hope the London ruling class doesn't find a way to get around this (which is my gut feeling of what will happen)

  7. "I just hope the London ruling class doesn't find a way to get around this (which is my gut feeling of what will happen)"

    After what happened to Jo Cox? Doubtful. They aren't brave by any stretch of the imagination. And they've just been reminded MPs aren't immune to bullets.

  8. advancedatheist6/24/16, 11:11 AM

    GMU Economist Robin Hanson has pushed the idea of prediction markets for years, only he calls his version "ideas futures."

    This summer he has also published a nonfiction nerd fantasy about the coming robot civilization, titled The Age of EM, where "EM" means "emulated mind." And a number of other economists find this scenario plausible enough to engage and criticize; the response helps to legitimize Hanson's ideas. Given how much traction he got with pushing prediction markets which don't work, I wonder if his speculations about robot civilizations will start to show up in "serious" policy proposals.

    Hanson and similar propeller-heads who have more influence than they deserve show how the wrong people can wind up becoming important intellectuals in our society. I'd like to see the Trump Revolution empower thinkers who have real-world experience and common sense instead.

  9. "Because the rootless cosmopolitanism and diversity that they constantly push /
    It says nothing to me about my life"

  10. Agnostic, what is your assessment of the impact of the Cox assassination on the vote? I don't think it had the influence on the Leave voters as some Alt-Righters have feared.

  11. To your point about retarded Millennials larping as progressives while supporting the agenda of global finance capital, within the last 24 hours or so both Bernie Sanders and Hank Paulson (ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, GWB Treasury Secretary, architect of the bank bailouts, and one of the worst people in America) endorsed Hillary. I'll say that one more time: any idealistic Bernie supporters still unsure where to go from here had better come to grips with the fact that their "anti-establishment" savior is now supporting the same candidate as HANK PAULSON.

  12. Bernie just doesn't have the clout, the money, or the guts that Trump has. Bernie was basically a political hermit for decades, biding his time in Vermont until he felt so disgusted by the Dem elites that he opted to make a run. What he was naive about was how viciously venal and powerful the Dem establishment is. Bernie's got no real allies (look at the joke super delegates) and he never has been at all a power player like Trump. As the Cal primary drew near the Dems probably ordered the code red (which the Gop didn't dare do to Trump since Trump himself has plenty of consiglieres to mind the store).

    Bernie is likely doing photo-ops and token endorsements to ward off threats to his family and himself. He's too old, too frail (he's 4 years older than Trump but looks and sounds 10-15 years older), and too modest to sell out for the money, the book deals, the speaking fees, and "respect" from established/aging liberals. How many hang-up phone calls do you think Bernie and his family got in many sweaty May-June nights?

    BTW, the most honorable and cunning thing for Bernie to do would be to cozy up to Trump's "family" as a shield. That way he could stick it to the Dem establishment that he despises while remaining safe. He wouldn't even have to openly support Trump; just have a few meetings with Trump, promise to not enthusiastically embrace Hilary, then lay low.

  13. The Brexit vote mobilized the biggest turnout since 1992 (that year sure seems to come up a lot). That's a great omen for American turnout since the Anglosphere tends to align though it's not always a neat fit.

    "The ones who were acting smug and complacent were the mainstream media, not the business press. You think that the media are just cunning shills who know the score but are paid to spew BS -- nope, they really are as dumb and deluded as they sound."

    How much is wishful thinking and the reflexive anti-racist/anti-Trump/pro-globalism defenses kicking in? Liberals right now have to be pushing the meme that Trumpism/nationalism isn't dawning but rather is in twilight. Fading into stillness. To acknowledge the strong possibility (let alone the likelihood) that the guillotine is about to fall across the cosmopolitanism and mercenary individualism of the last 40 years would be to risk giving inspiration to your enemies. That can't happen.

    The worst trait of cultural liberals (smug and glib ridicule of things that they can't comprehend) has been sky high over the last several months. Over the last 20-30 years we've seen the liberals grin over the way that they've been able to run roughshod over customs for which obsolescence was forecast.

    These monstrous ways and ideas are escaping from the past. The liberals thought it was over. They'd won. Conservatism had become a mire to which only dumb rednecks and nerdy libertarians were drawn. So the liberals thought. The liberals are becoming more incredulous and desperate as they find that derisive smugness is not so persuasive anymore.

  14. "too modest to sell out for the money, the book deals, the speaking fees, and "respect" from established/aging liberals."

    Actually, respect from liberals is exactly what prevented him from doing anything -- and ditto his progressive followers.

    Whether or not they'll vote Trump, they should hypothetically at least be saying nice things about the Trump movement's stance on trade agreements, separation from and disdain for Wall Street, and generally being an anti-Establishment populist.

    But in the minds of libs and progs, being nationalist equals racist xenophobic bigot.

    We see which matters more to them -- making life better for the working class, or getting pats on the head from liberal elites.

    The progs have now surrendered the concept of "direct democracy" by standing up for the anti-democratic European Union against a referendum of the British citizens themselves, because those citizens who wanted political autonomy expressed that admirable goal in a problematic fashion (taking their country back).

    At this point, progs are lower than irrelevant. They never had a demographic base to throw their weight around with -- the white working class votes Republican, and ethnic minorities vote as a bloc for the Democrats.

    Progressives (Nader / Sanders fans) are primarily white males in their 20s and 30s who are overly educated and striving for a professional/managerial career -- not even a drop in the bucket of the electorate.

    In addition to having no mass to mobilize, they now have no idealism to motivate people with -- fall in line with EU bureaucracy, internationalist financiers, and Crooked Hillary Clinton, because otherwise TRUMP MIGHT WIN.

  15. "Young people are suddenly sticking up for the top 0.0001% -- so much of the butthurt is about the plummeting pound, stock market woes, etc.

    Do any of these dumbass Millennials actually own any stock? No. Are they involved in currency arbitrage? No."

    A lot of financially fucked Gen X-ers got bit by the cosmopolitan bug too. X-ers and Millennials getting bent out of shape about rising nationalism is because they've been blinded by liberal/elitist smugness. You don't even have to be rich to suffer from this (few people born after 1960 ARE rich anyway); rather, you simply have to believe that your intellect/cultural enlightenment is such that you can take glee in rubbing salt in the rednecks wounds.

    Modern liberals are a total disgrace. They keep kicking the knife further into the backs of most people. After all, most people are stupid anyway, they don't deserve my help or even my sympathy. The real kicker is acting as though Trump would somehow make society/the world even worse. How could it be any worse than it is right now? Only the most stubbornly cosmopolitan and smug liberal (or greedy-ass rich person) would at this point have the nerve to question Trump's old-school economic/demographic policies that would restore security and fidelity to the nation-state.

    We're seeing the weasels showing their faces right now.

  16. "The liberals thought it was over. They'd won. Conservatism had become a mire to which only dumb rednecks and nerdy libertarians were drawn."

    That's not too far off the mark. The Brexit vote was not a vote for conservatism, since conservatives were for Remain as well. Just like conservatives here are uneasy about Trump. Those who are politically drawn to conservatism, anyway, not necessarily those who have a conservative vs. liberal brain.

    It's nationalism vs. globalism now.

    By refusing to fight on the culture war turf, the nationalists have turned liberalism into a Maginot Line, and will sack the heart of corporate globalism through a wide-open route instead.

    Only ideological conservative morons will break rank and get into skirmishes with liberals way over there on the culture war front. They're endorphinally addicted to these fights, and can't help themselves (the Cruz Cult).

    Meanwhile the mass of the population is going to storm the Establishment and catch them all with their pants down. "How did they ever get past the impenetrable wall of liberals calling them racists and xenophobes???!?!!"

    We went around them, dumbass.

  17. The charts of supporting Leave as a function of age showed a smooth increase, which argues against it being generational, which would have shown jumps at generational boundaries.

    It was more of an effect of age itself -- being young and naive, impressionable, and easily pressured by authorities and peers, vs. being older and more savvy, independent-minded, and able to stand your ground.

    Just imagine if this vote were being made when the Boomers were 20 years old -- they too would've been full of airy-fairy dreams of cosmopolitanism over ethnic chauvinism (boooo), if the propaganda machine shamed them into it. Now that they're all grown up, they don't give a damn and are voting for nationalism.

    In any case, raise the voting age to 30.

  18. "what is your assessment of the impact of the Cox assassination on the vote?"

    Doesn't look like it mattered one way or another. The polls in the weeks leading up to the vote had Leave winning by 3-5 points. Then a dip after the assassination, and only a mild recovery.

    So the only thing it affected was the Leave supporters willingness to admit their position to strangers, in the wake of their position becoming slightly problematic. At the polling station, though, they voted anonymously the way they'd been planning to for several weeks.

    If she'd been a more high-profile figure, maybe it would have had an impact.

  19. What I find bizarre is this Stockholm Syndrome among smug post-Boomer liberals. Gen X-ers are almost entirely broke, ditto for Millennials. Gen X-ers have been punished by neo-liberalism and multicult their whole lives. Why stick up for these things? In the mercernary striver era, are there really that many wannabe rich young(ish) people? I guess so.

    What's the matter with Kansas? What's the matter with Brooklyn? What the hell are modern cultural liberals doing to lift everyone (not just homos, immigrant strivers, and the talented tenth of blacks) up.

  20. The epitome of progressive paternalism is their meme about "buyer's remorse" among the Leave voters.

    Supposedly, they're just now googling what the EU actually is -- after voting to leave it! And we cherry-picked a few people in London who changed their minds!

    This rationalization to alleviate cognitive dissonance among the progs combines several themes:

    1) Proles are too stupid and lazy to be trusted with democracy.

    2) But, they're not evil or spiteful

    3) Therefore, we shouldn't demonize the proles, only quietly disenfranchise them -- for their own good.

    4) And because we're so smart and diligent in our FACT-CHECKING (or blindly swallowing what self-designated fact-checkers assure us is true), our vote should replace their vote. It'll be in everyone's best interests.

    I've never seen so many decapitated bodies scratching their chins about where they head has been rolled off to. We're never going to get tired of winning.

  21. WRT the media, I don't care how people claim to distrust it. Or the ratings. Pravda existed for a reason. Uniformly one sided repetition of a narrative or tone does work to some extent. Not always does it get it's way (thus, Trump beating his GOP rivals heavily) but it's approach certainly works better than either giving a great deal of time to "heterodox" (e.g. threatening to elitists) views or simply not reporting anything at all.

    In a just period, a guy like Steve Sailer would be getting paid in the 6 figues for how quickly he can cut to the meat of an issue. The who, for whom, and for what reason aspects. But modern culturally liberal media treats guys like Sailer as total poison. We get stuck with hacks who usually hew to an established "brand" and careerist reporters who never seem to investigate much. Sure, a Pat Buchanan essentially is grandfathered in on account of his origin in the GOP's heart, but then again, is the MSM in general playing up Buchanan's opinions?. Nah. Charismatic, knowledgeable,witty, and well-reasoned conservative white guys are persona non grata right now. They'd open too many eyes. Sailer's blog is a forbidden tome, a source of dark and iconoclastic knowledge, a threat. For it's power is so great that the MSM must keep it a secret.

    Hell, the supposed intricacies and controversies about a given issue, which the MSM always plays up, would go away if people were given clear evidence in a concise and fun way. Like how Sailer coined the "invade the world/invite the world" shorthand to describe the insanity of the globalist plan and mindset. Or the "talented-tenth" phrase used to describe an elite class of blacks that has prospered while fleeing the majority of blacks who are doing either mediocre or terrible in spite of 50 years of coddling.

    Liberalism has failed big-time over the last 50 years, but why stop it now? Why pay, why legitimize, people of great intellect, wit, and fortitude to tell the truth?

  22. WRT to media credibility, there was a time (the progressive era of roughly 1900-1940) when reporters had a rep. for being gruff and tireless skeleton seekers. That was a time of waning but not dead elitism and corruption. Populist sentiment drove reporters (who weren't concerned about their children being gifted Ivy league admissions) to go after corrupt elites (politicians, union bosses, CEOs, whatever).

    Corruption was sufficiently low in the 40's and 50's to quell popular discontent and being a reporter became a pretty dull job, which was still performed with integrity.

    The 60's and 70's saw greater folly from our leaders, and the striving ethic was still frowned on to the point that reporters could still do a pretty good job. 60 Minutes became known for exposes, while the NY Times had a big role in exposing some of the policies and tactics used to execute and market the Vietnam war.

    Beginning in the 80's, and getting really bad after the early 90's, was the shameless striving by "reporters" more interested in their hair and make-up then telling the public what was really going on. Play reporting basically, in which the reporters have an implicit (sometimes explicit) understanding with elites that certain boundaries will never be crossed. National security, ya know. That phrase had become a tired and lousy excuse, and joke, by the time X-files was a hit.

  23. The obsession with he said/she said reporting says it all. We're now more concerned with royal decorum, debating what makes journalism "fair", than we are with exposing with truth. It's kinda like how people don't get nicknames anymore; we're so anxious to not offend someone's self-concept or ego, or take them down a peg. We have to be "respectful" of everyone (like feeding into delusion and entitlement is supposed to help).

    We don't want to hurt elites or discourage would-be elites. In a lower striving period, the media and the culture in general would say that the one worlders are full of shit. Because they are. That's not "unfair", "rude", or "inappropriate", or "biased". Strivers need to be jabbed to keep all of our ambitions and egos in check.

  24. Blind Gossip confirmed for Brexit / Trump sympathizers:


    If Crooked Hillary can't even rely on an entertainment industry gossip website to be 100% in the tank for her, she's going to get incinerated on election day.

  25. I'm surprised there wasn't a lot of poll manipulation like they've been doing with the Trump vs. Hillary polls. I guess that in this case they don't have to try and get party samples unless they want to know party voters so it's harder to rig the polls. They then can't pull off a poll like Reuters giving Hillary an improbable 14% lead over Trump, where over 50% of the sample are registered Democrats, over 20% more than their actual party affiliation.

  26. based on these turnout numbers i doubt very many working class millennials voted.



You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."