I think people are a bit unfair about Cheney, the idea that people would become democratic after being liberated by the American military was reasonable. It had worked in W Germany, Japan, Panama, Croatia, Grenada and those were the most of the recent examples of American attempts at liberation.
japan actually had one history's more vibrant, pluralistic, and genuinely democratic projects from the 1880s until it sort of began to commit suicide in the early 1930s and was then implicitly but effectively done away with altogether by things like the creation of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association in the 1940s
And in regards to post war Europe, the Marshall Plan was not a set temporally parallel but separate development projects in Europe, it centrally planned the non-Soviet European economy (sans UK and France) to have highly extractive economic relationships with Germanys (as they put it at the time: "[make] Germany the workshop of Europe!") and this was continuously reinforced after the MP ended by internal domestic economic planning within European countries via central planning effected by the many conditions of conditionalized debt which was designed to always having to be then rolled into new conditionalized debt, as well as effective centralized directing of their banking and financial system's allocations of credit, and in some cases, such as Greece, where backlash formed, they international system orchestrated a coup and installed a dictatorship
In Iraq the international system removed control of the oil funds from the Iraqi government and thereby removed from it mots of its own fiscal powers, it used de-Baathification and then counter terrorism laws to carefully crate who could stand for elections (in only some places did they fail), they installed outsider curroptos to run things in Anbar province, and as most of the important elements of economic decision making, which is decision making of the literal physical world around you, was removed from all levels of government
japan actually had one history's more vibrant, pluralistic, and genuinely democratic projects from the 1880s until it sort of began to commit suicide in the early 1930s and was then implicitly but effectively done away with altogether by things like the creation of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association in the 1940s
And in regards to post war Europe, the Marshall Plan was not a set temporally parallel but separate development projects in Europe, it centrally planned the non-Soviet European economy (sans UK and France) to have highly extractive economic relationships with Germanys (as they put it at the time: "[make] Germany the workshop of Europe!") and this was continuously reinforced after the MP ended by internal domestic economic planning within European countries via central planning effected by the many conditions of conditionalized debt which was designed to always having to be then rolled into new conditionalized debt, as well as effective centralized directing of their banking and financial system's allocations of credit, and in some cases, such as Greece, where backlash formed, they international system orchestrated a coup and installed a dictatorship
In Iraq the international system removed control of the oil funds from the Iraqi government and thereby removed from it mots of its own fiscal powers, it used de-Baathification and then counter terrorism laws to carefully crate who could stand for elections (in only some places did they fail), they installed outsider curroptos to run things in Anbar province, and as most of the important elements of economic decision making, which is decision making of the literal physical world around you, was removed from all levels of government
Cheney was old enough and educated enough to have picked up a copy of The Bell Curve and realized that middle easterners were cousin fucking low IQ trash that couldn't build a country.
We have all read the article and it is interesting and prescient but I don't blame Cheney for not basing his policies on one well argued article that this would be different to the pattern of previous examples.
The previous examples were white people and asians. High IQ people who had already created successful developed countries before WWII (that those societies got taken over by a clique and went to war was bad, but their effectiveness in the war was a sign of their underlying strength as societies).
Yes, it worked in societies that had long, or at least decades, experience of various forms of Parliamentarianism. The inability to examine societies in their own terms is a serious failure of analysis that Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, are regularly guilty of. Prof Sarah Paine calls it “half-court tennis” — not looking over the net in the middle.
They aren’t changing because they deeply believe they are on the side of right, or those that do have the power to enforce it internally. You are dealing with beliefs described in Tom Holland’s book Dominion as a leftover of Christianity. But many of those people also happen to be highly competent despite their ideology and it is an independent institution running according to its lights. If you tackle them to the ground and force them to do what you want you don’t get a better Harvard. You get Harvard under duress. Institutions do matter even they don’t do what we want. Maybe they should lose some government funding, sure. But the only path to change is convince them their beliefs are false no matter how smart they are. Their anti-white and Asian prejudice will fail over and over again to do what they think it does - right present and historic ‘wrongs’ real or imagined. They are play acting. Which is unbecoming to an institution claiming to seek truth.
Or at least compel them to act as if they've abandoned their beliefs and behave somewhat decently, adhering to at least the letter, if not the full spirit, of the simple request to dismantle DEI. (Currently, the tactic is to rename Harvard's DEI department while maintaining the same goals as before.) They resist this vehemently because they believe they are inherently good and moral, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if they pretend for a dozen years, their actual beliefs might shift. Four years, even under forced compliance, is not enough.
Inexplicably stupid assumption to think the communists will ever abandon their ideology for money. Even BLM hasn't changed although, flush with money for the first time, they are distracted for a time. Roaches are going to be roaches. Threatening deprivation of money, and even following through, won't change them. Would you give up your commitment to liberty for money? Hell no. They are the enemy, and they must be eradicated by all civil means possible. You must destroy them with deprivation of money and lawfare on behalf of whites and Asians. Even see if the ACLU will help, although that is unlikely. We need to crush them with civil suits to gut their endowments.
There is zero doubt at this point that these "elite institutions" are ideologically corrupt from the top down. Five decades of soaking in critical theory and all of its anti-Western offshoots have turned them into zealot factories. Slow incremental change will take decades.
New leadership at the very top appears to be the only way out of this spiral. The question is whether the public assault through press and public display was the right approach. I suspect not. I also agree that it is the results that matter, and that there are many ways to achieve results.
But it would seem that the spectacle of waging this fight in public was more important than achieving the desired outcome, which is the removal of the ideologically rotted university leadership, and the subsequent return to rational considerations rather than ideological “praxis.”
No taxpayer support for luxury beliefs. No tax exemptions for endowments. No consultancies for faculty agitators cosplaying as scholars. No recognition for credentials in ideological studies. No jobs for graduates in bs.
No visas for overseas students seeking an American Colour Revolution.
DoJ needs to go after colleges for anti-white discrimination on admissions. Seek consent decrees to protect the rights of male students suffering from abusive processes in relation to sexual harassment and perjured rape allegations. Seek consent decrees to protect students from harrasment/menace by radical protestors.
States can also offer non-degree pathways to legal practice for articled clerks etc.
Federal law can extend liabilities for medical malpractice to med schools which have graduated grossly deficient students for DEI purposes.
Well written and interesting! You strike near the heart of the matter when you write that “the purpose of a system is what it does.” But, in my opinion, you lose your footing when you suggest that simply changing the leadership of Harvard would radically change it in regards to its being systemic effects. The modern American university system was constructed through the consolidation and centralization of the decentralized, heterogeneous, and pluralistic Academe of the Old Republic. The problem isn’t who sits at the top, it’s the institutional architecture they sit on top of; the system is doing the purpose it’s designed to do.
Harvard as we know it today, in terms of its social function, funding structure, influences, network connections numerically and in regards to density, etc., didn’t truly exist as we understand it today before the postwar era. The real metamorphosis began with the federal government’s deep entanglement with university research through the creation of agencies like the NSF, DARPA, and NIH, and was consolidated by the latter 1960s along with the radical overhauls such as the implementation of centralized administrative governance, the professionalization and bureaucratization of the professoriate, and the ideological and financial shift from regional, pluralistic academic ecosystems to a nationalized, prestige-driven network of institutions acting more as policy laundering organs, centrally coordinated institutional phase spaces through which structural corruption projects itself, and elite grooming centers than open forums for truth-seeking.
By the 1980s, Harvard and the rest had become something like the crown jewels of a centralized knowledge regime, coordinating with major corporate foundations, federal bureaucracies, and global development networks. By that point the new design of the prestige University meant its purpose was to serve specific systemic functions: managing elite reproduction, directing the flow of federal research funds, coordinating ideological legitimacy, and attempt to create a national ruling class. The beliefs of the individuals at the top are constrained by the deeper purposes of the system which are hard-wired into its very design.
This is where Jackson and Van Buren offer indispensable insight. They understood that an organization’s function flows from its structure. Van Buren, in his Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States, explained that democratic responsiveness and accountability only arise when political structures are designed to prevent elite consolidation. Jackson’s war against the Second Bank of the United States was not just about one corrupt institution, it was about breaking a structural nexus of financial, political, and informational power that could reproduce itself regardless of who was at the helm.
They both recognized that unless you change the architecture of power, not just the occupants of the office, you haven’t changed much at all. And they succeeded in doing so and unleashed a hundred and fifty years of limited but actual existing democratic governance structures, and a vast, highly competitive and heterogeneous economy that while remaining highly competitive was geographically diffused across geography with deliberate redundancy and so created many deep and vibrant internal markets, and a vast interconnected system of many scientific and engineering ecosystems. A system designed to centralize influence, facilitate corruption, centrally organize science, and to coordinate across a trans-partisan special interest group consensus will continue doing so even if you rotate the leadership.
Jackson was the effective founder of the world’s first mass member political party -- the Democratic Party (which for the first 125+ years of its existence was a very different party than its version today as it was actually, in a technical sense, a lower case "d" democratic party) -- which greatly diminished elite controlled systems created systems that enabled a significant share of the nation's economic and governmental decision making to be done with broad-based popular participation. With various innovations Jackson he plugged ordinary citizens directly into serious and important policy decision making. This was not symbolic: the party was a real participatory structure through which people influenced policy, staffing, platform formation, and actions taken by those in office. Since autocrat-ness would largely be measured by how much someone consolidated power and detached decision making from the public, since Jackson built a political architecture that democratized access to state and federal decision making processes, in definable, structural terms, Jackson was one of the least autocratic leaders in world history and his reforms created a template for democratic mass politics that literally influenced democratic movements countries across the globe.
I'm not Rufo-pilled because I think without enforcing authoritarianism, labor econ rules. Supply of lefties who want to stay in academia far outstrips supply of righties who want to stay in academia. Rufo-ing would increase cost of conservatives, decrease cost of lefties, which in turn budget et all encourages left-wing stuff.
Without tons of subsidization, (some through high school propagandizing, licensing requirements, 'normalcy') the college experience would be a whole lot less appealing, so going after the outcome rather than the process seems to at least in my opinion be somewhat misguided.
The all out assualt on Harvard is sending a signal to the world that the US is not longer interested in research, discovery, and attracting the most talented minds from around the world. Screw scientific discovery that has fueled our growth and innovation for the last 80 years -- we want to score points with our MAGA base.
How is undermining research on children's cancer related to addressing anti-semitism at Harvard? Many of the affected researchers are Jewish.
The MAGA forces are like Dlim Pickens in Dr Strangelove, riding the nuclear missile down through the air to destroy the world.
Israel is not popular in the Ivy League. Whiteness isn't popular either. But there is no evidence that ending affirmative action will have more than a 2% increase for whites on average. It's mostly a benefit to Asians. The best way to get white conservatives proportionately represented would be to implement a physical fitness test for all college admissions. Anything else is a nothing-burger.
Harvard can stay doing whatever they like. They are violating the CRA of 64, and with the end of the AAP, they are no longer protected by a conflicting rule. Each goal on that sheet is a prima facie violation of the Act. Harvard's leadership will either change, or bankrupt the school.
Thank you
I think people are a bit unfair about Cheney, the idea that people would become democratic after being liberated by the American military was reasonable. It had worked in W Germany, Japan, Panama, Croatia, Grenada and those were the most of the recent examples of American attempts at liberation.
Fair enough
japan actually had one history's more vibrant, pluralistic, and genuinely democratic projects from the 1880s until it sort of began to commit suicide in the early 1930s and was then implicitly but effectively done away with altogether by things like the creation of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association in the 1940s
And in regards to post war Europe, the Marshall Plan was not a set temporally parallel but separate development projects in Europe, it centrally planned the non-Soviet European economy (sans UK and France) to have highly extractive economic relationships with Germanys (as they put it at the time: "[make] Germany the workshop of Europe!") and this was continuously reinforced after the MP ended by internal domestic economic planning within European countries via central planning effected by the many conditions of conditionalized debt which was designed to always having to be then rolled into new conditionalized debt, as well as effective centralized directing of their banking and financial system's allocations of credit, and in some cases, such as Greece, where backlash formed, they international system orchestrated a coup and installed a dictatorship
In Iraq the international system removed control of the oil funds from the Iraqi government and thereby removed from it mots of its own fiscal powers, it used de-Baathification and then counter terrorism laws to carefully crate who could stand for elections (in only some places did they fail), they installed outsider curroptos to run things in Anbar province, and as most of the important elements of economic decision making, which is decision making of the literal physical world around you, was removed from all levels of government
japan actually had one history's more vibrant, pluralistic, and genuinely democratic projects from the 1880s until it sort of began to commit suicide in the early 1930s and was then implicitly but effectively done away with altogether by things like the creation of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association in the 1940s
And in regards to post war Europe, the Marshall Plan was not a set temporally parallel but separate development projects in Europe, it centrally planned the non-Soviet European economy (sans UK and France) to have highly extractive economic relationships with Germanys (as they put it at the time: "[make] Germany the workshop of Europe!") and this was continuously reinforced after the MP ended by internal domestic economic planning within European countries via central planning effected by the many conditions of conditionalized debt which was designed to always having to be then rolled into new conditionalized debt, as well as effective centralized directing of their banking and financial system's allocations of credit, and in some cases, such as Greece, where backlash formed, they international system orchestrated a coup and installed a dictatorship
In Iraq the international system removed control of the oil funds from the Iraqi government and thereby removed from it mots of its own fiscal powers, it used de-Baathification and then counter terrorism laws to carefully crate who could stand for elections (in only some places did they fail), they installed outsider curroptos to run things in Anbar province, and as most of the important elements of economic decision making, which is decision making of the literal physical world around you, was removed from all levels of government
It is a great irony that Japan had its last free and democratic general election in 1937, while the UK had their last one in 1935.
Cheney was old enough and educated enough to have picked up a copy of The Bell Curve and realized that middle easterners were cousin fucking low IQ trash that couldn't build a country.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/cousin-marriage-conundrum/
Steve Sailer called this out Jan 13, 2003. Just like he called trans before anyone knew what trans was.
Cheney started the war to make money for himself and because in the short run it was good politics.
We have all read the article and it is interesting and prescient but I don't blame Cheney for not basing his policies on one well argued article that this would be different to the pattern of previous examples.
The previous examples were white people and asians. High IQ people who had already created successful developed countries before WWII (that those societies got taken over by a clique and went to war was bad, but their effectiveness in the war was a sign of their underlying strength as societies).
What category do Iraqs and Afghans tick on the US census?
Afghan military effectiveness was the problem.
The US census groups Cambodians with Chinese with Indians together, make that make sense.
Prof. Paine puts it well. https://youtu.be/xkxy5zo2kJ8?si=S9_05J9oEIcX-QS_
Yes, it worked in societies that had long, or at least decades, experience of various forms of Parliamentarianism. The inability to examine societies in their own terms is a serious failure of analysis that Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, are regularly guilty of. Prof Sarah Paine calls it “half-court tennis” — not looking over the net in the middle.
There’s some steps missing in the model….
They aren’t changing because they deeply believe they are on the side of right, or those that do have the power to enforce it internally. You are dealing with beliefs described in Tom Holland’s book Dominion as a leftover of Christianity. But many of those people also happen to be highly competent despite their ideology and it is an independent institution running according to its lights. If you tackle them to the ground and force them to do what you want you don’t get a better Harvard. You get Harvard under duress. Institutions do matter even they don’t do what we want. Maybe they should lose some government funding, sure. But the only path to change is convince them their beliefs are false no matter how smart they are. Their anti-white and Asian prejudice will fail over and over again to do what they think it does - right present and historic ‘wrongs’ real or imagined. They are play acting. Which is unbecoming to an institution claiming to seek truth.
You need incentives to force them to face reality, otherwise, they have no reason to abandon their beliefs.
Or at least compel them to act as if they've abandoned their beliefs and behave somewhat decently, adhering to at least the letter, if not the full spirit, of the simple request to dismantle DEI. (Currently, the tactic is to rename Harvard's DEI department while maintaining the same goals as before.) They resist this vehemently because they believe they are inherently good and moral, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if they pretend for a dozen years, their actual beliefs might shift. Four years, even under forced compliance, is not enough.
Inexplicably stupid assumption to think the communists will ever abandon their ideology for money. Even BLM hasn't changed although, flush with money for the first time, they are distracted for a time. Roaches are going to be roaches. Threatening deprivation of money, and even following through, won't change them. Would you give up your commitment to liberty for money? Hell no. They are the enemy, and they must be eradicated by all civil means possible. You must destroy them with deprivation of money and lawfare on behalf of whites and Asians. Even see if the ACLU will help, although that is unlikely. We need to crush them with civil suits to gut their endowments.
There is zero doubt at this point that these "elite institutions" are ideologically corrupt from the top down. Five decades of soaking in critical theory and all of its anti-Western offshoots have turned them into zealot factories. Slow incremental change will take decades.
New leadership at the very top appears to be the only way out of this spiral. The question is whether the public assault through press and public display was the right approach. I suspect not. I also agree that it is the results that matter, and that there are many ways to achieve results.
But it would seem that the spectacle of waging this fight in public was more important than achieving the desired outcome, which is the removal of the ideologically rotted university leadership, and the subsequent return to rational considerations rather than ideological “praxis.”
Agreed.
However making the Americans pay brats who hate us attending a hedge fund with a collegiate facade should be stopped.
As indeed making them live by their own rules about racism.
Certainly a logical start.
No taxpayer support for luxury beliefs. No tax exemptions for endowments. No consultancies for faculty agitators cosplaying as scholars. No recognition for credentials in ideological studies. No jobs for graduates in bs.
No visas for overseas students seeking an American Colour Revolution.
DoJ needs to go after colleges for anti-white discrimination on admissions. Seek consent decrees to protect the rights of male students suffering from abusive processes in relation to sexual harassment and perjured rape allegations. Seek consent decrees to protect students from harrasment/menace by radical protestors.
States can also offer non-degree pathways to legal practice for articled clerks etc.
Federal law can extend liabilities for medical malpractice to med schools which have graduated grossly deficient students for DEI purposes.
Well written and interesting! You strike near the heart of the matter when you write that “the purpose of a system is what it does.” But, in my opinion, you lose your footing when you suggest that simply changing the leadership of Harvard would radically change it in regards to its being systemic effects. The modern American university system was constructed through the consolidation and centralization of the decentralized, heterogeneous, and pluralistic Academe of the Old Republic. The problem isn’t who sits at the top, it’s the institutional architecture they sit on top of; the system is doing the purpose it’s designed to do.
Harvard as we know it today, in terms of its social function, funding structure, influences, network connections numerically and in regards to density, etc., didn’t truly exist as we understand it today before the postwar era. The real metamorphosis began with the federal government’s deep entanglement with university research through the creation of agencies like the NSF, DARPA, and NIH, and was consolidated by the latter 1960s along with the radical overhauls such as the implementation of centralized administrative governance, the professionalization and bureaucratization of the professoriate, and the ideological and financial shift from regional, pluralistic academic ecosystems to a nationalized, prestige-driven network of institutions acting more as policy laundering organs, centrally coordinated institutional phase spaces through which structural corruption projects itself, and elite grooming centers than open forums for truth-seeking.
By the 1980s, Harvard and the rest had become something like the crown jewels of a centralized knowledge regime, coordinating with major corporate foundations, federal bureaucracies, and global development networks. By that point the new design of the prestige University meant its purpose was to serve specific systemic functions: managing elite reproduction, directing the flow of federal research funds, coordinating ideological legitimacy, and attempt to create a national ruling class. The beliefs of the individuals at the top are constrained by the deeper purposes of the system which are hard-wired into its very design.
This is where Jackson and Van Buren offer indispensable insight. They understood that an organization’s function flows from its structure. Van Buren, in his Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States, explained that democratic responsiveness and accountability only arise when political structures are designed to prevent elite consolidation. Jackson’s war against the Second Bank of the United States was not just about one corrupt institution, it was about breaking a structural nexus of financial, political, and informational power that could reproduce itself regardless of who was at the helm.
They both recognized that unless you change the architecture of power, not just the occupants of the office, you haven’t changed much at all. And they succeeded in doing so and unleashed a hundred and fifty years of limited but actual existing democratic governance structures, and a vast, highly competitive and heterogeneous economy that while remaining highly competitive was geographically diffused across geography with deliberate redundancy and so created many deep and vibrant internal markets, and a vast interconnected system of many scientific and engineering ecosystems. A system designed to centralize influence, facilitate corruption, centrally organize science, and to coordinate across a trans-partisan special interest group consensus will continue doing so even if you rotate the leadership.
Jackson is one of the most autocratic presidents in US history.
Jackson was the effective founder of the world’s first mass member political party -- the Democratic Party (which for the first 125+ years of its existence was a very different party than its version today as it was actually, in a technical sense, a lower case "d" democratic party) -- which greatly diminished elite controlled systems created systems that enabled a significant share of the nation's economic and governmental decision making to be done with broad-based popular participation. With various innovations Jackson he plugged ordinary citizens directly into serious and important policy decision making. This was not symbolic: the party was a real participatory structure through which people influenced policy, staffing, platform formation, and actions taken by those in office. Since autocrat-ness would largely be measured by how much someone consolidated power and detached decision making from the public, since Jackson built a political architecture that democratized access to state and federal decision making processes, in definable, structural terms, Jackson was one of the least autocratic leaders in world history and his reforms created a template for democratic mass politics that literally influenced democratic movements countries across the globe.
The acid test of the market is the only solution.
I'm not Rufo-pilled because I think without enforcing authoritarianism, labor econ rules. Supply of lefties who want to stay in academia far outstrips supply of righties who want to stay in academia. Rufo-ing would increase cost of conservatives, decrease cost of lefties, which in turn budget et all encourages left-wing stuff.
Without tons of subsidization, (some through high school propagandizing, licensing requirements, 'normalcy') the college experience would be a whole lot less appealing, so going after the outcome rather than the process seems to at least in my opinion be somewhat misguided.
The all out assualt on Harvard is sending a signal to the world that the US is not longer interested in research, discovery, and attracting the most talented minds from around the world. Screw scientific discovery that has fueled our growth and innovation for the last 80 years -- we want to score points with our MAGA base.
How is undermining research on children's cancer related to addressing anti-semitism at Harvard? Many of the affected researchers are Jewish.
The MAGA forces are like Dlim Pickens in Dr Strangelove, riding the nuclear missile down through the air to destroy the world.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpose-of?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Israel is not popular in the Ivy League. Whiteness isn't popular either. But there is no evidence that ending affirmative action will have more than a 2% increase for whites on average. It's mostly a benefit to Asians. The best way to get white conservatives proportionately represented would be to implement a physical fitness test for all college admissions. Anything else is a nothing-burger.
Seems like the aptly-named "Come On, Obviously The Purpose Of A System Is Not What It Does" is relevant here: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpose-of
Why not explain what the demands on Harvard actually were? And then tell us whether you think they are reasonable or not.
Lol, you’re buttsalty because the Chinese Jewish relationship is fracturing? LMAO even!
very good perspective.
Harvard can stay doing whatever they like. They are violating the CRA of 64, and with the end of the AAP, they are no longer protected by a conflicting rule. Each goal on that sheet is a prima facie violation of the Act. Harvard's leadership will either change, or bankrupt the school.