Nassim Taleb Sums Up America's Election In 17 "Black Swan" Words

Tyler Durden's picture

Sometimes, less is more, and in infamous "Black Swan" philosopher Nassim Taleb's case, summing up the chaos that is enveloping America, and its forthcoming election was as simple as the following:

"The *establishment* composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other "well thinking" members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments."

To which he appended the following 17 perfectly succinct words:

"People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Ignatius's picture

Establishment = the banking and corporate ruling class

Stackers's picture

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore !!!

markpower49's picture

I hope this is the start to a cleansing civil war. Progressives must not be allowed to live among decent folk.

SuperRay's picture

Stab the beast in the fucking heart with a silver knife

zeropain's picture

democratic suicide, sounds about right.

Bumpo's picture

Let's hit them with their own words. Democrats - The REAL Racist Hitler Bigots

chumbawamba's picture

"I'm going to destroy the establishment by voting."

"I'm going to defeat my drug addiction by snorting a line of coke."

Fuck you, Nassim, you don't get it either.

I am Chumbawamba.

Keyser's picture

Burn that mutha down... 

Dindu Nuffin's picture


IMO, its way better than antifragile or black swan.

Although all 3 are excellent reads.

Miles Ahead's picture

@Chumba... I feel you.  But Nassim didn't necessarily recommend or endorse this M.O.  He is just trying to put the people's mood into perspective - right or wrong, effective or ineffective.  So no need to curse him really.

This, from one who's never, ever, thought about registering to do something as stupid as "vote".  I come from the '60's and we knew what the deal was even back then.

By the way what then is the premise of "the solution"?  I mean, in a nutshell, IYO?

chumbawamba's picture

I'm no guru, but my solution was to withdraw consent, which is what I preached here for years.  I don't know if many people even fully understood the concept.  For me it was a complete rejection of this system and a concerted unparticipation in it.  I completely withdrew.  That's the right solution but the way I went about didn't make me free, it just got me more entangled with the system.

I'm not going to prematurely ejaculate here, but I have something in the works, and if it pans out the way it looks like it should, I'll be literally free of the system, legitimately.  It's nothing new, people have done it before, it's just the way I'm going about it actually changes one's status with regard to how the federal government perceives them in a consistent repeatable manner that I would be comfortable suggesting to others.

However, being free of the system isn't what everyone is seeking.  If you remember The Matrix, when Neo left the Matrix he was plunged into a sewer, and actual real life sucked.  That's kind of a metaphor for what lies outside the system, although it's not a perfect metaphor.  See, when you're free of the system, that means you also don't take advantage of its benefits.  There are disagreements on this by the wizards that have achieved the level of knowledge that enabled them to figure out how to exit the system peacefully and lawfully, but some will say you can use your public person (the legal entity established by the birth certificate) to receive privileges and benefits for you, the real man, without incurring any liability, while others will say, no, when you take from Caesar, you must render back that which is Caesar's, meaning the hand that feeds is going to want some recompense for its generosity.  I'm still researching it for myself.

In either event, the real question is, which master do you serve?

And this is where we get into very fundamental spiritual aspects, because you either understand yourself as a creation of nature, of a higher creator than we as men are; or you identify as the name on the piece of paper that officially acknowledges your birth, which is a corporate entity, otherwise known as a "person" in the law.  If the former, you are beholden to the laws of that creator and you serve that creator by obeying its laws, which are the laws of nature--the natural law.  If the latter, you are serving a creation of man, a fiction, which is the government that established your birth certificate, which you identify as instead of the corpus of your physical being, and you obey its statutes and codes.

For the uninitiated, it sounds ridiculous that this government obeys the law, but it does.  The law it obeys is God's law (see Public Law 97-280, 96 STAT 1211 for evidence that the US government recognizes the Bible as the Word of God.)  God gave us free will.  So if you freely choose to serve the corporate government that created your birth name, by applying for identification cards, taking out jobs under a Social Security Number issued by that government, paying tribute to it in the form of a portion of your labor converted into Federal Reserve Notes (what most people refer to as "dollars"), and by presenting an identification card issued by it whenever you are asked, "Who are you?", then you have made your choice of what master you will serve, and God will respect your decision by rendering you unto your master ("For there is no respect of persons with God." - Romans 2:11 (KJV)).  But if you conciously choose to serve the creator, i.e. not the corporate government, then the corporate government will respect your choice and will not interfere in your service with your master.  It respects free will.  Otherwise it itself runs afoul of God's law, and bad things result.  I have heard say anecdotally, from sources I consider reliable, that this in fact a reality.  It is not without peril, in that you must be vigilant to maintain your independent status and not re-contract back into the system by accepting its benefits, but you are also on your own.  You will now have access to the basic protections that the Constitution for the United States provides in exchange for your loyalty by maintaining the status of a peaceful inhabitant, but you will fend for yourself.  You shall have no access to any public benefits, including medical care or education, unless you pay for it (this is where some disagree, maintaining that if you've fulfilled the contractual obligations under your public person, i.e. your Social Security, then you should receive those benefits through the person, as a fulfillment of the contract).  What I've discovered is that if you have faith in the creator, the creator will provide.

So that, in too many words for a nutshell, is my "solution".

P.S. Yes, I realize my comment was basically non sequitur.  I read what I wanted and responded how I felt like at the time, which was in angrily.  I was really lashing out at people who still think voting is the solution, which is so naive it's not even worth addressing in any manner other than tersely in this statement.


gilligan's picture

Thanks for that post chumba. Long but an interesting read.

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) gilligan Mar 13, 2016 8:15 PM

If you remember The Matrix...

I do. However, you did NOT understand it.


Film Theory: Neo ISN'T The One in The Matrix Trilogy
The Film Theorists
Published on Sep 12, 2015

Film Theory: The Matrix has NO ESCAPE
The Film Theorists
Published on Oct 9, 2015


There is no Savior. There is no Salvation. Those are only fantasies whereby to control the opposition within the Matrix. The Wachowskis' message went way over your head. Hell, most peoples' heads.

Pop goes the Matrix bubble.

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) chumbawamba Mar 13, 2016 11:38 PM

You're still Full Retard on the meaning of the Matrix triology.

Why do you think they called the "escape" place "Zion?" Because its as magically fantastical as "Heaven."

The Matrix franchise is a modern day redemption myth, as mythical as Jebus.

Like I told you, there is no escaping the Matrix, just like there is no escaping death, in spite of the magical Jewish Zombie Jebus franchise.

Adahy's picture

"there is no escaping the Matrix"

This is incorrect.  There are places where it does not exist.  You just have to leave it all behind and live by a different, ancient set of rules.

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) Adahy Mar 14, 2016 12:39 AM

The Matrix is agricultural civilization itself.

live by a different, ancient set of rules.

Oh sure.  Two places in the world.  North Sentinel Island.  And a few remote places in the Amazon rainforest.

Let us know when you've escaped the Matrix, ok?  If you don't go extinct first.


In the Brazilian Amazon, the uncontacted Kawahiva Indians teeter on the brink of extinction.

Stone Age tribe kills fishermen who strayed on to island


new game's picture

father you get the downvotes because the majority believe in written stuff of mankind.

i can write something compelling and get followers, but for it to stick it has to be mythical and unprovable, like hejus, or matrix shit. truth is who gives a fuck. live at the fringe of society and avoid crowds, fucking simple. but then there are those, the majority, like here at zh, still dumb fucks, that herd on with a few notable exceptions...

good day.


Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) pFXTim Mar 14, 2016 1:43 AM

My goodness, people get as angry at me for deconstructing the Matrix myth as they do at my deconstruction of the Jebus myth.

At least you had the emotional wherewithall to erase that whole diatribe. 

pFXTim's picture

To be honest, it was your apparent trollishness that prompted my previous post, but then I realized it's not really worth my while to get involved.

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) pFXTim Mar 14, 2016 2:08 AM

Your previous one at least made a bit of sense.

pFXTim's picture

> Your previous one at least made a bit of sense.


I'm sure you're aware of just how very much that means to me, coming from you...given your obvioulsy over-inflated sense of self-importance and all...

cougar_w's picture

And the Wachowshi's are sisters now.

Don't think about it too much or you will find a note in your pocket.

DanDaley's picture

Chum, just curious, but how can there be a contractual obligation (say of Social Security) of any kind if the contract is made under duress, force, as in the force of government? It would be like telling a slave that he has to fulfill his "contract" because it was ordained by some higher power, would it not?

glenlloyd's picture

The only thing the establishment needs is to do is read Taleb's Black Swan of Cairo.

That would tell them everything they need to know to understand why American citizens are voting the way they are.

chumbawamba's picture

Contracts can be established implicitly by actions or habit of actions.  A Social Security Number is a benefit provided by the US government.  One is not required to apply nor have one.  Anyone telling you anything to the contrary is either a brainwashed member of the system who hasn't read t he law, or a liar.

Once you do apply for and receive the SSN and then start utilizing its benefits, like providing it for employment, for opening a bank account, etc. you are operating under that benefit and have accepted the contract.  Even if your parents signed you up when you were a minor, they had your power of attorney, you were their ward, so they were doing for you what they thought in your best interest.  However, just having the number doesn't mean you are beholden to the government.  It's not until you use that number to receive benefits that you enter into the contract.

So the US government gives you exactly what you ask for.  And if you choose to serve it by acting within the corporate identity established at birth then it will consider you one of its own and will treat you exactly as it wants, because the birth name on the birth certificate is its property, and you are using its property to acquire benefits for yourself.  That's the nexus: your use of their property establishes the contract.

The big revelation is that "your" name isn't actually yours.  The name on the birth certificate is property owned by the US government.  Your name was "registered" at birth.  The very act of "registering" anything creates a trust whereby you give title to the thing over to the government and it allows you to use it as long as you follow the indenture of the trust, which in this case would be all the statutes and codes of the government.

Here's a thought experiment: let's say you are born on US soil to American parents.  The delivery is at home, and the birth is not registered with the government, so no official record of it exists.  The question is: are you still an American, or a United States citizen?

Here's the answer: You were born on American soil to American parents, so by the Constitution you are an American.  However, you are not a United States citizen.  And this is where you have to pay attention, because there are literally multiple definitions for "United States", and given the particular context of the law, it could mean the actual 50 states, or it could mean the corporate federal govenrment,  With regards to citizenship, a "United States citizen" is a citizen of the US congress and subject to its legislative authority where ever its authority reaches (which is defined in the Constitution).  Each state still has its own constitution, so one born on a state who does not register a name at birth is a citizen of that state with rights protected under that state's constitution.

And finally (at least for this post), anyone born in the US who has a birth certificate has dual citizenship.  You are a citizen of the state in which you were born, and you are also a "US citizen", a subject of congress, with the latter citizenship being paramount.  I have case law that spells this out but I can't find it right now, so instead I'll point to this very wordy explanation that goes into detail about the different political statuses one can have in America.


Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) DanDaley Mar 13, 2016 8:33 PM

Chumblez' position is best explained by this essay:


"Unfortunately, Constitutionalist words don't do anything but lose court cases and invite sanctions. Constitutionalism is the white man's version of the Ghost Dance. But believing you are invulnerable to bullets puts you in more, not less, danger of being shot."

Constitutionalism: The White Man's Ghost Dance

Dick Buttkiss's picture

Sorry, Nassim, but what you don't get is that voting only countenances the status — as in statist — quo and therefore only perpetuates humanity's agony.

I've read your books, but they are mere wind amid the hurricane of statism:

So man up or shut up.

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) Dick Buttkiss Mar 13, 2016 9:04 PM

Statist, schmatist. Hell, I'm a most precious example of an...ahem..."statist."


     The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
     Thomas Jefferson
     Letter to James Madison, 1785

Don't forget, the State is "most necessary" for civilization. For whatever civilization is worth. Probably you and your family's life.

     Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization would be possible.
     Ludwig von Mises
     The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science


Dick Buttkiss's picture

This is Mises' fatal flaw, as his entire philosophy collapses into the black hole the state, i.e., a territorial monopoly on aggression (the initiation of force).  

Fortunately, Rothbard rescues libertarianism from this fate — — as does Nock — — even as the ability of the state to maintin the . . . statist quo is increasingly threatened by the decentralizing and individually empowering impact of the internet and all that is arising from it (e.g., encrypted internet money that is increasingly beyond the state's control:

Tall Tom's picture

Dick Buttkiss.


Father Thyme has no ability to ever man up.


He is a member of the Testicular Cancer Survivor's Group.


There is not a drop of Testosterone running through his blood stream.


And that which he suckles is digested.



Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) Tall Tom Mar 13, 2016 11:41 PM

Hey halfwit, he wasn't talking to me. He was addressing "Nassim" who was addressed in the original post.

Do you even read, brah? Even just the title of the article?


Tall Tom's picture




Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) Tall Tom Mar 13, 2016 11:52 PM

You do something about it. I suggest you do us all a favor and follow your magical Jewish Zombie guru's example.


Chapter 5. The Suicidal Jesus: The Violent Atonement
The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics
Hector Avalos
Sheffield Phoenix Press (2015)


frankly scarlet's picture

Chumba,  be very careful and understand fully the law under which you will operate as the USA loves to pull such independent minded individuals back in to their jurisdiction and literally throw the book at them and lock them up in a cage for a long while. I to took a look at the soverignty movement, specifically Ken Cousens Pando Terra. I quickly discovered some errors in his presentation of historical and legal opinion, which may or may not effect the legal remedy you seek. Just be damned careful if you go this route so that you don't end up in a worse mess with the authorities  that you will regret. I'll link Cousens talk for those interested (in which I found the errors) and to illustrate what you are going on about.error 1) 18 million livres of gold was owed, never repaid, to the French (who made the rebellion a success rather than the failure it would have been) error 2) I looked at the SC case he sites and found  no reference to "person(s)" being owned franchises of Washington DC ( not saying it isn;t true just that I found nothing stating "persons" are owed franchises of W-D.C. in this interstate case of corporate tax and this is Cousen's interpretation) possible error is postulating that feudal era Papal Bulls have any significance today though the control decreed may have been appropriated by later governments or used in their legal structures? others but I'll leave it here but will say I said I'd reprt back here on this issue ...caveat emptor


talk begins at the 1:30 minute mark to avoid the introduction...



chumbawamba's picture

Thanks for the link...very interesting presentation.  With regards to your enumerated issues, I have no knowledge of 1); with regards to 2) it is self-evident that anything registered to the US government is owned by it, by the very nature of the process of registration; and that corporations are persons, the two terms basically being interchangeable under the law; but as far as his interpretation, I've seen too many examples of people citing case law that just does not exist, and it's not only frustrating, it's infuriating; and as far as 3) I am of the belief that the Papal Bulls are fully in effect, and that the Pope exerts influence on the Western and increasingly the Eastern world that has far reach effects on each of our lives, but this is just my belief.

With regards to falling back into the jurisdiction of the US government, I fully understand that.  One must always remain vigilant with regards to their status.  The Rapacious Mollech will always seek to suck you into its influence, regardless.  It's up to you to maintain your borders.


Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) chumbawamba Mar 14, 2016 2:03 AM

the Papal Bulls are fully in effect


That I had assumed, once you started denigrating Mises.


Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.

John Adams, July 16, 1814


Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?

John AdamsMay 19, 1821



StychoKiller's picture

I gather this means that you 'cancelled' your Social Security Number,  and:

How to cancel a birth bond:
1) Print out a birth certificate change form; some financial birth bonds have
   a change form on the back.
2) Enter these three field to be changed: State file id number, date of birth,
   and "name" as per stated on the bond.
3) Enter the values as currently indicated.
4) Leave the change-to values blank.
5) Find a religious reason for cancellation. Reincarnation is a great reason.

The soul is not born when the body is...
It existed before and will exist after we pass on. Internet search for a
reincarnation quote from a Zen Buddhist/Daoist master and print it out with a
statement like "I am cancelling my birth certificate because my soul existed
before I was born."

6) Above your signature write "Without Prejudice UCC 1-308."
7) Make a copy for your records.
8) Send it in to your state location.

This terminates the fraud known as the birth bond.

chumbawamba's picture

This is just detailed enough to be useless.


Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) chumbawamba Mar 13, 2016 8:11 PM

You're both useless.



"Constitutionalists look upon law as the word-magic of lawyer-necromancers who draw their wizardly powers from grimoires, from books of magic spells they have selfishly withheld from the people."

Constitutionalism: The White Man's Ghost Dance
by Robert C. Black

chumbawamba's picture

Thanks for the link.  I'm reading it, and have already observed flaws within the first paragraph, but no bother, I enjoy divers points of view.

What I do not enjoy is fools, like you, who make assumptions.

I am Chumbawamba.

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) chumbawamba Mar 14, 2016 12:34 AM


Hey, at least you're not a Christian that faithfully follows Jesus' teachings and/or fears any of his silly threats.


JESUS: And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:22)



Adahy's picture

You're one of those low-hanging-fruit trolls aren't you?
And not even a very good one at that.