I think it’s weird how the United States embarks on an annual glut of consumerism on the day after Thanksgiving, a holiday that celebrates a group of people living under the most primitive possible conditions, existing on the bleeding edge of Malthusian survival while trying to establish an unlikely colony thousands of miles away from anybody else from their native country. It’s even weirder how that “Black Friday” spending spree has spawned at least two other finance-related holidays — “Cyber Monday”, where one basically pays one’s Amazon.com tax for the year, and “Giving Tuesday”, where, if you have any money left, you should consider donating some of it to a worthy charity.
But whatever, that’s the world we’re in, so if you are of the mind to contribute some of your hard-earned money today — or perhaps your not-so-hard-earned-money if you are a Bitcoin millionaire — I would like to direct your attention to the GiveSendGo of Dr. Bryan Pesta. Dr. Pesta is a veteran lecturer and professor of management at Cleveland State University who was unceremoniously fired from his tenured faculty position for having the temerity to co-author a 2019 paper with rogue geneticist Emil Kirkegaard that dealt with intelligence differences between human groups. Briefly, the paper tests the hypothesis that genetics underlie at least some of the variation in g-factor intelligence between human groups (i.e., races, in the classical sense of the word) by looking at how genetic admixture between groups influences g. Most previous work on the topic (e.g., The Bell Curve) compared people according to a single, self-identified racial group, but in this work respondents were allowed to select multiple racial groups. Basically, one would expect that admixed individuals would have intermediate phenotypes compared to the “pure” groups from which they derived, which is exactly what they reported:
They also applied this to gene variants from a GWAS study, and concluded that about 25% of the variation in g could be explained by gene variants that had already been associated with educational attainment. The authors also incorporated metrics in their regression analyses corresponding to responses commonly given against the validity of this sort of analysis — the sort of good-faith analysis that anyone should do, particularly when conducting controversial research — and found that socioeconomic status had a small (compared to genetic background) but significant impact on g, but visible phenotypes like skin and eye color were not significant. In their abstract, the authors make the fairly milquetoast and obvious conclusion:
Results converge on genetics as a potential partial explanation for group mean differences in intelligence.
For this, Dr. Pesta was fired. From his tenured job! I’m no expert on human genetics so I’m not going to go out into the weeds regarding the technical details of this paper, but it seems to pass the smell test to me — it may turn out to be wrong given future research, but the work appears to have been done in good faith and does not appear to me to have some kind of political goal, other than trying to bring some sort of empirical sanity to our culture’s never-ending obsession with race. But because the paper came to a politically unacceptable conclusion — no matter whether it was true or not — the authors had to be sacked.
It goes without saying that this sort of response is utterly antithetical to the mission of a university. If our institutions don’t exist to seek and provide truth to the best of our capacity, then what good are they? You don’t need a university to spout propaganda — if that’s all you want, why waste the money on the research? Just say what you want and be done with it. If you do want to know the answers to life’s persistent questions, however, you have to be open to the possibility that the answers will not conform exactly to your preconceived notions.
If good-faith research is punished by excommunication from academia, then the whole edifice of modern science is fucked. If you agree with that statement, PLEASE help Dr. Pesta fight for his job by donating to his GiveSendGo:
I don’t normally hawk my own artistic output on this blog, but I’m going to make an exception over the next couple of weeks. You see, it’s been exactly 20 years today since my partner in crime Wiley Wells (check out his amazing new album here) and I released our album Palindrome, which remains one of the accomplishments I am most proud of. Sure, relatively few people ever actually listened to it — although it did generate a bit of interest at the time, Wiley and I split shortly after the release for the typical reasons that bands break up, and without us playing regular shows the record just sort of evaporated after a while. But despite that, the album accomplished what I intended of it, which was basically to get out of my system some kind of artistic mind virus that had been obsessing me for years. Whatever its merits from a musical perspective, the album was a spiritual victory for me, and I like to think you can hear the passion we put into it when you listen to the songs even after so many years.
The album was, I suppose, a sort of concept album, as cringe as that can sometimes be. The theme was one of cyclical death and rebirth, symbolized through the turning of seasons and also through the idea of palindromes, which are character strings that are the same forward as backward (e.g., tacocat). We released the album on 20-11-02, a palindromic date. We were essentially invoking a Spenglerian vision of civilizational cycles, embodied in an extended metaphor of the birth, violent life, spiritual collapse, and obscure, lonely death of an unnamed person. I guess none of this was really explicit in any of the tracks, but you can sort of tease it out of the lyrics if you know what we were thinking about when we wrote the thing.
Anyway, for the sake of posterity I will write more about some of my favorite individual tracks from this record over the coming weeks. Today, we have put together a 20th anniversary downloadable edition on Bandcamp that has three older bonus tracks, including what I think might be the best song I ever wrote. Maybe you listen? Maybe you share? I can promise you that any money we get from downloads will go to subversive causes furthering our slide into, and beyond, the Global American Empire’s Spenglerian winter.
In my last post I made the case that America’s current condition of aggressive ideological segregation and repression cannot continue forever, and must ultimately result in one of three scenarios: dissolution of the country and partitioning of its population along ideological lines; some form of mea culpa from the leftists that started all of this; or what I described in a vaguely ominous way as a “boundary solution”.
I think the first of those solutions – breakup of the country, or a national divorce as have some have called it – is a non-starter. There’s just no way it could made to work; Reds and Blues are simply too jumbled up amongst each other for a partition to occur without massive force being applied, which would certainly be resisted with countervailing force, leading to hot civil war. Even if some form of partition could be made agreeable to the US population, how would the nation’s resources be divided? Who would get the military hardware and the nukes? And in any case, surely no one on my side of the political divide believes that our leftist inquisitors would be willing to just let us go. We already tried that – we left their cities, formed parallel institutions and media outlets, ceded them the universities, and did everything we could to give them their space to build the weirdo utopia they wanted without our interference. But was it ever enough? Wherever we go, they will pursue us to correct our heresies. No, if the country split, we’d just end up at war with each other in short order, and everybody knows it, which is why it won’t happen – and if it did, it would ultimately reduce to the boundary solution I will describe in a moment.
The second possibility – mea culpa – was the subject of my last post. It’s possible if the leftists come to their senses and come to the negotiating table with heavy hearts for what they’ve done to our country, if they show genuine contrition for their many crimes, perhaps after suffering a humiliating defeat at the ballot box, it’s just possible that some kind of peace could be made that would restore the political détente that characterized the post-Cold War American electoral system.
Admittedly, that equilibrium solution to the two-party equation seems only slightly less far-fetched than the “national divorce” solution. Who can imagine a dedicated leftist partisan having the self-awareness or conscience to recognize what they’ve done and take responsibility for it? If they had that kind of inner voice, they wouldn’t be leftists to begin with. And the great masses of “middle-of-the-road” democrats who give them the electoral heft to work their will on the country are unlikely to be of much help; we already know that most of them are embarrassed about the behavior of their leftist colleagues, but has that ever given them the spine to stand up to them?
On the other hand, though, those masses of “centrists” are an important component of what I called the boundary solution to the political equation. When analyzing dynamic systems of equations, often one puts a good bit of energy into looking for dynamic equilibria where opposing forces balance each other and both can persist in the system. But there are also usually solutions at the boundaries of the system where one or more of those forces simply ceases to exist. For example, consider the logistic growth rate equation that is often used to model the growth of a population of organisms on limited resources over time, where N is the number of individuals, K is the maximum number of individuals the environment can sustain, r is the maximum growth rate, and t is the elapsed time:
You can set the left side of the equation to 0 and solve for N to find the equilibrium population size, where population is neither growing or shrinking and should be stable indefinitely as long as the parameter variables don’t change: K = N. But there’s another solution, a boundary solution at N = 0, or extinction, where the population is also stable and will not ever change. We often think of such a solution as trivial because it’s not very interesting to analyze a population model when there isn’t a population. But it must always be remembered that it is nevertheless a solution – extinction is always a possibility.
Thus, another solution to our American problem is the extinction of one side or the other. The conflict between the North and South that ultimately exploded into the first US Civil War persisted from the beginning of the United States until 1865, and was only ended by the total destruction, both physically and ideologically, of one side. Our current conflict could end the same way – with the total victory of one side over the other, where the loser is so severely diminished it can no longer exist as a meaningful political force.
I suppose in our current political climate it’s necessary for me to say here that this boundary solution doesn’t necessarily mean the physical extinction of the Democrat or Republican voting base, but could also occur through the ideological extinction of one of the factions responsible for our current state of intense polarization, or some combination of physical and informational repression or extermination.
Indeed, the Democrats’ current policies toward the Republicans demonstrate the exact type of policy I’m referring to – a combination of state censorship, legal coercion, and street violence with the goal (presumably … who knows?) to eliminate Republicans from any reasonable chance of national political power. But those very policies bring me to the point I want to make – is it reasonable for the Democrats to think that, through those repressive policies, they can actually permanently defeat the Republicans? Because if they can’t, then the probability that they will be the ones dropped into the woodchipper is perhapstoo damn high.
See? Because the power necessary to drive the other side to extinction is available, in principle, to both sides. The only question, really, is which side can take the most punishment before giving up its principles. And the solution to that equation hinges on how many people passionately hold the ideological positions underpinning the conflict that has us in this predicament.
I believe the solution is quite clear, actually. Consider the positions that are absolutely intolerable by the opposing side, which presumably are those driving our increasing polarization. The right-wing positions the left cannot tolerate, as I understand it, are these:
Transgenderism isn’t real and “gender affirming” “health care” is equivalent to ritual genital mutilation and chemical castration.
Many of the differential outcomes between races, or between the sexes, or between nations, are driven by cultural and genetic differences. Racism, sexism, and xenophobia are relatively insignificant in comparison.
Free people have an absolute, God-given right to self-defense and a duty to revolt against unjust government.
It’s OK to be White.
I’m sure there are more, and maybe these could be stated better, but I think I’m on sound footing saying these are universal on the right and utterly absent on the left. And I would reiterate that these principles are universal amongst people of the right – and nearly all of us would agree that violation of any of these statements by the government – or by groups acting with the tacit support of the government – would justify violent resistance, or whatever resistance was possible. So if the left wants to cause these notions to become extinct, they will have to contend with some 180 million people; if even 10% are willing to go to the mattresses in support of their beliefs, they will face an army greater than Hitler’s Wehrmacht, invisible and distributed across the entire face of the country, including within the government and military itself.
Let’s consider now the alternative – what are the leftist positions that the right finds utterly intolerable?
History is best explained as a conflict between privileged whites and oppressed “people of color” (aka “colored people”, ala 1965).
Gender, race, religion, etc, are constructed by social milieu and therefore matters of personal choice and judgment.
There is a looming climate apocalypse caused by human industry.
Right-wing political positions are “dog-whistles” for Nazi or other racist ideologies and must be suppressed to save “democracy”.
Fetuses are the property of their mothers until they are born and it’s nobody’s business what a woman does with them.
Again, there are many positions where left and right tend to disagree, but I’ve tried to limit these to positions that are intolerable to the right, thus causing our current polarization. If I had to guess, I would conclude that these positions are relatively rare amongst the people who consistently vote Democrat, and yet represent the majority of the intolerable concerns of the right. Certainly, they are rare amongst Blues, relative to the prevalence of the intolerable rightist positions amongst Reds.
So… where the Blues in their current campaign for suppression of the “MAGA forces” are likely to face tens of millions of enemies, I suspect the Reds would encounter substantially less resistance if they could figure out a way to segregate the weirdos from their human shields. I’ve said before in this blog that the Democrats are an uneasy alliance between batshit crazy white people and sensible, normal black people – so if extinction is what we have to do, my prescription for the Republicans is to scapegoat the white leftist.
This plan is fundamentally different from the typical Republican strategy of pandering to minority voters. If extermination of the intolerable leftist positions is the goal, we should explicitly avoid talking about minorities, most of whom actually agree with our positions and tolerate the white leftist simply because they are bombarded by racist propaganda from those self-same white leftists continually during election seasons. Instead we should focus on drawing a circle around those white lefitists and isolating them from the unfortunate “people of color” they use as human shields. The ultimate goal of any regenerative political policy must be to reunite the country – and what more sure-fire way is there to do that than to unite the country around the oppression of a hated minority, the horrible, sap-sucking, vampiric white leftist?
I think it’s scarcely necessary to point out how effective scapegoat politics are at generating national unity. And the white leftist is, indeed, the source of all of the intolerable positions on the left described above – whereas the intolerable rightist positions are distributed broadly, including amongst the “people of color” the white leftist vampires strive to use as human shields. In my not-so-humble opinion, if we are reduced to a policy of exterminating the intolerable leftist opinions, every position we take should be one of isolating and singling out the white left.
Amusingly, there’s even a word that’s been suggested for these parasites of western civilization, ironically taken from Chinese – Báizuǒ, or 白左. I have no idea whether or not any Chinese actually use this term to refer to the deranged and degenerate white leftists who propagate Woke nonsense, but if they don’t, they should… the Báizuǒ represent a fundamental weakness of our Western way of life, and if we cannot isolate them and eliminate them as a cultural force, it stands to reason that external forces who have yet to be infected will remove them for us.
So hey folks, go vote tomorrow, if you haven’t already, and if you are a non-insane person of the left, please consider voting Republican to prevent the nightmare scenario I describe above. And make sure your leftist friends know why you voted against them – you support human rights, you oppose racism, and you like your right-wing friends and family, because they are your friends and family, and you are an American and a member of your family before you are a servant of any ideology.
I’ll have more to say on this topic soon, but as a preview, here are my main prescriptions for gutting the Báizuǒ insurgency:
Loosen slander and libel laws pertaining to high-profile people
Remember: in all messaging, isolate exclusively the white left. In the absence of detente, our only hope for peace is victory, and that depends on the isolation and extinction of the Báizuǒ enemy. Accept mea culpa where it is offered — but para bellum where it is not.
A lot of folks on my side of the aisle are taking a run at this godawful Atlantic article, where one of the more prominent COVID hysterics calls for an “amnesty” for those who overreacted to the virus. Suffice it to say that those of us who suffered through the threat of losing our livelihoods are unlikely to forget and forgive any time soon. For me, my anger is compounded by the fact that most of the lies and manipulations raining down on society from the CDC were directly in my professional wheelhouse, so I see the whole thing as basically the degradation and ritual humiliation of microbiology as a science. The amount of horror inflicted on humanity by people purporting to understand viruses and immunology is frankly incalculable, and it’s difficult to grok how the mask psychos think they can just go “my bad” and have things go back to normal.
But come to think of it, that same statement could be made about any number of things that those people have gotten up to over the past few years. The leftists have gotten way out over their skis with their perpetually escalating civil war rhetoric – not to mention their nuclear war wrangling – and as I’ve discussed before it’s hard to see how they can walk back from that precipice even if they want to.
Nevertheless, things can’t continue on like this for long. The country is clearly on the brink of something profound, and it’s worth thinking about how some semblance of normality will ultimately be restored. Because it will be restored; nature abhors excitement and ever seeks stability.
The United States – and the entirety of the Global American Empire, comprising maybe half the world’s population – is deeply split between two largely coherent ideological factions that are mutually incompatible and roughly evenly split population-wise. These two factions cannot continue to exist as they are; they must eventually either physically segregate or else collapse into a single consensus ideology, with one or the other – or some entirely new ideology – unquestionably dominant. In other words, the country must eventually be dissolved or reunited – or reconstructed if we amuse ourselves by using the language of our last great schism.
As I see it, there are two basic scenarios for Reconstruction II; these will be the basis of my next two posts, both of which I plan to release prior to Tuesday’s big election. These two scenarios will be familiar to folks who are used to modeling things with differential equations – one of them is an equilibrium scenario, where some modicum of stability preserves the factions intact by defusing the worst of the conflicts between them. The other solution is a boundary solution, which is a pleasant enough way to describe total annihilation of a group of people’s way of life.
We’ll start with the nice side, where we all get along again – at least as well as we did in the 2000s, at any rate. For this to happen, the Democrats will have to apologize, either overtly or more likely symbolically, for the horrible things they have put the country through since Hillary Clinton decided to start a race war to “rock the voot” in 2016. This would have to take the form of an unquestionable mea culpa, not the limp-wristed concern trolling of the Atlantic “Amnesty” article.
It would certainly be nice to see a few prominent lefties or neolibs come to their senses and call for their confreres to calm down, to reach out to the ‘other side’, to denounce the gender nuts and warmongers and anti-white racists. And of course this would have to be reflected in changed policies from the Democrat Party commensurate with the new moderation. Unfortunately though, so far every one of the leftoids who have attempted this have been effectively excommunicated from the Democrat Party (Tulsi Gabbard, Naomi Wolf) or else bullied or bribed into conformity (Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin). So it seems unlikely that we’ll get to see the Party exhibit a genuine conscience about its many sins any time soon.
Another way, though, that the Democrats could symbolically apologize would be by massively repudiating their leaders at the ballot box, and importantly, making sure the media knows they voted Republican, or stayed home, because of the violent, racist, and/or insane positions the Party establishment has gotten itself into. There is, indeed, a major election coming up on Tuesday, so if you are a Democrat and you would like to put an end to this nuclear brinkmanship both foreign and domestic, please consider letting Biden know how pissed you are with what he’s doing in your name by voting Republican. Importantly, it looks like the Republicans are going to win clear victories regardless – but that’s not enough to teach the Democrats a lesson in and of itself. The victories have to be gigantic, crushing, bone-crunching, bigger than Stacy Abrams on a Thanksgiving afternoon, big enough that nobody in their right mind can convince themselves that it could have occurred without massive defections of the party loyal to the other side. Big enough that my side knows for sure that most of you are not like your political leaders. If that were to happen, and if the Party acknowledged their failure by working to replace their loser communist candidates with people untainted by the filth of 2016-2022, that would go a long way toward achieving at least a “demilitarized zone” where healing could start to occur and something like a normal politics could reemerge.
There’s even a precedent for this on our side of the aisle – Donald Trump. While nowhere near as awful as the Democrats’ litany of crimes over the past half decade, the Republicans really screwed the pooch with their “Global War on Terror” after 9/11. By the time Obama ran for President, not many people wanted to be a Republican. I hated Bush, McCain, Romney, and all their ilk, even though I had supported Republican candidates in every election prior to 9/11 and came from a family that had supported Republicans for decades, going back to the dark days when the Democrats owned the South. But we repudiated the Bush wing of the party by not turning out for them in 2008 and 2012, and then humiliated them by replacing them with populist candidates nationwide. Now, almost all of the Iraq Hawks have either been pushed out of office or have joined the Democrat Party, and whatever you want to say about the Republicans, they have at least cleansed themselves of the sins of the Bush years.
Democrats, take a lesson from us – you need to cleanse your party of its worst excesses the way we cleansed ours. The horrible people that have brought us to our current low state need to be retired, with prejudice, posthaste.
Or… well, there is another solution to this system of equations, and however unpleasant an apology might seem, it is less bad than the alternative. We’ll consider that solution in a day or two.
To my great embarrassment a couple of years ago I lauded the uplift of Trump clone Boris Johnson as a great leap forward for Britishkind. It was not, most emphatically, although it did solemnify the proximal goals of Brexit — but unfortunately without the sort of steel-spined dedication necessary to make Brexit really work. And now Britain is saddled with another neocon scumbag as PM, and we are right back where we started — but at least it seems like the British situation is legal, unlike the US situation with its obviously stolen election…
But that is not the point of this post. The point of this post is to express the deep and truly sincere sorrow that ASD feels for the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. It is true that my daughter is named for “Queen Elizabeth”, although we have been somewhat reticent about choosing which Queen Elizabeth — both of them are pretty cool, and to be perfectly honest, my mother is also named Elizabeth, so there is that confound as well. But beyond all of that, the Queen clearly represents a link to a better time — surely we agree on this? — before the grayness of the Cold War and the Culture War and all the weird egregoric death matches that have followed the “end of history”. There was a time, ever so brief, when the world was united behind the idea that good had defeated evil, and the future was a shining bridge of possibility into the stars, and Elizabeth II was perhaps the most obvious icon of that epoch. One could perhaps argue that her “annus terribilis” in the 1990s was shared by all — the final collapse of postwar exuberance, the failure of the “peace dividend” and the Russian Commonwealth — but at least for me she remained a bridge to the old world all the way up to the present day. When the commie shitbags were dragging down statues in 2020, Elizabeth II was still Queen. When they set fire to Notre Dame, Elizabeth II was still Queen. When the best and brightest in the US were cheerleading the castration of pre-teens, Elizabeth II was still Queen. Now, all of those demons are still running wild through our society, like werewolves on a full moon, but Elizabeth II is no more. And what besides her remains from that old world, other than our “mystic chords of memory”?
Elizabeth II was the head of a Church that, in its heyday, would have burned me at the stake. But now her descendants and I stand facing an implacable enemy that is mutual, and apparently unstoppable. Can the memory of this indefatigable, superlative example of English womanhood spur us to action to save what can be saved? I hope so, but looking at her heir, the namesake of two usurped Charleses of the past, I despair… may the gods of the green and pleasant fields of my ancestors give me hope in these dark days!