Note what he’s implicitly arguing here: The right “wins”, when some dysfunctional madman who seems either an overconfident autist or an actual schizo, gains political power.
The right doesn’t really want to “fix” society anymore. Because nobody really believes our problems can be fixed anymore, or at least nobody is willing to pay the price necessary to fix them.
Note what nobody wants to discuss about Argentina: Argentina elected a crazy ancap because they suffer record inflation and he promises to end their central bank and just move to using the US dollar.
They suffer record inflation, because they’re a food exporting nation that just suffered a record drought that completely ruined almost all their crops. Yields of soybeans literally just dropped in half.
Why did they suffer such a record drought? You know the answer. It’s the elephant in the room, the problem you’re not supposed to mention, even among right wing autists and schizos it makes me unpopular when I dare to point it out.
Argentina is not suffering some unusually corrupt, “woke” or incompetent government. What sets Argentina apart from other countries is that it suffers unusually harsh environmental damage to its economy. But when people see record inflation, their natural impulse is to blame poor government policies.
So when the right realizes the Argentinians elected an actual madman, someone who wants to abolish the department of infrastructure and thinks he met his dog 2000 years ago in the Colosseum and wants to force 10 year old pregnant girls to give birth, the next argument begins.
It’s the idea that government is like a kaleidoscope and if you simply shake the whole thing hard enough, a prettier picture will perhaps emerge. In reality it’s more like a car: A complex machine humans invented long ago, that keeps getting more complex. All cars get shittier as they age, for electric cars your range decreases, internal combustion engines get nosier, etc.
But if you want a car that continues to function relatively well as it ages, you will need to hire a skilled mechanic, who has no original ideas and simply does what he was taught. But that’s not human nature. Nobody with cancer wants to go see a doctor who promises him he’ll drag it out until the pain becomes unbearable. He wants a doctor who promises to cure him.
The difference between the left and the right now is that the left consists of technocrats who promise to drag our civilization’s lifespan out for as long as possible. They don’t really promise to solve the climate problem, but they will reduce emissions and then with a bit of luck you can eventually just block the sun and buy yourselves a few more decades.
Nobody really knows how the ocean will respond as it continues acidifying under those circumstances, but people don’t really want to think about this topic anyway, it makes them really uncomfortable. If they have children, it makes them both uncomfortable and guilty, so the natural inclination of most people is to just try to avoid the topic altogether.
The right on the other hand, isn’t really promising to solve problems anymore either. This began with the election of Trump and the Brexit. Everyone learned a lesson from this, the fact that a lot of people will continue voting for this sort of stuff, even after seeing that it doesn’t really substantially solve anything.
The right is promising one thing: They’ll leave you free to have fun on the way out. And I don’t want to underemphasize the value of freedom here. I’m ultimately right wing myself. But when you elect some ancap who clones his dogs or a real estate billionaire who just bullies his opponents into defeat, you’re deluding yourself if you seriously argue that these people are going to solve any of the problems you’re dealing with.
If you want an analogy, imagine you’re a bubble boy. You’re living in a bubble because you were born without an immune system. Your mom wants you to stay forever in your bubble, safely in the hospital. When you really bug her, she takes you out on a walk through the garden outside the hospital.
Your dad on the other hand asks you: “What do you want?” You tell him you want to go to the funfair. You want to step outside the bubble, step into the bumper cars and bump it against two girls who will start screaming as soon as you bump into them. Your dad tells you “well alright, just don’t tell mom”. So you go to the funfair. You wait in line like a normal kid and eventually step into the bumper cars. It’s not exactly what you were hoping for, but you had fun, even though you scratched your arm.
When you return to the hospital, you begin to develop a fever and your scratch is starting to look really ugly. Your mom berates your dad. You hear them fight outside your room in a way you’ve never heard them fight before. “FOR CHRIST’S SAKE, He’s a TEN YEAR OLD JOHN! He doesn’t understand! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!” Is what you can make your mom out yelling.
You’re put on a cocktail of antibiotics and suffer various painful injections. But eventually you develop sepsis, slip into a coma and die. Was it worth it? There is no correct answer. Everyone will have to answer that question for themselves.
I just hope you had fun.
Radagast once against showcasing that we’re living in clown world and that misanthropy is the only correct viewpoint. The Salvia Clowns are the Gods of our age.
How sensitive are you and where exactly are you the most sensitive?
To answer your inevitable question in reply, I am extremely retarded. More retarded than you could possible imagine. I am the most retarded when it comes to gooning with Eva. I can be retarded for hours on end.
Basically being sensitive means you care about things. When someone like us feels real mental anguish by seeing something terrible; normies generally just label us “too sensitive” What the normie is really saying is that we care too much. Normies are not sensitive; even if they performatively pretend that they are for social credit. Normies only care about themselves and their own little bubble. if you hear someone say “OK but how does “insert grandiose goal” personally benefit ME?!” They’re probably a normie. Sensitive types are the people who want to go to space and save the whales.
Leftists are the biggest practitioners of performative sensitivity, they talk so much of “tolerance” yet they get their kicks off bullying and oppressing people; and feel nothing when they see women murdered and raped in Israel for example. (Not even saying you need to support Israel, I don’t. But you’re not my equal if can’t admit raping and murdering children is wrong. If you feel nothing thinking about children being raped and murdered; you’re a inferior being who exists only to slave away for actual humans.)
People who are sensitive genuinely care about what’s happening to the world and people; they tend to be high IQ and labeled “autistic” by soulless normies. Sensitive people generally tend to have deep inner worlds and passions for things beyond just animal pleasures. In general, they’re the opposite of the normie in every respect. I only respect other sensitive people; someone who is sensitive is worthy of respect even if you disagree with them on various issues. Normies are only worthy of dismissal.
Also I’ll say that even if you’re self conscious of your own intelligence; the very fact you’re on this blog reading about and discussing intellectual things puts you above 99% of humanity, and you should be proud of that.
My neighbor is from Argentina. He tells me that albeit that this guy is permanently tripping out on LSD, he was smart enough to send the message that he will be using USD to the moon. The USD money printers therefore backed him enough to have him installed. That is how you win government in South America. If the Deep State backs you, you are in. The only thing that will save the USD now from inevitable collapse is if corrupt states start using it as their national currencies. This is because of the upcoming BRIC and the fact that MBS effectively signalled that the petrodollar is now dead.
There is no “upcoming BRIC”. Russia and China are both in decline and India will just do its own thing without the others to drag them down.
> Russia and China are both in decline
They’re in an infinitely better state than they were in the 20th century (which isn’t exactly a high bar, but it’s still true), and they’re only getting richer.
> India will just do its own thing without the others to drag them down.
India is way poorer, dirtier and less developed than China, and that will be the case for a very long time.
Argentina’s current economic mess goes back a long way and is a result of outrageous mismanagement and grift, not the sudden negative impact of a drought.
The drought is not a sudden negative impact either. Your argument implies Argentina must be unusually corrupt and its bureaucrats unusually useless and incompetent, but I’ve seen no evidence the country is any more or less corrupt than other Latin American nations, or its bureaucrats even worse than other nations’.
Argentine has been suffering drought for more than three years now, but in 2023 the problem got extremely bad.
If you’re a food exporting nation and half your soybean crop is suddenly gone, you lose bargaining power on the global market.
You people are so isolated from nature, that you just look at a country’s food harvest dropping by 50% and when society collapses think it must just be corruption.
Soybean harvests peaked in 2014. Since then they have declined and now they have halved compared to the previous year:
https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/fdd03312023_fig3.png
When your exports stop, your currency’s purchasing power on the global market falls. It’s just basic economics.
The rest of the global economy is ultimately just stacked on top of the bottom ring: Agriculture.
The Argentinian Peso has now had FIVE hyperinflations since 1975. “We people” happen to follow/study economics as you do biology.
I know this happens regularly.
But if your country’s main export product is feedstock for animals and the harvest drops by 40-50% year on year, you’re fucked.
This reverberates through the whole economy.
When the Dutch government wants to stop livestock production, everyone suddenly realizes how dependent we are on food.
But when I point out that the whole economy is an inverted pyramid built on top of agriculture, everyone shows up to insist that the real problem is something else.
People’s well-being is directly related to the promise of a better tomorrow. When a better tomorrow can not be delivered the mental health of the population deteriorates sharply. People are becoming more and more aware that the future will not deliver what they have been promised. That people choose a person like this man as their leader is a sign that everything is heading in the wrong direction.
Yep.
You’re not 100% correct regarding Brexit. As someone from the UK, I can tell you that it has fulfilled (or is in the process of fulfilling) its primary objective: mainly to stop the country being swept up in an avalanche of “ever-closer union” which would inevitably see us as provinces in a foreign empire. Now, when the politicians let us down, we know that our own government is to blame and we can hopefully solve the problem by voting the clowns out. No more blaming Brussels or third parties for things not being done. More importantly, when the time comes, we would be well within our power to address climate change properly (even if the continent would rather stick its head in the sand).
>mainly to stop the country being swept up in an avalanche of “ever-closer union” which would inevitably see us as provinces in a foreign empire
How does this affect your life, beyond a psychological feeling?
There’s a man named Fernando Aguirre who would have something to say about your assessment of Argentina and its government.
Spoiler, you are even more wrong about the modern history of Argentina than your are about the early American diet.
After watching you pretend to know everything about complex topics after a ten minute google education, then stand proudly and confidently before the world in your public wrongness, it’s kind of shocking that you can’t manage to attract women better with that kind of confidence.
There’s some serious Chad retard energy in there, you could pull a harem of women if you just learned to harness it.
People are deciding that even a “madman” who will shake things up is quite possibly an improvement over the dreary establishment, hoping there’s at least a chance that their lives will thereby improve, starting with FIRING a lot of embedded Deep State tools who need to go.
Milei is a human hand grenade hurled into the faces of the Argentinian Deep State, just like Trump in the US and even Zelensky in Ukraine.
The funny thing is, the CIA undoubtedly worked for the election of right-wing Milei while here at home they have been working relentlessly to destroy Trump.
Another very interesting post. From what I understand, Milei and his party will only hold a very limited number of seats in parliament, and as a result it will be one of the “weakest” governments in power in Argentina in decades. So it will be very difficult for him to implement his political mandate and many of his more radical policies (selling of organs, removal of gun control laws, abortion ban, privatize much of the economy, abolishing of the central bank etc.) without the support/votes of some of the other political parties (including the Peronists).
Still, it will be very interesting to see what happens. We’ve never really seen a real-life experiment of what would happen if a bunch of Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists and Austrian School economists got a chance to govern a country. It’s a fascinating thought-experiment. You’ve written some funny articles about it in the past (everyone becomes a heroin addict when they realise that it’s much more fun than working a 9 to 5 office job LOL!).
I’d say that the closest we’ve gotten to that type of experiment was when General Pinochet ruled Chile. It certainly wasn’t full on laissez-faire free market capitalism on a gold standard but it was close enough, based on the fiscally conservative right-wing economic policies of Milton Friedman and his “Chicago Boys”. And there certainly were elements of success. Chile was the fastest growing economy in Latin America for many years during Pinochet’s rule. But this success came at the cost of the murder and imprisonment of thousands of leftists and other political opponents. Still, compared to 20th century Communist dictators (Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, North Korean rulers etc.) Augusto Pinochet was practically a saint.
So do you not have a positive disposition towards him? I agree his beliefs around climate change are a shame but think he must be a net positive. Wishing him luck.
>So do you not have a positive disposition towards him?
I don’t think my personal opinion on him is really useful or interesting. If he could achieve what he wants to achieve it would mean a lot of Argentinians would die as a result. But a proper system of checks and balances should make him pretty much powerless.
I’m more interested in the mechanics that lead a country to elect a man who may have good intentions, may even have some good ideas, but clearly has some form of mental illness and an autistic understand of economics.
Please learn the difference between “led” and the chemical element with atomic number 82.
Thank you.
Ackchyually Radagast’s sentence makes perfect sense with “lead” in the present tense, indicative mood.
I think the mechanics are pretty clear, the people who voted wanted a drastic change after the same thing being tried for the best part of 70 years and not working out. I think it’s very exciting to see a genuine schizo take the reins of a (semi) developed country.
I hope he goes completely mad and declares war on America and the WEF and it all ends with him planking his face into a mountain of pharmaceutical grade gear and then going out in an epic scarface style shootout against WEF Goons with Gates and Shhwab themselves firing into the compound.
It’s important to remember that the average American hasn’t benefited at all from the last thirty years of bubbles, whether military or financial. If the global system becomes incapable of incorporating massive amounts of foreigners and teeming mega-cities, it will ultimately be for the good. The health of the average Italian recovered after the fall of their empire, when they weren’t pressed into slums, undercut by slaves, and reliant on cheap grains for nutrition. I don’t think it will be too different here, as the global system (led by the US) goes to shit.
The two persons arguing outside the hospital room are not mom and dad. They are two sociopaths that want to rule over the tax farm. They just have different visions on how to perpetuate the actual injustice going forward. And Milei is by far the more reasonable of them. At least his plan has some chance of becoming sustainable in the long run. The exponentially growing “welfare” states are just short term exercises in hubris destroying both society and nature.
>They are two sociopaths that want to rule over the tax farm.
“Politicians are evil sociopaths” is intellectual laziness. Intellectual laziness is another term for what most people call “populism”.
>The exponentially growing “welfare” states are just short term exercises in hubris destroying both society and nature.
I don’t know if people realize this, but you’ve always had a “welfare state”. This is not a modern invention, it’s just how civilizations function. When you abolish the welfare state, that doesn’t solve a problem. It tends to signal that the rich want to withdraw from the system and serves as a signal the system is approaching collapse.
The Roman empire had grain subsidies for Roman citizens.
Louis XVI was overthrown because he was such a “wasteful spender”.
what did he spend so much money on? Donating to the poor of Paris.
Revolutionaries who promise to stop government spending money tend to have the support of the rich and use rhetoric to get the poor to back their agenda.
>It tends to signal that the rich want to withdraw from the system and serves as a signal the system is approaching collapse.
Yes, exactly. When it comes to libertarian thought in western nations however, the “rich” in this case are middle class whites who want to withdraw from the system that’s raping them economically to subsidize non-whites. Ever notice how the hatred of welfare has only really arisen as our countries have gotten darker and darker?
There’s nothing inherently wrong with social safety nets; Roman grain subsidies were fine and no one intelligent thinks Bismark was evil for providing welfare to German peasants. What’s evil is a government replacing a people and forcing said people to pay for it. All the talk about abolishing the “welfare state” is actually just the politically correct way for white people to justify no longer spending white money on white genocide. Most Low Status White Males don’t consciously think of it this way, but it’s how things work in effect. Sometimes this leads to them supporting third world libertarians (Who very well often are just servants of the rich) As a side effect.
Ok, Radagast, sing me a song about the politicians caring for the people. Really? Yes, labelling politicians as sociopaths is a prejudice, which is probably close to intellectual laziness, but is backed by a solid pile of data. Call it populism or whatever you want, but covid, ukraine, you name it, have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is true.
Politicians are really there to sell us whatever the people who pay the bulk of their incomes tell them to. And no, the bulk of their income is not their salaries paid by the taxpayers.
The only good government is the tiny government. It should take care about the bare minimum: defence and internal security/policing, individual and property rights, probably some infrastructure. The government is not particularly good at anything, and especially bad at redistributing money.
You say I am living in a welfare state, and I say i live in a state that takes much more than it gives back. I pay horrendous taxes while the richest entities pay close to none. And only a close fraction of this wealth comes back as services – most of it goes for big business subsidies. Its a welfare for the big business, policed by a big state. Yes, some get social security just to keep them quiet but given the government is a net sink of wealth we would have managed this way better without it.
libertarianism is for retards. the side that just wants to be left alone will always be beaten by the side that wants to win. also, it requires relatively smart and moral people to work, which have always been in short supply.
Too many opportunities for Grift as it currently stands including attracting foreign locusts who will feast on Welfare until you run dry.
“ I’m more interested in the mechanics that lead a country to elect a man who may have good intentions, may even have some good ideas, but clearly has some form of mental illness and an autistic understand of economics.”
Really?? The entrenched ’elite’ are midwit psychopaths. You are being purposefully obtuse, are you not.