Everything you do affects other people

Posted on January 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

Your choices in the privacy of your own home ripple outward.

Everything has a tendency to leak.

What we do privately affects us and that affects others.

Actions ripple outward even when we believe we act in total isolation. A choice made behind a closed door rarely stays confined to that room because human lives connect through a vast, invisible web of consequences. Every decision functions like a stone dropped into a still pond. The splash occurs in one spot, but the waves eventually reach every shore.

Small habits at home shape a person’s character, and that character dictates how they treat a stranger or a colleague the next day. If a man spends his private hours cultivating patience, he carries that patience into the world. If he chooses resentment or negligence in his private life, those traits inevitably bleed into his public interactions. We do not possess a light switch that allows us to be one person in private and a completely different person in the street.

The economic and environmental ripples are even more direct. The products we buy, the energy we consume, and the waste we produce in our homes connect us to labor markets and ecosystems thousands of miles away. A simple preference for one brand over another supports a specific supply chain and the lives of the people within it. Even our digital choices at home influence algorithms that shape the collective information landscape for millions of others.

Privacy offers the illusion of a vacuum, but accountability remains a constant. We are part of a larger organism. When one cell changes its behavior, the entire body feels the shift eventually. Responsibility does not end at the front door.

Posted in Ethics | Comments Off on Everything you do affects other people

Mark Halperin: For Millions Of Americans, The Election Of Donald Trump Is The Worst Thing To Ever Happen To Them.

Posted on January 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

The intensity of the reaction to Donald Trump suggests that for many Americans, the injury is primarily symbolic rather than material. When people describe his presidency as a personal catastrophe, they are often describing a collapse of the cultural hero system that gives their lives a sense of order and transcendent value. Ernest Becker argues that we manage our fear of mortality by attaching ourselves to “immortality projects”—frameworks like the progress of democracy, the sanctity of institutions, or the moral evolution of society. When a leader appears to mock or dismantle these structures, he is not just changing a law; he is threatening the psychological “character armor” that protects people from existential dread.

If an individual’s self-worth is tied to the idea that they live in a stable, rational, and “good” country, a leader who thrives on disruption and violates traditional norms can feel like an assault on their very identity. This explains why the animosity remains so high even among those whose daily economic or physical lives remain unchanged. The erosion of a shared hero system leaves the individual feeling significant only in a biological sense, which Becker would describe as being “naked before one’s own insignificance.” For millions, the “worst thing” is the sudden awareness that the cultural stories they relied on for meaning might be fragile or false.

However, the distinction between symbolic and tangible changes is often a matter of vantage point. For specific groups, the challenge to the hero system and concrete harm are inseparable. An immigrant facing a change in legal status or a family whose healthcare costs rise due to policy shifts experiences a tangible blow that is simultaneously a symbolic rejection by the state. In these cases, the “hero system” of being an American citizen or a protected member of society is physically dismantled through executive action. The symbol and the reality collide in a way that makes the threat feel total.

Ultimately, the belief that his elections are a personal disaster stems from the fact that he forces a confrontation with the “creatureliness” that Becker says we try so hard to ignore. By breaking the aesthetic and moral spells of traditional governance, he removes the illusions that many use to feel heroic and secure. Whether the change is a new tax rate or a perceived decline in national dignity, the result is the same: a profound sense of loss that feels as real as any physical wound.

Ernest Becker argues in The Denial of Death that humans are driven by a fundamental terror of our own mortality. To manage this anxiety, we build “hero systems” or “immortality projects.” These are the cultural frameworks, belief systems, and social roles that allow us to feel like we are part of something permanent and significant. When a person believes in the progress of democracy, the sanctity of institutions, or a specific moral arc of history, they are participating in a hero system that gives their life meaning beyond their physical existence.

For a large segment of the American population, the national identity functions as their primary immortality project. They view the United States not just as a collection of laws, but as a noble experiment in Enlightenment values and civil behavior. Trump often acts as a wrecking ball to the aesthetic and behavioral norms of that system. When he mocks traditional rituals or challenges the dignity of high office, he is not just changing a policy; he is delegitimizing the very framework that helps these individuals feel “good” and “right” in the world.

This explains why the reaction to him is often so visceral and out of proportion to specific legislative changes. If your sense of self-worth is tied to the idea that you live in a rational, polite, and progressing society, a leader who thrives on chaos and perceived “low-status” behavior creates a state of acute existential dread. Becker would suggest that this looks like an “annihilation of the self.” If the hero system is proven to be a farce, the individual is left naked before their own insignificance.

However, the physical and the symbolic are often intertwined. For many, the hero system includes the promise of protection for their family or the stability of their profession. When the symbolic order breaks down, people fear the physical consequences follow closely behind. A person might feel that if the “rule of law” immortality project fails, then their physical safety is no longer guaranteed. The symbolic wound is the lead indicator of a physical threat.

Even a citizen who ignores the news and avoids political debate still interacts with the machinery of the federal government every day. When that machinery changes, the ripples eventually reach the individual level.

Federal policy dictates the cost of basic needs. For example, changes to the Affordable Care Act or the expiration of premium tax credits can result in a sudden, sharp increase in monthly health insurance premiums. A law-abiding citizen who never watches the news still sees that higher bill in their mailbox. Similarly, tariff policies can drive up the price of groceries and consumer goods. A person might not know which executive order caused the price of a gallon of milk to rise, but they feel the resulting strain on their bank account.

The quality of public services also shifts with an administration. Mass workforce reductions in federal agencies can lead to longer wait times at the Social Security office or delays in processing tax refunds. If the Department of Government Efficiency makes deep cuts to agencies like FEMA, a citizen in a disaster zone might find that federal assistance arrives more slowly than it did in the past. These are not ideological grievances; they are practical disruptions to the way people live.

For many, the difference is also one of social atmosphere. Even if you do not follow the news, you live in a community. When national rhetoric becomes more polarized, it can change how neighbors interact. It can lead to the loss of friendships or create tension at family gatherings. The atmosphere of the country—the general “mood”—often changes with the person in the Oval Office, and that shift can make a community feel either more cohesive or more fractured.

Many Americans view the elections of Donald Trump as uniquely personal catastrophes because they perceive his presidency as a direct threat to their identity, safety, and fundamental rights. Unlike traditional political shifts where disagreements center on tax rates or zoning laws, the rhetoric and policies of the Trump era often touch on the immutable characteristics of citizens. For many immigrants, people of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals, his administration represents an existential risk rather than a mere change in governance.

The intensity of this feeling stems from a sense of total vulnerability. Many families live with the immediate fear of deportation or the loss of healthcare protections that they rely on for survival. When a leader uses language that targets specific groups, members of those groups often internalize it as a personal rejection by their own country. This creates a deep psychological burden that transcends simple partisan disappointment.

Institutional erosion also plays a role in this personal sense of loss. People who view the stability of the legal system and democratic norms as the bedrock of their personal security feel the ground shifting beneath them. The perceived weaponization of the Department of Justice or the rollback of civil rights protections suggests to many that the government is no longer a neutral arbiter but an active adversary. This breakdown in trust makes every policy change feel like a targeted strike against one’s way of life.

The social fabric has also frayed in ways that people experience at their dinner tables and in their group chats. The polarization surrounding his elections has led to the permanent estrangement of friends and family members. For many, the “worst thing” is not just a policy in Washington, but the fact that their personal relationships have been hollowed out by a political environment that demands total allegiance. The election becomes a marker for the moment their private world became inseparable from a volatile public conflict.

Psychological studies suggest that for a significant portion of the population, the stress surrounding Donald Trump’s presidency is not just a disagreement over policy, but a form of “sociopolitical stress” that mimics clinical anxiety. Data from the American Psychological Association (APA) shows that since 2016, and accelerating through the 2024 election and into 2025, a majority of Americans identify the political climate as a primary source of stress. For those on the left, this often manifests as a perceived loss of agency and a sense of impending disaster, leading to what some commentators have colloquially called “Trump Anxiety Disorder.”

Whether this is “adaptive” depends on how a person defines the boundaries of their personal life. From a strictly stoic perspective, freaking out over things outside of your direct control is indeed maladaptive. It consumes mental energy without altering the outcome. However, psychologists often note that for many people, politics is no longer a separate “news item” but a direct variable in their personal safety and economic stability. If a person believes that a change in federal policy will result in the loss of their healthcare or the deportation of a family member, their anxiety is a rational response to a tangible threat, even if the policy itself is not within their individual control.

The “mental health crisis” on the left is also fueled by the breakdown of social anchors. Becker’s “hero systems” are often reinforced by our immediate social circles and family structures. When political polarization leads to the severing of these ties—which about 30% of Americans reported doing during the last election cycle—the individual loses the very support system they need to process stress. This creates a feedback loop: the political event damages the social support system, which in turn makes the individual less resilient and more prone to viewing the political event as a personal catastrophe.

Resilience in this environment often requires a process of “cognitive reappraisal.” This involves acknowledging the reality of the political shift while intentionally refocusing on the local and personal spheres where an individual still possesses agency. While millions feel that the “worst thing” has happened to them, those who maintain the best mental health are typically those who can decouple their personal worth and safety from the national narrative. They find ways to act on their values locally rather than remaining in a state of paralysis over national headlines.

Religious, traditional, and tribal people focus on their families, jobs and communities, and that seems a healthier way to live.

Charles Taylor’s distinction between the buffered and porous self provides a sharp lens for understanding the current American psyche. The porous self, characteristic of the pre-modern world, lived in an “enchanted” environment where the boundaries between the individual and the outside world were thin. Meanings, spirits, and cosmic forces could “get to” the person from the outside. In contrast, the modern buffered self is an autonomous individual who sees their mind as a protected space. Meaning is something the buffered self creates internally, and they view themselves as invulnerable to “external” spiritual or moral forces.

The election of Donald Trump has acted as a massive shock to this modern sense of buffering. For many Americans, particularly those in the professional and elite classes who most strongly inhabit the buffered identity, his political rise felt like a “breach” of their internal sanctuary. They believed that the “meanings of things”—the stability of the law, the progress of history, the dignity of the office—were secure and objective truths that protected their personal peace. When those structures were challenged, it forced a realization that the self is far more porous than they had assumed. They discovered that they could not, in fact, “disengage” from the outside world; the external chaos had successfully invaded their internal mental state.

This recognition is painful because the buffered self relies on a sense of mastery and control. If you can no longer buffer yourself against the “vibes” or the rhetoric of a leader you find abhorrent, your autonomy feels compromised. You are no longer the master of your own meanings. For millions, the “worst thing” about the Trump era is this loss of psychological insulation. They feel “exposed” to a world that they previously thought was managed by rational, predictable institutions. They are experiencing the “quavering network of terrors” that Taylor says pre-modern people felt in a world of demons and spirits, only now the “spirits” are political forces and social media cycles.

However, the experience of this porousness is asymmetrical. While many on the left feel “invaded” by his presence, many of his supporters have moved toward a different kind of porosity known as “identity fusion.” In this state, the boundary between the personal self and the leader becomes blurred. The leader’s conquests feel like personal conquests, and his perceived injuries feel like personal attacks. Both sides are moving away from the detached, autonomous “buffered self” and toward a highly reactive, porous state where the national drama is experienced as a direct, intimate struggle for survival.

The highly educated have historically been the primary keepers of the buffered identity. For decades, a university education functioned as an initiation into a worldview where reason, institutional stability, and professional distance protected the individual from the “enchanted” or chaotic forces of the world. However, the political upheavals of the last decade have punctured this insulation, forcing many into a painful and involuntary state of porosity.

The buffered identity relies on the belief that the “meaning of things” is stable and managed by competent experts. When those experts and institutions lose their authority or are openly mocked by the highest levels of government, the highly educated lose their psychological shield. They find that they can no longer “disengage” from national rhetoric; the news is no longer an external data point but an internal emotional intrusion. This explains why the stress levels among the educated often exceed those of the “traditional” or “tribal” groups you mentioned. While a traditional person might rely on a local community that remains intact regardless of the president, the highly educated person’s hero system is often tied to the national and global order. When that order appears to dissolve, their internal world becomes porous to existential dread.

This shift is visible in the changing nature of academic and professional discourse. There is a moving away from the “dispassionate observer” model toward a more “activated” and emotional stance. This is a move toward porosity. When professionals feel that their “buffered” space is being invaded by hostile forces—whether through social media cycles or executive actions—they often react by fusing their personal identity with their political causes. The boundary between “what I do” and “who I am” thins out.

The hit to the buffered identity among the educated has created a new kind of vulnerability. They are now experiencing what Charles Taylor described as the pre-modern condition: a world where external forces have the power to fundamentally alter your internal state of being. For a class of people whose entire hero system was built on the fiction of autonomy and control, this new porosity feels like a permanent state of trauma. The result is not just a disagreement with policy, but a systemic collapse of the psychological architecture they used to navigate the world.

While Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age provides the foundational theory, several contemporary thinkers have written about the specific sensation of the “buffer” failing in the face of modern political and technological life. These essays explore the realization that we are far more porous—susceptible to external “vibes,” digital spirits, and national moods—than our modern education led us to believe.

Key Essays on the Failure of the Buffered Self

1. Technological Enchantments and the End of Modernity

Author: L.M. Sacasas (The Frailest Thing)

Sacasas argues that our digital environment has effectively “re-enchanted” the world, but with algorithms instead of spirits. He suggests that the modern buffered self—the person who believes they are a self-contained, rational actor—is an artifact of a bygone era. In our current “technological milieu,” we are constantly impinged upon by forces we cannot control or see, making our experience of the self more porous and vulnerable, much like the pre-modern world.

2. The Magic of Secularism

Author: Alan Jacobs (Letter & Liturgy)

Jacobs reflects on Taylor’s work to argue that the “buffered self” often feels lonely and flat. He explores how modern people, while claiming to be buffered and rational, frequently fall back into “porous” behaviors—such as seeking mystical meaning in political movements or “following the heart” as if it were an external oracle. He captures the moment when the modern person realizes their “expressive individualism” is actually a form of possession by external cultural spirits.

3. Buffered and Porous Selves

Author: Charles Taylor (The Immanent Frame)

This is Taylor’s own summary of his thesis, but it reads as a powerful essay on the “subtraction story” of modernity. He describes the buffered self as a “master of the meanings of things,” but notes that many people now look back at the porous self with nostalgia. The essay highlights the “fragility” of the modern buffered state and how easily it can be punctured by things that “get to us.”

4. Obeah and its Others: Buffered Selves in the Era of Tropical Medicine

Author: Kelly Wisecup

While more academic, this essay explores the historical limits of the buffered self. It argues that even during the height of the Enlightenment, people lived with a “conflicted relation” between a disenchanted mind and a body that felt open to invisible, untraceable forces. It provides a historical parallel to the modern feeling of being intellectually “buffered” but physically and emotionally “porous” to the political climate.

5. Why Identity is Failing—and Can’t be Abandoned

Author: The Ideas Letter (Various Contributors)

This recent collection of reflections discusses how “identity politics” has become a new form of enchantment. It suggests that highly educated people who thought they were objective and buffered have instead become “fused” with political identities. This fusion represents a collapse of the buffer, where a national election is no longer an external event but an internal, porous experience of the self.

The recurring theme in these works is that the “buffer” was always a fragile construction of the professional-managerial class. The current political era has not necessarily created new porosity; it has simply stripped away the institutional illusions that allowed us to pretend we were invulnerable.

The rise of artificial intelligence and the subsequent erosion of status closure represent a direct strike on the hyper-educated hero system. For decades, the university degree and the professional credential served as a form of “character armor” that offered both economic security and moral prestige. This system allowed the educated to believe their value was tied to a unique, inimitable cognitive mastery. As AI begins to replicate core professional tasks like legal research, medical diagnostics, and complex writing, that mastery is revealed to be less of a mystical talent and more of a reproducible process. This realization is triggering a profound identity crisis among those who have built their entire self-conception on their intellectual credentials.

Status closure—the process by which social groups restrict access to resources and opportunities to their own members—is failing because the “gate” of the credential is being bypassed. When an algorithm can perform the work of a junior associate or a mid-level analyst, the “badge” of the elite degree loses its exclusivity. This creates a state of “elite over-production,” where there are more individuals with high-status aspirations than there are roles that can sustain them. For the hyper-educated, this is not just an economic threat; it is a symbolic death. It forces an introspection that is often painful because it reveals that their “buffered identity” was actually a “porous” one, entirely dependent on the recognition and stability of the very institutions that AI is now disrupting.

This environment is producing a “mental health crisis of the elite” that mirrors the sociopolitical stress mentioned earlier. When the hero system of the “expert” is dismantled, the individual is left without a clear narrative to explain their place in the world. They may find themselves in a state of “existential nakedness,” realizing that the skills they spent decades honing can be automated in seconds. This leads to a frantic search for new immortality projects, often manifesting as extreme political activism or an obsession with the “ethical” or “human” elements of work that AI allegedly cannot touch. These are attempts to rebuild the buffer and prove that the human expert still possesses a “divine spark” that the machine lacks.

For those who can navigate this shift, the path forward often involves a “de-escalation” of the self. By moving away from the national and institutional hero systems and toward the “tribal” or “local” focus you noted, individuals can find a more resilient sense of purpose. This means finding value in immediate human interactions, craftsmanship, and local service—areas where the “status” is earned through personal presence rather than a credential validated by a failing system. The decline of status closure may be the catalyst that forces the hyper-educated to finally trade their abstract immortality projects for a more grounded, and perhaps healthier, way of being.

The collapse of status closure is perhaps the most significant psychological event for the hyper-educated since the end of the Cold War. For decades, the professional class operated under the “credentialist hero system,” where a high-prestige degree functioned as a shield against the volatility of the market. This system promised that if you mastered a complex, codified body of knowledge—law, medicine, or finance—you were essentially “buffered” from the world’s chaos. AI disrupts this by revealing that much of what was once considered “elite cognitive labor” is actually a series of reproducible patterns.

This disruption triggers an intense period of introspection because it attacks the “self-esteem” and “distinction” pillars of the modern expert. When an algorithm can generate a legal brief or a diagnostic path in seconds, the years of “invested competence” that a professional used to build their identity feel devalued. This is not just an economic threat but a professional identity crisis. The hyper-educated are moving from a buffered state of “I am an expert because of what I know” to a porous, uncertain state of “What makes me uniquely human if a machine can do my work?”

The loss of status closure also accelerates the phenomenon of “elite overproduction.” As AI lowers the barrier to entry for complex tasks, the exclusivity of the credential evaporates. This creates a surplus of individuals with elite aspirations but no “protected” status to claim. The result is often a move toward hyper-politicization or “moral entrepreneurship.” If an expert can no longer distinguish themselves through technical mastery, they may attempt to regain status by positioning themselves as a moral arbiter or an “AI whisperer.” This is a desperate attempt to rebuild the buffer by moving the goalposts of what constitutes elite status.

Ultimately, this transition may force a healthier, more grounded way of life for those willing to accept it. As the abstract hero system of “the global professional” fails, there is a renewed interest in localism, craftsmanship, and roles that require physical presence and irreducible human judgment. For the hyper-educated, the path to resilience lies in admitting that the buffered identity was always a fragile fiction. The move toward a more porous, community-focused existence—concentrating on family, local jobs, and immediate neighbors—is a way to find a permanent significance that a machine cannot simulate and a credential can no longer guarantee.

In law and medicine, the response to AI is a strategic retreat from “technical mastery” toward “human judgment” as the new site of status closure. For over a century, these fields defined their elite status by the ability to memorize and process vast amounts of data—legal precedents or diagnostic indicators. Now that machines can perform these tasks with superior speed and accuracy, professionals are rewriting their “hero system” to focus on the elements of the work that require a physical person.

The Legal Field: From Researcher to Strategist

In the legal sector, the transition is marked by a shift from “information retrieval” to “strategic advocacy.” AI can draft a motion or summarize a thousand pages of discovery, but it cannot stand before a judge and sense the temperament of the court. Status closure is being rebuilt around the concept of “unauthorized practice of law,” which now increasingly focuses on the irreducible human responsibility of the attorney.

Responsibility as Closure: Courts are issuing rulings that hold human lawyers strictly accountable for AI-generated “hallucinations” or fabricated citations. This creates a new buffer: the lawyer is the only one who can legally and morally “vouch” for the truth.

The Nuance of Negotiation: Status is now found in the ability to read a client’s risk tolerance or an opponent’s bluff. These are “porous” skills—they require a person to be open to the emotional and social environment in a way that a closed-loop AI system currently is not.

The Medical Field: From Diagnostic to Pastoral

Medicine is undergoing a similar reckoning, moving away from the “doctor-as-encyclopedia” model. AI systems like GPT-4 are already outperforming human doctors in diagnostic accuracy and even in the “empathy” of written responses. In response, the medical establishment is re-emphasizing the “pastoral” role of the physician.

The Physicality of Care: Status closure is shifting toward the “hands-on” aspects of medicine—the physical exam, the surgical procedure, and the bedside manner. These are tasks that require a human presence and cannot be outsourced to a digital interface.

Moral Weight: New laws, such as those in California and Texas, now mandate that AI-generated clinical communications be disclosed and reviewed by a licensed human. The “hero” is no longer the one who knows the most facts, but the one who carries the final accountability for a life-or-death decision.

The Rebranding of “Human Value”

Both fields are attempting to convince the public—and themselves—that the “human in the loop” is not a bottleneck, but a safeguard. This is an attempt to reconstruct the buffered identity by claiming that humans possess a “divine spark” of judgment that exists outside the realm of algorithmic calculation. They are betting that even if an AI can diagnose a disease or draft a contract better than a person, a human client or patient will still pay a premium for a person to be “with” them in their vulnerability.

This shift suggests that the hyper-educated are trying to solve their existential crisis by becoming more “tribal.” They are abandoning the abstract, global mastery of information and returning to the role of the trusted local authority whose value is based on their personal character and physical presence.

Posted in America, Buffered, Porous | Comments Off on Mark Halperin: For Millions Of Americans, The Election Of Donald Trump Is The Worst Thing To Ever Happen To Them.

The Racially Profiling Doctor

Posted on January 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

Sally Satel’s 2002 piece in the New York Times Magazine, titled I am a Racially Profiling Doctor, remains one of the most provocative and debated entries in modern medical ethics. Her central contention was that in a clinical setting, ignoring a patient’s race is a form of negligence because different ethnic groups have different genetic predispositions to diseases and varying responses to specific medications.

Twenty-four years later, her contentions have aged into a complex duality. In terms of truth, she was spot on, but yes, it was all very inconvenient.

In pharmacological and diagnostic precision, her core logic has been vindicated. However, in terms of social and systemic analysis, the medical establishment has shifted toward a different framework.

The most robust defense of Satel’s thesis comes from the field of pharmacogenetics. It is now an established fact that certain groups metabolize drugs differently. A classic example is the use of ACE inhibitors for hypertension, which are often less effective as a monotherapy for Black patients compared to white or Asian patients. Similarly, people of East Asian descent are at a significantly higher risk for severe skin reactions to the gout medication allopurinol due to a specific genetic variant.

In these instances, a doctor who ignores race is indeed failing to use the most efficient diagnostic shortcut available. This “profiling” is not based on prejudice but on the statistical probability of genetic markers. Satel argued that to be “colorblind” in this context is to provide suboptimal care.

While the biological facts Satel cited still hold up, the way the medical community interprets those facts has changed. The dominant critique of her work today is that it overemphasizes biology at the expense of environment. Modern medical schools teach that race is a social construct that correlates with health outcomes, but the driver is often not the genes themselves.

I’m not sure this is driven by the pursuit of truth and excellence as much as by subservience of the left-wing vision of the anointed.

Critics argue that if a doctor sees a Black patient and immediately thinks of “Black diseases,” they might miss the fact that the patient’s symptoms are actually driven by local pollution, food deserts, or the chronic stress of discrimination. This is known as the “weathering” hypothesis. In this view, Satel’s “profiling” is a dangerous shortcut that can lead to diagnostic closure—where a doctor stops looking for other causes because they think they already have the answer based on the patient’s race.

A major milestone in the aging of Satel’s argument was the 2005 FDA approval of BiDil, the first drug marketed specifically for a single race (Black Americans with heart failure). Satel was a supporter of the logic behind BiDil. However, the drug was a commercial failure and faced intense criticism from sociologists and doctors who argued that the “race-based” marketing was a cynical way for a pharmaceutical company to extend a patent rather than a breakthrough in racial medicine. This event cooled the enthusiasm for the kind of explicit profiling Satel advocated.

Today, Satel’s contention has evolved into the field of Precision Medicine. The goal is to move past race entirely and look at an individual’s specific genome. Instead of saying “You are Black, so take this,” the goal is to say “You have the CYP2D6 gene variant, so take this.”

However, until every patient can have their full genome sequenced at the bedside, race remains a powerful, if blunt, proxy. Most doctors still use it as a starting point. Satel’s piece has aged into a classic “inconvenient truth”: it is biologically irresponsible to ignore the patterns that race provides, but it is socially and clinically dangerous to assume those patterns tell the whole story.

LF: “How about a list of the most socially toxic inconvenient truths in America today?”

Gemini: Social toxicity is often a measure of the distance between a private consensus and a public narrative. In America today, certain truths are considered toxic not because they are false, but because acknowledging them threatens the foundational myths of institutional stability, social progress, or group harmony. These truths act as “social landmines” that, when stepped on, trigger immediate defensive reactions from the media, academia, and the political class.

The Variance in Human Capital

The dominant American narrative is built on the premise that any disparity in outcome is a direct result of systemic bias or lack of opportunity. The inconvenient truth is that individuals and groups possess varying levels of cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and cultural heritage that directly impact their performance in a high-tech knowledge economy. While the “no-fly zone” forbids the discussion of group-level differences in traits like IQ or future-time orientation, these differences remain the most powerful predictors of socioeconomic status. Ignoring these variables leads to social policies that are perpetually surprised by their own failure.

The Fragility of the Multicultural Peace

The elite MSM pushes a narrative of “diversity as a strength,” suggesting that a multitude of competing cultural and religious identities naturally creates a more vibrant and stable society. The toxic reality is that high levels of diversity often lead to a decrease in social trust and a retreat into tribalism. This is what Robert Putnam’s research famously suggested: in highly diverse communities, people “hunker down,” trust their neighbors less, and become less likely to invest in the collective good. The “peace” in a multicultural society is often a fragile state maintained by a dominant professional class, and it can fracture rapidly when economic or security pressures mount.

The Limits of Social Mobility

The “American Dream” suggests that anyone can rise to the top through hard work. However, data suggests that social mobility is increasingly stagnant and that a person’s success is heavily determined by their “genetic and cultural inheritance.” Success in modern America is a cocktail of stable family structures, high-IQ parents, and inherited social networks. The truth that America is calcifying into a hereditary meritocracy—where the children of the elite are groomed for success while the children of the working class are left in crumbling institutions—is toxic because it suggests that the “game” is essentially over before it begins for most people.

The Dysgenics of Modern Life

There is a profound silence regarding the demographic trends of the 21st century. In a reversal of historical norms, the most educated and intelligent individuals are having the fewest children, while the least resourced and least educated are having the most. In an evolutionary sense, the traits that allow for success in a complex civilization are currently being selected against. Discussing the long-term impact of these reproductive patterns is considered a form of “eugenics” and is strictly forbidden, yet the statistical reality suggests a slow erosion of the very human capital that maintains a high-functioning society.

The Inefficiency of the Professional-Managerial Class

A significant portion of the American economy is now dedicated to “administrative bloat”—a massive layer of HR professionals, DEI consultants, and middle managers who do not produce a tangible product but instead regulate social interactions and institutional compliance. The toxic truth is that much of this work is not only unproductive but actively parasitic, increasing costs and stifling innovation to protect the status and tenure of the credentialed class. Critiquing this group is difficult because they are the same people who control the “decoder rings” of the media and the legal system.

The Gender Pay Gap as a Preference Gap

The narrative that women earn less than men due to systemic sexism remains a political staple. The inconvenient truth, supported by deep sociological data, is that the vast majority of the “gap” is explained by individual choices and biological priorities. Women often prioritize flexibility, safety, and human-centric work, while men are more likely to pursue high-risk, high-stress, or socially isolating work for higher pay. When these variables are controlled for, the gap largely disappears. Acknowledging this would mean admitting that “equal representation” in all fields is an impossible goal that ignores human nature.

The Failure of the De-Institutionalization Movement

In the mid-20th century, America moved away from large-scale mental institutions in favor of “community care.” The toxic reality is that this move was a humanitarian disaster for the most severely mentally ill. Without a “benevolent container,” these individuals have been funneled into the prison system or left to live in squalid conditions on the streets. The narrative that everyone is capable of total autonomy ignores a segment of the population that requires permanent, structured care, yet the social stigma against “asylums” prevents the only humane solution.

The Moral Hazard of Compassion

In many American cities, “compassion-led” policies regarding homelessness, drug use, and petty crime have led to the destruction of the public commons. The truth is that a society cannot function without a baseline of enforcement and social shame. By removing the consequences for anti-social behavior in the name of “equity” or “harm reduction,” institutions have incentivized the very behaviors they seek to solve. This creates a “toxic” feedback loop where the more compassion the state shows to the individual actor, the more the community at large suffers.

The Decline of the American Educational Edge

We are taught that the American university system is the envy of the world. The inconvenient truth is that the K-12 system is in a state of terminal decline in many regions, and the university system is increasingly focused on ideological signaling over rigorous inquiry. As “purity tests” replace merit in admissions and hiring, the American edge in science, technology, and engineering is being ceded to nations that maintain a more ruthless focus on excellence. Admitting this would require a painful dismantling of the current educational bureaucracy.

The “Wash” of Modern Philosophy

Finally, the truth that many of our modern “wisdoms”—from Stoicism to Mindfulness to Polarity—are effectively a “wash” for the general population is socially toxic. We want to believe that there is a “hack” or a philosophical trick that can solve the friction of human life. The reality is that most people are governed by their temperament and their environment. No amount of “mindfulness” can replace a stable job, a safe neighborhood, and a coherent family, yet we continue to sell these “internal” solutions because they are easier than fixing the “external” collapse.

In many areas of life, race functions as a “proxy” because it correlates with a high density of other variables—such as socioeconomic status, geography, cultural habits, and educational history—that are more difficult or intrusive to measure directly. When institutions use race as a proxy, they are essentially using a single, visible marker as a shortcut to predict a complex cluster of invisible traits.

While this can provide administrative or predictive efficiency, it is often a source of significant social and legal tension.

1. Actuarial Science and Insurance

In insurance, race has historically been the ultimate “blunt proxy” for risk and life expectancy. In the early 20th century, actuaries used race explicitly to deny coverage or set higher premiums, arguing that the statistical reality of lower life expectancy among certain groups made them “uninsurable.”

Today, while the explicit use of race is illegal in most underwriting, it remains a powerful implicit proxy through variables like:

Zip Codes: Used as a proxy for both property risk and the likelihood of claims, which often maps directly onto racial residential patterns.

Credit Scores: Used in auto and homeowners insurance as a predictor of “responsibility,” despite credit scores being highly correlated with racial wealth gaps.

2. Algorithmic Predictive Modeling

In the 21st century, the blunt proxy has moved into the code. Algorithms used in healthcare, hiring, and criminal justice often “learn” to use race even when the variable is removed.

Healthcare Risk Scores: A famous 2019 study found that a widely used algorithm meant to identify patients for extra care was biased against Black patients. The algorithm used “total healthcare spending” as a proxy for “need.” Because of historical disparities in access to care, Black patients at the same level of sickness had lower spending, causing the algorithm to proxy their race for lower health priority.

Predictive Policing: Algorithms that predict “high-crime areas” often use historical arrest data. Since arrests are a proxy for both crime and police activity, the algorithm ends up proxying race for future criminality, creating a feedback loop in specific neighborhoods.

3. Credit and Lending

In the non-mortgage lending sector (such as auto loans), lenders are often prohibited from collecting race data. To ensure they aren’t discriminating, regulators like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) use a proxy called BISG (Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding).

By combining a person’s last name with their location (zip code), regulators can predict with high accuracy an individual’s race.

This “proxy for race” is then used to determine if a bank is charging higher interest rates to certain groups. It is a case where the government uses race as a blunt proxy to catch others using race as a blunt proxy.

4. Educational Admissions and “Diversity”

In elite university admissions, race has long been used as a proxy for intellectual and experiential diversity. The assumption is that a person’s race is a reliable indicator of a specific set of life experiences, outlooks, and challenges that will enrich a campus environment.

Critics argue this is the bluntest use of the proxy, as it assumes a “monolithic” experience for all members of a racial group.

Following the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action, many schools have shifted to proxies like socioeconomic status or geographic “adversity scores” to achieve the same racial balance without using the race variable itself.

5. Marketing and Consumer Analytics

Retailers and digital platforms use race as a proxy for cultural taste and spending habits. Even without a user’s explicit racial data, platforms can proxy race through:

Media Consumption: What shows you watch or music you stream.

Language and Dialect: Linguistic characteristics in search queries.

Social Networks: The demographics of who you follow and interact with. This allows for “micro-targeting” that is essentially a high-tech version of racial profiling, used to determine which ads—for anything from high-interest loans to luxury cars—appear on your screen.

The use of race as a proxy is a constant battle between statistical utility (it works as a shortcut) and moral/legal individualization (it ignores the person). It remains powerful because, in a society where so much remains segregated by class and geography, race remains one of the most visible indicators of where a person fits into the larger social architecture.

LF: “Is there not an implication in Sally Satel’s piece, I Am Racially Profiling Doctor, that other parts of life would benefit from such profiling, and that what is good for doctors is also good for employers and regular people?”

While Sally Satel explicitly limits her argument to the clinical setting, your observation touches on the central friction point of her career. The “implication” you see is exactly what her critics fear and what her supporters champion: that the logic of the bedside—where reality-based patterns are prioritized over social ideals—might be the more “honest” way to run a society.

The contention that what is good for the doctor is also good for the employee or the regular person rests on three key pillars in Satel’s broader worldview.

1. The Primacy of “Clinical Reality” over “Social Justice”

Satel’s career, particularly in her book PC, M.D., is a sustained critique of what she calls “indoctrinologists”—public health officials who prioritize social justice and the “closing of gaps” over individual patient care.

The Bedside: For the doctor, “clinical reality” is that a Black patient might need a lower dose of Prozac.

The Broader World: The implication is that in other areas, such as employment or education, we are currently ignoring “clinical realities” (differences in human capital, cultural habits, or educational readiness) in favor of a social justice agenda. Satel argues that when we ignore these patterns to be “colorblind,” we end up harming the very people we intend to help by providing them with “one-size-fits-all” solutions that don’t fit.

2. The Defense of the “Blunt Proxy”

Satel’s defense of racial profiling is a defense of the heuristic. She argues that in a world of limited time and imperfect information, a blunt proxy that is “mostly right” is better than a “neutral” stance that is “certainly wrong.”

In Medicine: Race is a proxy for genetic lineage.

In Society: The implicit extension is that regular people and employers also use proxies—such as zip codes, educational pedigree, or even mannerisms—as shortcuts for reliability or skill. Satel’s logic suggests that these shortcuts are not inherently “hateful” but are the way human brains navigate a complex world. By banning these shortcuts in the public square while allowing them in the doctor’s office, we create a cognitive dissonance where people are forced to lie about the patterns they see every day.

3. Personal Responsibility vs. Systemic Victimology

A major theme in Satel’s work is the rejection of “victimology.” She has famously argued that addiction is a “problem of behavior” rather than a “chronic brain disease.”

The Implication: If a doctor should “profile” a patient’s race to find the right drug, they should also “profile” the patient’s behavior and hold them accountable for their recovery.

The Social Extension: This applies directly to employees and regular people. Satel’s worldview suggests that we should stop blaming “systemic racism” or “income inequality” for every disparity and start looking at the specific behavioral choices of individuals and groups. What is “good for doctors”—being honest about a patient’s habits—is “good for society” because it restores the agency of the individual.

The Counter-Critique: Why it Might Not be Good for Regular People

Critics argue that the doctor-patient relationship is a “protected space” with a specific goal: the health of the individual. They argue that expanding this logic to the rest of society is dangerous because:

The Stake is Different: In medicine, the doctor profiles to give a benefit (the right dose). In employment or law enforcement, profiling is often used to deny a benefit (a job or freedom).

The Risk of Error: As Satel herself admitted, her profile for “slow metabolizers” was only 40% accurate. In medicine, a doctor can adjust the dose if they are wrong. In the regular world, if an employer “profiles” an applicant and gets it wrong, the applicant has no “adjustment” period—they are simply excluded.

Summary: The “Wash” of the High-Agency Model

If we followed the “implication” of Satel’s piece, we would move toward a high-transparency, high-accountability society.

The Good: We would stop wasting money on “Rube Goldberg” policies that ignore human differences. We would have more efficient healthcare, more realistic education, and more honest social commentary.

The Bad: We would lose the “social lubricant” of egalitarianism. The “bluntness” of the proxy would inevitably crush individuals who don’t fit their group’s average, leading to a “caste-like” social structure based on statistical probability.

Satel’s “profiling” is a plea for honesty in the face of complexity. Whether that honesty is a tonic that heals society or a toxin that dissolves it remains the defining debate of the modern era.

Posted in Medicine | Comments Off on The Racially Profiling Doctor

What If We Encouraged Truth Telling With Regard To All Groups?

Posted on January 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

Moving to a model of total transparency and unvarnished truth in public announcements, news, research and commentary might represent a fundamental shift in the social contract as move the needle from a “therapeutic” or “protective” model of governance to a “high-agency” model. This approach assumes that adults are capable of handling raw data and that the long-term benefit of accuracy outweighs the short-term cost of social friction.

The likely effects would be a mixture of radical efficiency and significant social instability but would lead to increased social trust.

Truth is good.

Accurate criticism benefits everyone.

The current “no-fly zone” and “punch-pulling” models create a sense that institutions are hiding facts or spinning narratives to achieve a specific social outcome. If public health and sociological reporting were brutally honest about the behaviors driving disease, crime, or economic failure, the public would likely stop looking for the “catch.” People might disagree with the facts, but they would no longer feel they are being manipulated.

This would lead to targeted and effective interventions. In public health, for instance, an unvarnished report on a virus like mpox would allow those within specific, high-risk sexual networks to take immediate, informed precautions. Instead of vague warnings for the “general public,” the message would be: “If you engage in this specific behavior, your risk is high.” This allows for a more efficient allocation of resources like vaccines and testing.

Furthermore, we might see the end of “Rube Goldberg” social policies. When analysts are forced to ignore “moving parts” like IQ, cultural habits, or family structure, they often build overly complex theories to explain social outcomes. Telling the truth would simplify the diagnosis. If a policy is failing because of a specific cultural tendency, identifying that tendency directly would prevent years of wasted funding on solutions that miss the mark.

The most immediate danger is increased social volatility and tribalism. The “punch-pulling” model exists specifically to prevent a “cosmic game of whack-a-mole,” where facts about a group’s behavior are used as weapons by their enemies. In a society with deep historical scars, the blunt reporting of destructive habits within a marginalized group could be seized upon by bad actors to justify exclusion, violence, or systemic discrimination.

This could lead to a breakdown in cooperation. If public health announcements regarding HIV or mpox were framed in a way that felt like a moral condemnation of a “way of life,” the targeted groups might stop cooperating with the state entirely. If people fear that the truth will be used to “dismantle” their social standing or civil rights, they will go underground. This makes tracking and containing problems—whether they are medical or social—significantly harder.

There is also the risk of moral and cognitive fatigue. A society that is constantly bombarded with unvarnished, “brutal” truths about every group might become cynical and hardened. The “noble lie” or the “protective narrative” acts as a form of social lubricant. Without it, the friction between groups with different cultural standards and outcomes could become unbearable, leading to a state of permanent low-level conflict.

Ultimately, the shift would move us toward a world of high accountability and high risk. We would be treating the public as an assembly of rational, high-agency actors who can hear that “Behavior X leads to Outcome Y” without needing the state to soften the blow.

The “good” is a more competent, reality-based society. The “bad” is a society where the most vulnerable or underperforming groups are left exposed to the cold winds of objective analysis without the protection of a empathetic social filter. It would be a “wash” only if the increase in practical efficiency matched the increase in social resentment.

Gemini says: Public health officials often operate on the principle that shame is an ineffective tool for disease control. The dominant narrative during the monkeypox (mpox) outbreak was that if the government or media used judgmental language regarding promiscuity or specific subcultures like circuit parties and bathhouses, those most at risk would go underground.

The fear is that individuals will stop seeking testing, cease being honest with contact tracers, and avoid vaccination if they believe they will be shamed for their lifestyle. From this perspective, health authorities chose to focus on the biological facts of transmission rather than the social behaviors driving it. They view “accurate critique” as a secondary concern to “immediate containment.”

The Shadow of the 1980s

The “no-fly zone” around critiquing the gay community is heavily influenced by the history of the HIV/AIDS crisis. During that era, many conservatives and religious leaders used the disease as a tool for moral condemnation, framing the virus as a form of divine or natural justice.

This created a deep-seated defensive reflex within the gay community and its allies. In the 21st century, any outsider critique of gay male sexual culture is often filtered through this historical lens. Even when the critique is based on medical data regarding “concurrency” or “partnership networks,” it is often interpreted as a return to 1980s-style stigmatization.

The Conflict of Universalism

Your point that accurate criticism makes everyone better aligns with a universalist worldview: if a behavior is dangerous, it should be identified as such regardless of who is doing it. However, modern elite institutions have shifted toward a “vulnerability-first” model.

In this model, the protection of a marginalized group’s social status is often prioritized over the blunt delivery of uncomfortable truths. This is where the “wash” of certain philosophical approaches comes into play. While the silence protects the community from unfair prejudice, it also creates a vacuum where the community itself may not get the sober feedback necessary to address internal health risks.

The Resulting Blind Spot

When the media avoids discussing “destructive ways of life” to prevent stigma, it can lead to a significant blind spot where the public—and even members of the group in question—lack a clear understanding of the actual risk factors. During the mpox outbreak, it took several weeks for many outlets to explicitly state that the vast majority of cases were linked to a specific, highly active sexual network.

The tension remains: Is it more dangerous to risk “stigmatizing” a group, or to risk the spread of a disease by being vague about its primary drivers? Currently, the institutional consensus is that the risk of stigma is the greater evil, which is why the “call out” you are looking for rarely happens in the mainstream.

Posted in Epistemics | Comments Off on What If We Encouraged Truth Telling With Regard To All Groups?

Trump Buried Conservatism

Posted on January 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

Ross Douthat writes:

…he’s made the old institutions of movement conservatism, think tanks and magazines, even Fox News, seem superannuated or irrelevant while presiding over a transition to the new forms forged in imitation of his success — the world where podcasters and influencers and online celebrities set the terms of conservative debate, where political allegiances are inseparable from personal feuds and grievances.

But if all this means that Trump is now much more significant and transformative than a disjunctive figure like Carter, he still doesn’t quite match Skowronek’s description of “reconstructive” presidents, figures like Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt who gave a new political era its full shape. For one thing, Trump is not especially popular, and his party doesn’t seem well positioned to achieve the decade-plus of dominance that we associate with the Reagan and New Deal coalitions. A broad right-of-center coalition was visible immediately after Trump’s defeat of Kamala Harris, but it’s been receding for the past year as the administration has alienated non-MAGA voters.

For another, the new nationalist era is still defined primarily negatively, in terms of things that probably won’t return to Republican politics any time soon: the nation-building efforts of George W. Bush, the immigration amnesty of the Reagan era, the sweeping changes to entitlements pushed by Paul Ryan, the buttoned-up moralism of Pence. In terms of a positive agenda, there are a lot of very different ways that the Republican Party of 2028 or 2032 could be nationalist, and many of the fiercest battles inside the Trump coalition — especially the great influencer war that broke out after Charlie Kirk’s assassination — reflect fundamental divisions over what, exactly, a nationalist right should want.

Ross Douthat’s questions center on the unresolved identity of the American right. He describes a movement that has traded its old, stable Victorian architecture for a series of gaudy, competing additions. While Trump acts as the developer of this new estate, he has not yet finished the construction. The answers to Douthat’s queries lie in the brewing conflicts within the current administration and the jockeying for the 2028 succession.

Foreign Policy: Isolationist, Realist, or Imperialist?

The “Donroe Doctrine” has become the primary answer to this question. Since taking office for his second term, Trump has shifted the American gaze toward the Western Hemisphere with a focus that critics call neo-imperialist. The military raid in Venezuela to oust Nicolás Maduro and the continued pressure on Denmark regarding Greenland show a pivot away from global “nation-building” toward regional dominance.

While the isolationist wing, represented by figures like Tucker Carlson, remains vocal, the administration’s actual policy has been more interventionist in our own backyard. This suggests the future nationalist right will likely settle on a “sphere of influence” model: withdrawing from Europe and the Middle East while asserting unilateral power over the Americas to secure resources and control migration.

Economic Policy: Tech Right or Industrial Solidarity?

The “influencer war” Douthat references, particularly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk in September 2025, exposed the deep rift in Republican economics. On one side, the tech right—led by figures like Elon Musk—pushes for a future of artificial intelligence and high-skill H-1B visas. On the other, the traditional populists like Steve Bannon view this as “crony capitalism” that betrays the American worker.

The administration currently balances these by using tariffs as a blunt tool for negotiation rather than a permanent wall. However, the internal contradictions are high. The likely answer is that the movement will remain cronyist, favoring specific “national champions” in tech and energy rather than adopting a broad, solidaristic industrial policy that benefits the entire working class.

The concept of “status opening” captures the core of Trump’s domestic agenda because it addresses the gatekeeping mechanisms of the credentialed elite. By moving to dismantle the “paper ceiling,” the administration attempts to replace institutional prestige with a new, decentralized meritocracy. This strategy operates on two tracks: an aggressive push for artificial intelligence to bypass bureaucratic labor and a systematic hostility toward traditional professional credentials.

The administration views AI as the ultimate “great equalizer” that can strip power from the professional-managerial class. President Trump’s “America’s AI Action Plan,” released in July 2025, frames AI as a tool to automate tasks that previously required expensive, university-certified specialists. By signing Executive Order 14179 and the subsequent December 2025 order to preempt state-level AI regulations, the White House is clearing a path for rapid AI integration across the economy.

The intent is to make high-level productivity available to those without elite degrees. If a small business owner can use a proprietary LLM to handle complex legal compliance or medical diagnostic tasks—areas traditionally guarded by high-status guilds—the “status” of the JD or the MD begins to erode. This is why the administration fights for a “single federal standard” for AI; they want to prevent states like California or New York from creating “guardrails” that they believe are actually just protectionist measures for the credentialed class.

The second half of the “status opening” is a direct assault on the necessity of a college degree. In early 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14173, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which effectively directs federal agencies and contractors to ignore “disparate impact” theories. This is a technical way of saying the government will no longer punish companies for using merit-based tests that might favor certain groups over others.

Beyond the federal workforce, the Department of Labor’s “America’s Talent Strategy” explicitly targets occupational licensing.

The administration is pushing states to eliminate or streamline licenses for hundreds of middle-class jobs, arguing these rules are “unnecessary barriers” that block worker mobility.

The October 2025 “Ensuring Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring” order further shifted the government toward skill-based assessments rather than degree requirements.

Proposed 2026 rulemakings seek to expand Pell Grants to short-term, demand-driven workforce programs, siphoning funds and students away from traditional four-year liberal arts institutions.

The “status opening” vision offers a trade: it asks voters to accept the disruption and volatility of AI in exchange for the destruction of the old status hierarchies. If you are an immigrant from a “non-elite” background or a working-class American with a high aptitude but no degree, Trump’s policies aim to open doors that were previously locked by credentialism.

This creates the “broad coalition” Douthat finds so difficult to categorize. It is a movement for the “uncredentialed” of all races. By framing the battle as “AI and Merit vs. Degrees and DEI,” Trump seeks to make the Republican Party the home for anyone who feels blocked by the modern gatekeepers of American life. The gamble is that the promise of a “status opening” will be more compelling to these voters than the risks of a world where AI and automation reign supreme.

National Identity: Multiracial or White-Identitarian?

Douthat asks if the coalition will remain multiracial or succumb to “white-identitarian” edgelords. The data from the past year suggests a precarious balance. Trump’s 2024 victory relied on historic gains with Hispanic and Black voters, but the aggressive mass deportation efforts, such as the raids in Minneapolis that led to the death of Renee Good, have strained this bond.

Polls show Trump’s favorability among Hispanic Americans dropped from 39% at the time of the election to roughly 30% by late 2025. The movement’s future depends on whether it can pivot toward a “civic religion” that focuses on shared national interests or if it doubles down on the racial grievances that fuel its most online, radical base.

Or not.

The shift toward a “merit-based” framework is the cornerstone of the Republican plan to solidify this new coalition. By framing anti-white discrimination and racial carveouts as a violation of universal civil rights, the administration seeks to move the GOP from a party of white grievance to a party of colorblind institutionalism. This strategy aims to appeal to the “status seekers” Douthat mentions—working-class and immigrant families who believe that racial preferences in elite universities and corporate boardrooms only serve to protect an entrenched, credentialed bureaucracy.

The Legal Framework: Restoring Merit

The administration has already moved to codify this shift through executive action. On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This order directs the Department of Justice and the EEOC to treat many DEI initiatives—such as racial hiring quotas and race-restricted mentorship programs—as violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

By using the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republicans are effectively “reclaiming” the legacy of the civil rights movement to dismantle contemporary progressive policies. This allows them to signal to their white base that the government is no longer “anti-white” while simultaneously telling Black and Hispanic voters that the GOP is the party of individual achievement rather than group identity.

The Status Opener Strategy

The appeal to a broader coalition relies on the idea that racial carveouts are actually “class carveouts” in disguise. The argument suggests that a Nigerian immigrant’s son or a working-class Hispanic student is more harmed by an Ivy League legacy preference or a DEI quota that favors the children of the global elite than by a strictly meritocratic system.

The Multiracial Shift: Data from late 2024 and 2025 shows that this rhetoric resonates with upwardly mobile minority voters. Exit polls from the 2024 election indicated that Trump won nearly 45% of the Hispanic vote and made double-digit gains with Asian American men.

The “Colorblind” Majority: By attacking racial preferences, Republicans hope to build a durable 55% majority consisting of white voters and a significant minority of non-white voters who feel alienated by “woke” cultural mandates.

The Successor: Reconstructor or Just a New Developer?

The final question of whether a successor will accept constitutional norms or seek further “Caesarism” remains the most vital. Vice President JD Vance has emerged as the clear heir apparent, commanding 84% support in recent Turning Point USA straw polls. Unlike Trump, who often acts on impulse, Vance and other potential leaders like Marco Rubio or Ron DeSantis are more ideological and disciplined.

The likely path for a post-Trump right is a more “competent Caesarism”—an administration that uses the legal and executive precedents Trump set to pursue a nationalist agenda with greater legislative efficiency. They seek to be the “Augustus” to Trump’s “Julius Caesar,” moving from the chaos of demolition to the stability of a new, albeit more authoritarian, order.

The American right has historically traded the stability of the “administrative state” for the raw energy of populist disruption. To shift toward genuine competence, the movement must pay a steep price in both its internal cohesion and its relationship with its base. This transition requires moving from a politics of “retribution” to one of “institutionalization,” a process already underway but fraught with contradictions.

The Institutional Price: Centralization vs. Chaos

Competence in the second term is defined by “Schedule Policy/Career” (formerly Schedule F), which seeks to reclassify up to 50,000 civil servants as at-will employees. The price here is a fundamental restructuring of how the government functions. By replacing career experts with loyalists, the administration gains the ability to execute its “America First” agenda without internal friction. However, as noted in the Brookings data from early 2026, this “politicization” risks eroding the actual capacity of agencies to perform basic tasks, potentially leading to a government that is more “loyal” but less “functional” in times of crisis.

The Political Price: Alienating the “Anti-Cronyist” Base

There is a growing rift between the “tech-billionaire” wing of the movement and the traditional populist base. For the right to become competent in the 21st century, it has leaned heavily into the Pro-AI and “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) initiatives led by figures like Elon Musk.

The Trade-Off: The price of this technical competence is the abandonment of pure “America First” protectionism. While hardliners like Peter Navarro view tariffs as a permanent tool to rebuild domestic manufacturing, the tech-aligned wing sees them as mere negotiating leverage.

The Fallout: In late 2025, after a 90-day tariff pause, voices like Steve Bannon accused the administration of “crony capitalism.” For the right to be “competent” enough to manage a modern economy, it must often adopt the very technocratic methods that its populist base originally set out to destroy.

The Social Price: The End of the “Big Tent”

The pursuit of a “status opening” through meritocracy and anti-DEI measures is the administration’s most cohesive play for competence. By focusing on skill-based hiring and expanding Pell Grants to vocational programs, the GOP hopes to build a durable, multiracial, working-class majority.

Yet, the price of this professionalization is the marginalization of the “alt-right” and identitarian wings. As the administration seeks to govern as a serious nationalist power, it has distanced itself from figures like Nick Fuentes, who represent a “nebulous ecosystem” of racial grievance that is incompatible with a functional, multiracial governing coalition. The price of competence, then, is a “civil war” within the right’s own media and influencer ecosystem, where the “developers” of the movement are forced to tear down the very radicalism that helped them clear the land.

By prioritizing “status opening” over abstract economic theory, this administration attempts to replace the cold metrics of GDP and efficiency with a more visceral sense of national belonging. This shift moves away from the “neoliberal” consensus that treated workers as fungible units in a global labor pool. Instead, it seeks to restore dignity by validating the “uncredentialed” and protecting the local against the global.

For decades, economic policy was guided by principles of comparative advantage and free-market efficiency. These principles often dictated that if a factory in Ohio was less efficient than one in Guangdong, the Ohio factory should close. This was “rational” to an economist but devastating to the dignity of the American worker.

The current term rejects this. By making tariffs “the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” the administration signals that the social stability of a community is more important than the cost of a toaster. The “America First Trade Policy” is less about spreadsheets and more about ensuring that an American man can support a family without a postgraduate degree. It is an economy designed for people with “grit and determination” rather than just those with elite credentials.

The pro-AI stance is the administration’s most futuristic move toward status opening. In a traditional economy, status is hoarded by “gatekeepers”—lawyers, middle managers, and consultants who use their degrees to control access to wealth.

Bypassing the Gatekeepers: AI allows a person with a high school diploma to perform tasks—legal research, coding, or complex logistics—that previously required a $200,000 degree.

The DOGE Impact: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, isn’t just cutting costs; it is dismantling the “administrative state” that many Americans feel looks down on them. By automating the bureaucracy, the administration aims to strip the “credentialed class” of its power to obstruct the lives of ordinary citizens.

Dignity is also extended through a renewed focus on “merit-based opportunity.” By ending what the administration calls “illegal DEI mandates,” the goal is to tell every American—regardless of race—that their success depends on their own hard work, not their group identity.

The “Dignity Act” Potential: Even in immigration, the emerging “Dignity Act” framework suggests a trade-off: tougher enforcement at the border in exchange for a “legal status” for long-term residents that allows them to work and travel with dignity, even without a path to citizenship.

This is the “developer” phase Douthat described, but with a specific human goal. It is an attempt to build a country where status is open to the “forgotten” and where the government values the plumber as much as the professor. The “Golden Age” promised is one where the American identity is the only credential that truly matters.

The visual landscape of television is shifting under a new regulatory philosophy that views pharmaceutical saturation as a threat to both public health and national dignity. For many, the constant loop of medical disclaimers set to upbeat music creates a jarring, over-medicalized culture. The Trump administration has begun addressing this by moving away from the “adequate provision” loophole of 1997, which allowed companies to relegate the most serious risks to a website or a toll-free number.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has framed these advertisements as a “pipeline of deception” that hooks the country on pills over lifestyle choices. The current regulatory push targets the specific aesthetic of these commercials—the “pleasant and happy” imagery used to mask grim recitations of side effects.

New Standards: The FDA has begun issuing hundreds of warning letters to drugmakers, demanding that risk information be presented with “consumer-friendly” language and without distracting music or visuals.

The Disclosure Burden: By requiring all side effects and contraindications to be disclosed on-air, the administration is effectively making the standard 30-second spot impossible. This is intended to force companies to pull back from linear TV, reducing the overall frequency of medical ads.

The specific prevalence of HIV PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) ads is tied to the “Ending the HIV Epidemic” initiative, a first-term Trump program that was largely maintained in the 2026 budget. While the administration has cut CDC prevention and surveillance funding, it preserved the $157 million allocated for PrEP in community health centers.

Over-the-Counter Pivot: There is a growing push from the White House to move safe, proven drugs like PrEP to over-the-counter status. This shift would bypass the need for expensive physician gatekeeping and, consequently, the need for high-budget television campaigns aimed at driving patients to doctors for prescriptions.

The Dignity Argument: The administration’s focus is on “returning control to patients.” The goal is a country where people access care discreetly and affordably without being bombarded by commercials that turn private health matters into public spectacles.

By incentivizing “unbranded” advertising—where companies talk about health conditions and lifestyle rather than specific expensive brands—the government hopes to restore a sense of dignity to the airwaves. As these ads become longer, more factual, and less “gimmicky,” the financial incentive to run them on prime-time TV diminishes.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Trump Buried Conservatism

Rush Limbaugh’s Success Illustrates How Argument Is BS

Posted on January 17, 2026 by Luke Ford

Rush Limbaugh’s career was a masterclass in what David Pinsof describes as the strategic use of “bullshit” to manage social alliances. According to Pinsof, we do not use arguments to find the truth; we use them to signal which side we are on and to inflict social damage on our enemies. When you pair this with Kevin Drum’s analysis of talk radio, you see a system designed not for debate, but for the maintenance of a tribal coalition.

Drum highlights a key mechanic of the industry: the host must convince the audience that they are victims. This aligns perfectly with Pinsof’s view that moral arguments are often just “smoke screens” for group interests. By framing listeners as victims of a “liberal elite,” Limbaugh wasn’t engaging in a philosophical critique of power. He was creating a high-stakes social conflict where his audience felt their status was under threat. In Pinsof’s framework, when people feel their status is threatened, they don’t want nuanced policy papers. They want weapons. Limbaugh provided those weapons in the form of rhetorical “talking points” that listeners could use in their own lives to shut down dissent and bolster their own sense of superiority.

The Kevin Drum piece notes how hosts would receive daily e-mails from the Republican National Committee and then “couch the daily message in [their] own words.” This is the definition of what Pinsof calls the “patchwork narrative.” The arguments weren’t derived from a consistent first-principle logic. Instead, they were a collection of convenient excuses designed to justify the alliance’s current goals. If the goal was to protect a Republican president, the “moral principle” used might be executive authority. If the goal was to attack a Democratic president, the “moral principle” would instantly shift to limited government. These contradictions do not matter in Pinsof’s world because the goal of the argument is not consistency; it is victory for the team.

Limbaugh’s success came from his ability to make the act of listening feel like a political act. He turned his audience into “Dittoheads,” a term that explicitly signals the surrender of individual “truth-seeking” in favor of “alliance-bolstering.” As Drum points out, the host acts as the vehicle by which the listeners become empowered. This empowerment is exactly what Pinsof means when he says we use arguments to “hurt our enemies.” By mocking “feminazis” or “environmental wackos,” Limbaugh allowed his listeners to participate in a collective lowering of their rivals’ social status.

In this light, talk radio is not a failed attempt at public discourse. It is a highly successful machine for social coordination. It provides the “bullshit” necessary to keep a massive group of people moving in the same direction, regardless of the facts. The “talking points” Drum mentions serve as a linguistic badge of membership. When a listener repeats a Limbaugh line at the dinner table, they are not trying to win a logic prize. They are signaling their loyalty to the tribe and their willingness to fight the tribe’s enemies. Limbaugh didn’t succeed because he was right; he succeeded because he was the most effective general in a war of social status.

David Pinsof’s Alliance Theory suggests that our political beliefs are not derived from abstract moral principles like equality or authority. Instead, he argues that we are strategic actors who form alliances to gain status and power. In this framework, arguments are not tools for finding the truth. They are weapons designed to protect our allies and attack our rivals. Rush Limbaugh’s career serves as a perfect real world case study for these evolutionary dynamics.

Limbaugh’s success was built on the use of “propaganda tactics” that Pinsof identifies as central to political mobilization. He did not seek to persuade the undecided through neutral data. Instead, he used inflammatory rhetoric to damage the social standing of his opponents. By coining terms like “feminazi” or “environmentalist wackos,” Limbaugh was engaging in what Pinsof calls the “patchwork narrative” approach. He took ad hoc moral principles and weaponized them to make the opposition look like a threat to the group’s interests. This illustrates Pinsof’s point that we don’t use arguments to be “right” in a logical sense, but to be “effective” in a social conflict.

A key part of Pinsof’s theory is that we apply cognitive biases to defend our allies. Limbaugh created a massive, self-reinforcing alliance known as the “Dittoheads.” For these listeners, tuning in was not about learning new information; it was a ritual of alliance reinforcement. Limbaugh provided the “ideological coherence” needed to keep the coalition united. By constantly validating the grievances of his audience and framing them as an oppressed group, he bolstered their internal loyalty. This mirrors Pinsof’s finding that partisans will adopt even incompatible moral stances if those stances serve to protect their allies or hurt their enemies.

Pinsof often discusses how we conceal our “status monkey” motives behind virtuous language. Limbaugh’s broadcasts were frequently framed as a defense of “traditional American values” or “common sense.” However, the underlying incentive was the acquisition of prestige and dominance within the conservative hierarchy. His success showed that the “marketplace of ideas” is often just a competition for status. People did not follow him because he was a “mistake theorist” trying to fix policy errors. They followed him because he was an “alliance theorist” who was exceptionally good at winning the social game of us-versus-them.

Posted in Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Rush Limbaugh’s Success Illustrates How Argument Is BS

#1 Thing High-End Escorts Know About Men… That Wives Are Too Blind To See

Posted on January 17, 2026 by Luke Ford

Human behavior responds to consequences. This principle dictates the success of private relationships and the efficacy of public policy. Clarity and the threat of loss drive excellence in the service industry, specifically within the context of sex work. A provider knows a client has options. If she remains cold or unprepared, the client leaves. This immediate feedback loop ensures a high standard of performance. Public policy often lacks this mechanism. Government agencies frequently operate as monopolies where the “client,” the citizen, has no alternative provider. When a department fails to deliver services or remains unresponsive to the public, there is often no immediate consequence. The budget remains, the staff stays, and the “marriage” between the state and the citizen survives through sheer inertia and a lack of competition.

Policy makers often rely on the dangerous illusion of devotion over value. The transcript notes that married women may mistake flirtation for relationship value, leading to complacency. Similarly, political entities often mistake a lack of civil unrest for public satisfaction. They assume the “market” of the citizenry is captured and stable. This leads to a neglect of the fundamental duties of the state. Just as a man might feel ignored and taken for granted in a stagnant marriage, citizens feel neglected when infrastructure fails or bureaucracy becomes impenetrable. The absence of a “wake-up call” allows the provider to stop showing up as their best version.

We learn how to behave through the reward of good behavior and the punishment of undesirable actions. Public policy fails when it rewards stagnation and ignores failure. In a long-term marriage, a husband who continues to pay bills and do chores while receiving no intimacy reinforces his own neglect. In the public sphere, when failing programs receive increased funding without reform, the state learns it can give less while keeping its status. The transcript suggests that strength, direction, and decisiveness create respect and desire. Effective governance requires the same. A government must lead with a clear sense of purpose and maintain standards that include the possibility of termination or radical change for failing initiatives.

Consequences define the difference between a functional partnership and a hollow arrangement. If a wife views her husband’s frustration as background noise rather than an alarm, she has no reason to change her behavior. Public officials often treat constituent complaints as background noise. They believe the “voters” have nowhere else to go. Policy shifts only occur when the consequences become visceral. This requires a system where performance is tied to survival. Without the clarity of a literal dynamic where “he pays and she gives him her time,” public institutions become roommates with the public, trading erotic energy for logistics and bureaucracy. Respect and results only return when the “client” is no longer willing to tolerate indifference.

In California, public policy often suffers from the same complacency the transcript describes in marriage. State agencies frequently operate as the only option, assuming the public remains a captive audience regardless of performance. To create more effective policy, California must shift from a model of endless patience to one of clear consequences and market-like accountability.

Ending the Monopoly on Public Service

The transcript notes that an escort thrives because she knows she is replaceable. California state departments, however, often function as monopolies. When a department like the DMV or the Employment Development Department (EDD) fails to meet basic service standards, the “client”—the Californian taxpayer—cannot simply take their business elsewhere. Effective policy would introduce managed competition. This model allows private firms to bid against government agencies to provide services such as road maintenance, park management, or administrative processing. If the state agency knows it can lose its “contract” with the public to a more efficient private provider, the incentive to show up as its best version becomes a visceral reality rather than a abstract goal.

Performance-Based Budgeting

Our brains are wired for consequences; we learn through rewards and punishments. Currently, California’s budget process often relies on incrementalism, where agencies receive funding based on what they spent last year rather than what they achieved. To apply the transcript’s logic, California should implement Performance-Based Budgeting. In this system, budget allocations are predicated on reported outcomes.

If a housing program fails to reduce homelessness after three years, its funding is not just maintained—it is reduced or diverted.

Conversely, departments that hit or exceed benchmarks receive “reinforcement” through expanded autonomy or bonuses. Without this “if-then” relationship, failing programs become like a stagnant marriage: the state continues to pay the bills while the agency provides no intimacy or results.

The “Alarm” of Personal Accountability

The transcript warns that nice guys stay in situations that stopped serving them long ago, teaching their partners that neglect has no consequence. California taxpayers often act as the “nice guy,” enduring long wait times and high taxes without demanding a shift in standards. Policy should move toward Individual Accountability Measures.

Executive leadership at state agencies should have “at-will” employment status tied to specific, publicly available KPIs.

If a project like the High-Speed Rail fails to meet a milestone for several consecutive periods, the leadership faces immediate removal.

This creates a “wake-up call” for the bureaucracy. When a director knows that their frustration is not just “background noise” but an “alarm” that leads to their replacement, their energy shifts from logistics to results.

Market Signals in Crisis Management

California often mutes the “warning signals” that lead to better behavior. For example, by capping insurance rates in wildfire-prone areas or suppressing prescribed burns due to bureaucratic fear of failure, the state encourages people to stay in dangerous situations without protection. Effective policy requires letting market prices serve as signals. When people feel the true cost of living in a fire-prone area through insurance premiums, they are incentivized to mitigate their own risk. Similarly, the Forest Service must face a greater consequence for the inaction of not clearing brush than for the action of a prescribed burn going wrong. Currently, no one gets in trouble for a wildfire that destroys a landscape because of decades of neglect, but they face scrutiny for a controlled burn. Reversing this incentive structure applies the transcript’s core lesson: human behavior changes only when there is a clear, unavoidable reason to change.

To: California State Legislature and Agency Directors

From: Office of Policy Innovation

Subject: Implementing a Consequence-Based Framework for State Governance

California currently manages its public services through a lens of enduring patience. This approach mirrors the stagnant marriage described in the transcript, where the provider stops trying because the “client” never leaves. We treat taxpayer frustration as background noise rather than an alarm. To restore the state’s relationship with its citizens, we must replace the illusion of devotion with the clarity of performance-based consequences.

The first step requires a shift toward Conditional Funding. Most state departments receive budgets based on historical precedent. This encourages the “logistics over erotic energy” trap, where agencies focus on social life, charity, and administrative busywork while ignoring the “sexual component” of their existence: results. We propose a mechanism where 20% of an agency’s annual discretionary budget remains in escrow, released only upon the verification of specific, pre-negotiated outcomes. If a department fails to reduce wait times or clear a backlog, that money returns to the General Fund. Just as an escort knows a cold reception leads to a lost client, an agency head must know that failure leads to a diminished footprint. This is not about being mean; it is about behavioral reinforcement.

We must also address the Monopoly Trap through Alternative Service Pathways. Currently, the state assumes it is the “only option in town.” This leads to the complacency seen in long-term relationships where partners stop taking care of themselves. We can introduce “Competitive Benchmarking” where certain regions are allowed to opt-out of state-run programs in favor of private or non-profit alternatives. If a private vendor can manage a state park or process business licenses more effectively than the government, the state agency should feel the sting of that “breakup.” This creates a dating pool for public services. The presence of options forces the state to show up as its best version, well-prepared and emotionally clear, to earn the right to serve.

Finally, we must reform Executive Accountability. In many departments, the leadership remains untouched even when the “marriage” between the agency and the public is dying. We propose a “Mandatory Review Trigger.” When a state program hits a failure threshold—such as the EDD fraud scandal or persistent high-speed rail delays—the leadership team’s “tenure” is automatically revoked. They must re-interview for their positions against a pool of outside candidates. This serves as the “wake-up call” the transcript advocates for. It signals that the state is no longer available for neglect. By reintroducing the fear of being replaced, we invite the decisiveness and presence that citizens actually respect.

The California DMV currently operates with the security of a spouse who believes their partner has no other options. Because every driver in the state must interact with this single entity, the agency has little incentive to innovate or respect the user’s time. To fix this, we must introduce the visceral reality of consequences.

The Competition Mandate

The transcript notes that an escort stays sharp because she knows there are thousands of other options. The DMV has no such pressure. To change this, California should authorize a Private Licensing Pilot. Under this policy, the state allows certified private firms to handle 70% of standard DMV transactions, including license renewals and vehicle registrations. If a private firm can process a license in fifteen minutes while the state office takes two hours, the state office loses its funding per transaction to the private competitor. This creates a “dating pool” for administrative services. The state agency must then show up as its best version or face the consequence of a shrinking department and a loss of relevance.

Performance-Based Compensation

In a healthy relationship, good behavior is rewarded and undesirable behavior is punished. DMV branch managers currently receive the same pay regardless of whether their lobby is empty or overflowing. We should implement a Lobby-Time Incentive Structure. Managers and staff at branches that maintain average wait times under twenty minutes receive significant quarterly bonuses. Conversely, branches that consistently fail to meet service windows face an immediate audit and a reduction in administrative budget. This forces the agency to stop viewing citizen frustration as background noise. When the staff’s own paycheck depends on the “client’s” satisfaction, the energy shifts from logistics and bureaucracy to presence and efficiency.

The Leadership Wake-Up Call

The transcript argues that men who stop leading stop being respected. When DMV leadership allows massive backlogs or outdated technology to persist for years, they are failing to lead. We propose a Director’s Performance Trigger. If the DMV’s statewide satisfaction rating falls below a specific threshold for two consecutive quarters, the Director is automatically placed on a ninety-day improvement plan. If metrics do not improve, the position is vacated and opened to a national search. This removes the “complacency of the long-term marriage.” It ensures that the person at the top knows they are replaceable and that the “client”—the taxpayer—is no longer willing to tolerate neglect.

Digital Self-Service or Self-Destruct

A woman leading with logistics rather than intimacy creates a sterile environment. The DMV leads with logistics, forcing people to take a day off work for a simple photo or signature. Effective policy would mandate Mobile-First Licensing. If the DMV fails to transition 90% of non-driving-test transactions to a secure mobile app within twenty-four months, the agency’s IT budget is diverted to a private tech firm to build the system for them. By setting a hard deadline with the consequence of losing departmental control, the state forces the agency to wake up. It moves the DMV from being a roommate that the public merely tolerates to a service provider that the public actually values.

Posted in California | Comments Off on #1 Thing High-End Escorts Know About Men… That Wives Are Too Blind To See

I Hallucinate, You Hallucinate, We All Hallucinate

Posted on January 17, 2026 by Luke Ford

People, who are prone to hallucinations, created AI, so why would AI not hallucinate?

Psychologists distinguish between hallucinations, which involve sensory perceptions without a stimulus, and delusions, which are fixed false beliefs. Americans experience both at high rates. Research suggests that 6 to 15% of the general population experiences hallucination. When these experiences cross into the social and political realm, they become the “hallucinations” of the American psyche.

The example of men overestimating sexual interest is a documented phenomenon known as sexual overperception bias. It is a specific type of error where individuals misinterpret friendly or neutral cues as romantic or sexual intent. This is often paired with the optimism bias, where people believe they are more likely to experience success and less likely to experience failure than their peers.

Another common American delusion is the erotomanic delusion, the belief that another person, often someone of higher status or a celebrity, is in love with them. While extreme cases are rare, milder forms manifest as a persistent sense of special connection to public figures.

The most prevalent category of delusion in the United States is persecutory. This is the conviction that one is being conspired against, spied upon, or obstructed by outside forces. Historically, the content of these delusions shifts with the culture. In the mid-20th century, these fears centered on Communists or the Gestapo. Today, they often involve technological surveillance, government agencies, or the internet.

Beyond clinical definitions, Americans frequently fall prey to collective cognitive illusions:

The Halo Effect: If a person is physically attractive, observers tend to believe they are also kinder, smarter, and more competent.

The Just-World Fallacy: This is the belief that people get what they deserve. It leads Americans to blame victims for their misfortunes to maintain the illusion that the world is inherently fair and predictable.

Illusion of Transparency: Many people overestimate the degree to which others can “read” their internal mental state, leading to a false belief that their secret thoughts or anxieties are obvious to everyone in the room.

Americans often exhibit a self-serving bias, where they attribute successes to their own character and failures to external circumstances. When combined with the “jumping to conclusions” bias, people form firm beliefs based on very little evidence and then use confirmation bias to filter out any reality that contradicts them. This creates a loop where the “hallucination” becomes a self-sustaining reality.

What are the signs that somebody hallucinates more or less than average?

High hallucination proneness is strongly linked to vivid mental imagery. People who can mentally “see” a scene or “hear” a song with near-photographic or high-fidelity clarity are more likely to experience hallucinations. Their brains generate internal representations so intense that the “reality monitoring” system occasionally mistakes them for external stimuli.

Other cognitive signs include:

Jumping to Conclusions (JTC): This is a data-gathering bias where individuals make firm decisions based on very little evidence. In studies using a “beads in a jar” task, people prone to hallucinations require fewer beads to decide which jar they are from, showing high confidence in low-information scenarios.

Externalizing Attribution Style: A tendency to attribute internal thoughts or feelings to external sources. For instance, a high-prone individual might believe a sudden intrusive thought was whispered by someone else or came from the environment.

The “Sensed Presence” Phenomenon: Frequently feeling as though someone is standing behind you or in the room when you are alone. This is often a precursor or a mild form of a full visual or auditory hallucination.

Sensitivity to “perceptual uncertainty” often dictates the frequency of these experiences. Signs that someone might hallucinate more than average include:

Heightened Pattern Recognition: Finding complex patterns or faces in random noise (pareidolia) more quickly or frequently than others. This suggests a brain that is “over-predicting” reality.

Sleep Transitions: A high frequency of hypnagogic (falling asleep) or hypnopompic (waking up) hallucinations. While common, experiencing these several times a week is a marker for a more permeable boundary between dreaming and wakefulness.

Sensory Sensitivity or Deprivation: People with minor sensory impairments, such as slight hearing loss or visual degradation, often hallucinate more. The brain dislikes “dead air” and will often fill in the gaps with its own data.

Stress and Hyper-vigilance: High levels of cortisol and sustained psychological distress lower the threshold for hallucinations. A person who is constantly scanning their environment for threats is statistically more likely to “hear” their name or “see” movement in their peripheral vision.

Individuals on the low end of the spectrum typically describe their thoughts as “abstract” or “word-based” rather than “sensory.” They tend to have a high tolerance for ambiguity and wait for more data before forming a conclusion. In contrast, those on the high end often describe their inner life as a “movie” or a “dialogue” and are more susceptible to “suggestion”—if they are told a house is haunted, they are significantly more likely to report hearing footsteps.

If you live in reality, you rarely get humiliated.

Humiliation requires a gap between a person’s internal map and the external territory. When that gap collapses, the result is the sharp sting of being proven wrong in front of others. A person who maintains a rigorous grip on reality avoids the overextensions of ego that usually lead to public shame.

Most humiliation stems from a failure of calibration. A man who believes he is the most capable person in the room, despite evidence to the contrary, sets a trap for himself. When the environment eventually provides a corrective—a failed project, a public correction, or a social rejection—the distance between his perceived status and his actual status creates the humiliation. If you see yourself clearly, including your flaws and limitations, you do not offer the world a target to hit. You cannot be “found out” if you are not hiding anything or pretending to be more than you are.

Social humiliation is essentially a massive prediction error. It happens when someone expects a positive or respectful response and receives the opposite. People who live in reality pay close attention to social feedback and adjust their behavior in real time. They do not rely on hallucinations of grandiosity or the sexual overperception bias mentioned earlier. By correctly reading the room and the intent of others, they avoid the “jumping to conclusions” bias that leads to awkward or embarrassing outbursts.

Living in reality involves a commitment to the present tense and a rejection of self-serving narratives. This includes:

Acknowledging uncertainty rather than feigning confidence.

Accepting social cues as they are, not as you wish them to be.

Prioritizing “what is” over “what should be.”

A person grounded in these principles possesses a form of social armor. They do not over-promise, they do not over-reach, and they do not build their identity on the shifting sands of how they hope others perceive them. When you occupy the truth of your situation, there is no high ground from which you can fall.

Posted in Addiction, Psychology | Comments Off on I Hallucinate, You Hallucinate, We All Hallucinate

David Deida & Polarity Therapy

Posted on January 17, 2026 by Luke Ford

Gemini says: The concept of polarity in male-female relations has moved from the fringes of esoteric spirituality into the mainstream of modern dating and relationship coaching. It is primarily built on the idea that attraction and intimacy function like magnetism: they require two distinct, opposing poles—typically defined as the masculine and the feminine—to create a “spark.”

While the approach is highly effective for some couples, its utility depends heavily on whether a couple views their relationship through a lens of egalitarian friendship or biological/energetic archetypes.

The Mechanics of Polarity

Polarity therapy for relationships suggests that every individual contains both masculine and feminine energies, but that a “core” essence usually predominates. In this framework, the masculine energy is defined by direction, purpose, presence, and logic, while the feminine energy is characterized by flow, radiance, emotion, and receptivity.

The theory posits that when both partners in a heterosexual relationship occupy the same “pole”—for example, if both are in their masculine, “leading” energy—they create a state of neutrality or repulsion. This is often described as the “roommate phase,” where the couple functions well as a logistical team but loses the sexual and emotional tension that defines a romantic bond.

The Utility for Modern Couples

For many men and women in the 21st century, the primary utility of polarity work is as a corrective to the stresses of the professional world. In the modern knowledge economy, both men and women are often required to be in a high-testosterone, goal-oriented, “masculine” state to succeed at work.

For Women: Polarity approaches often focus on the utility of “dropping” the shield of professional hyper-competence when coming home. The claim is that by softening into a feminine state of flow and receptivity, a woman allows her partner the space to step into a protective, leading role, which can reignite his attraction.

For Men: The focus is typically on developing “the container.” This involves practicing unwavering presence and emotional stability so that the woman feels safe enough to express the full range of her feminine radiance and emotion.

The Critique: A Wash or a Trap?

The skepticism toward polarity therapy often mirrors the critique of Stoicism: it is a tool that helps some but can feel like a performance or a cage for others.

Critics argue that polarity can become a form of “cosplay” that ignores the reality of individual personality. A highly assertive woman or a naturally nurturing man may find the pressure to perform an archetype exhausting and authentic-feeling. Furthermore, if the masculine is always the “leader” and the feminine is always the “follower,” it can lead to a power imbalance that many modern couples find stifling.

The “wash” occurs when the desire for a biological spark overrides the need for a practical partnership. While polarity might improve the sex life of a couple, it can sometimes complicate the logistical reality of modern life, where flexible roles are often necessary for managing a household, a mortgage, and childcare.

The Biological and Psychological Root

Proponents of polarity often point to the different hormonal profiles of men and women to justify the approach. They argue that testosterone and estrogen create different psychological needs and that ignoring these differences leads to a state of “unisex” boredom. From this perspective, polarity isn’t about social roles; it is about honoring the distinct biological impulses that drive human mating.

The effectiveness of these approaches usually comes down to intentionality. If a couple uses polarity as a “game” or a dance to heighten their connection, it can be a transformative tool. If they use it as a rigid set of rules for how a man or woman “must” act, it often leads to the same kind of resentment found in the traditional gender roles of the past.

David Deida occupies a unique and controversial space in the landscape of relationship philosophy. His work, most notably The Way of the Superior Man, is a polarizing blend of evolutionary biology, Eastern tantra, and spiritual archetypes. To critique Deida is to examine the tension between his “sexual polarity” model and the realities of modern egalitarian life.

The Biological vs. Spiritual Disconnect

Deida holds a master’s degree in biology and has conducted research in neuroscience, but his writing is decidedly non-academic. Critics often point out that he uses scientific-sounding language—like “sexual essence” or “energetic charge”—as a crutch to support metaphysical points that lack empirical data. While he frames his work as a study of “universal energies” that exist regardless of gender, he almost immediately tethers these energies to biological men and women. This creates a logical loop: he claims to be talking about fluid “essences,” yet his practical advice consistently assumes a traditional gender binary.

The Problem of Essentialism

The primary critique of Deida’s work is its rigid gender essentialism. He characterizes the “feminine” as inherently chaotic, emotional, and unpredictable—often comparing it to the ocean or the weather. Conversely, the “masculine” is characterized by direction, logic, and purpose.

The “Numbness” Trap: For some women, being told their emotional complexity is just “untamed energy” can be dismissive. Critics argue that Deida encourages men to view women’s legitimate concerns as “tests” or “moods” to be navigated rather than intellectual points to be discussed.

The Performance Burden: For men, Deida’s “Superior Man” creates a high-pressure archetype of the unshakeable, mission-driven warrior. This can lead to a form of emotional suppression, where any sign of doubt or vulnerability is seen as a “collapse” of the masculine pole.

The Adversarial Paradigm

One of the more jarring sections of Deida’s work involves his theories on sexual energy and ejaculation. He suggests that a man “succumbing” to ejaculation is a sign of being “conquered” by the feminine energy, which he frames as a test of the man’s integrity. This has been critiqued for placing intimacy into an adversarial, power-based paradigm. Instead of sex being a mutual exchange of pleasure, it is framed as a contest of will where the man must remain “superior” to his own impulses to maintain his partner’s respect.

The “Hermit” Critique

Some of the most insightful critiques come from within the community of men who have attended his retreats. Some participants have noted a profound “disconnection” between Deida and his followers. He has been described as a “baba in a bubble”—a brilliant writer who identifies as a hermit and rarely sees the real-world impact of his teachings. This isolation can lead to a “downward spiral” of theory: without the friction of everyday social feedback, the advice becomes increasingly abstract and detached from the practicalities of 21st-century domestic life.

A Useful Tool or a Regression?

The utility of Deida often comes down to the individual’s starting point. For men who feel “soft” or aimless in a post-modern world, Deida provides a sense of direction and agency. For couples who have become “roommates,” his focus on polarity can successfully reignite physical attraction. However, when these concepts are taken as absolute truths rather than metaphorical tools, they risk regressing into a form of “spiritualized patriarchy” that ignores the individual humanity of the partner.

Posted in David Deida, Sex | Comments Off on David Deida & Polarity Therapy

Jewish Gifts & Challenges

Posted on January 17, 2026 by Luke Ford

Which groups are so vulnerable that they get a permanent “no-fly zone” for critique? I agree with Steve Sailer that objective analysis and accurate criticism is good for everyone.

Group, national and global interests are compromised when the psychological drivers of an influential elite remain unexamined.

The Jewish skill set—argumentative, literate, and high-energy—is perfectly suited for modern life, but its “excesses”—utopianism, insularity, and over-analysis—require the same scrutiny applied to any other powerful interest group.

The no-fly zone for sociological critique is determined by a group’s position within the framework of vulnerability and power. Social norms and academic protocols create protective barrier around certain identities, where critique from an outsider is often coded as punching down or as a form of prejudice rather than objective analysis.

Historically Marginalized Groups

There is a profound social and professional taboo against outsiders critiquing the cultural or behavioral patterns of Black Americans, Indigenous groups, and other ethnic minorities. Within the social sciences and elite media, the standard approach is to analyze these groups through the lens of systemic pressure or historical trauma. Any attempt by an outsider to suggest that internal cultural habits or community structures play a role in socioeconomic outcomes is often met with immediate charges of racism. This creates a zone where only insiders are permitted to offer “tough love” or structural critiques of their own community.

The Jewish Community

The Jewish community occupies a unique space in the no-fly zone. Because of the singular horror of the Holocaust and a long history of European pogroms, any outsider analysis of Jewish influence, networking, or collective psychological traits is frequently treated as a precursor to antisemitism. This is a rare case where a group that is objectively highly successful and influential in the 21st century still maintains the protective status of a vulnerable minority. Critiques of “Jewish influence” in foreign policy or media are often ruled out of polite society to prevent a perceived “game of whack-a-mole” where success leads to persecution.

The LGBTQ+ Community

Particularly regarding the “T” in the acronym, there is a significant no-fly zone around the sociological and medical critique of gender identity. In elite academic and corporate circles, questioning the rapid rise in gender dysphoria or the long-term outcomes of certain medical interventions is often framed as “transphobia” or a denial of a group’s right to exist. This has created a chill in the research community, where scholars are hesitant to publish data that might contradict the prevailing narrative of gender-affirming care.

The “Expert” and Professional Class

While it is common to critique “the elites” in a general sense, there is a specific no-fly zone around the credentials and internal logic of the professional-managerial class (PMC). This group—comprising academics, high-level bureaucrats, and health officials—often treats its own consensus as “The Science” or “The Truth.” Critique from an outsider who lacks the specific institutional credentials is often dismissed as “misinformation” or “anti-intellectualism.” This protects the group from external accountability by suggesting that only peers within the same credentialed circle are qualified to judge their performance.

Muslim Communities

Following the events of 9/11 and the subsequent “War on Terror,” a protective shield was placed around Muslim communities to prevent a backlash of collective blame. In many elite MSM outlets, discussing the role of religious doctrine in social integration or views on women’s rights is often avoided or caveated heavily to steer clear of “Islamophobia.” This creates a dynamic where legitimate sociological questions about assimilation are often bypassed to maintain social harmony.

The Mechanism of the “No-Fly Zone”

These zones are maintained through a process of social and economic sanction. As Sailer pointed out, the tactic is rarely a direct debate on the facts; instead, it is the use of status closure to ensure that the critic becomes a social pariah or loses their “paying work.” When an outsider enters these zones, the response is often focused on the intent of the critic rather than the accuracy of the critique. This effectively narrows the scope of what can be discussed in the public square, prioritizing the protection of a group’s image or safety over the objective analysis of their role in society.

Steve Sailer writes June 14, 2006: A reader writes: “Just out of curiosity (and, as a Jewish reader of your blog, I’m quite curious), are you accused of anti-Semitism for simply discussing these issues?”

Steve Sailer: Of course, but the more effective tactic is not debating you but just making sure that you don’t get paying work (e.g., recall how nice liberal Gregg Easterbrook was fired from ESPN in 2003 to encourage the others).

My co-religionists, amongst themselves, talk about these things all the time (as do members of most ethnic and racial groups) and I would be sorry if they attacked you for simply doing the same. Different groups bring different things to the table, and it just so happens that the past century or so fit in nicely with the skill sets that Jews have developed over the years.

One of the fascinating aspects of Jewish culture, to me, has been the fact that we are everywhere on the ideological spectrum. The most prominent libertarians? Check. The most prominent communists? Check. The biggest neo-conservatives? Check. The biggest anti-war demonstrators? Check. Josh Marshall and Matthew Yglesias [well, both supported the war back in the beginning] are members of the tribe, but so are Kristol and Podhoretz.

One of the reasons why it’s so easy to come up with preposterous statements about Jews. in general, is that specific Jews can be found propagating almost any point of view imaginable — and doing it well enough to be seen as a prominent figure in whatever movement they join.

Indeed. Similarly, the most anti-Communist English-language literary giant of the last 40 years, Tom Stoppard, discovered as a middle-aged man that he’s 100% Jewish.

For example, here are two fairly honest depictions of two utopian groups that were diametrically opposed in politics but in which Jews played dominant roles: Students for a Democratic Society and the Ayn Randers:

– Mark Rudd of the Columbia sit-in and the Weathermen on “Why Were There So Many Jews in SDS? Or, The Ordeal of Civility” (via Larry Auster)

– Economist Murray Rothbard on “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult” (Rothbard was expelled by Rand after a year’s membership in the cult) (via Lew Rockwell)

One member of the Ayn Rand cult from his late 20s up at least through the age of 42 was Alan Greenspan, the future chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Bill Bradford reported in The American Enterprise:

As I learned in hours of interviews with their associates, Greenspan was a member of Rand’s inner circle during this entire period [the 1950s] and beyond. He lectured on economics for the Nathaniel Branden Institute. He wrote for the first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, and when Rand broke with Branden [her 25-year younger lover], he signed a public statement condemning the traitor “irrevocably.” [Greenspan was then in his 40s.] When Gerald Ford appointed him to the Council of Economic Advisors, he invited Rand to his swearing-in ceremony, and attended her funeral in 1982.

That somebody as seemingly hard-headed as Greenspan should have spent much of his adult life in the Rand cult is striking.

My reader continues:

Jews, unfortunately, are also likely to have a persecution complex (I know that nearly every one of them — including me — that I’ve ever met has one to some degree). And in most cases they have them for historically valid reasons — our persecutions have been regular and consistent. Sadly, however, this means that any discussion of the role that Jews have played in the history of the past three centuries is often seen as an attack. If Jews are seen as too influential, the theory goes, it will bring the hammer down like some cosmic game of whack-a-mole.

The obvious question then is whether being shielded from objective analysis in the media is good for the Jews. Unfortunately, getting yourself deemed above criticism is the surest way to lower one’s performance.

For Americans as a whole, understanding Jewish tendencies is both more complicated and, perhaps at this point in history, more important than understanding those of any other ethnic group.

In their 1995 book Jews and the New American Scene, the prominent social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset, a Senior Scholar of the Wilstein Institute for Jewish Policy Studies, and Earl Raab, Director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, pointed out:

“During the last three decades, Jews have made up 50% of the top two hundred intellectuals, 40 percent of American Nobel Prize Winners in science and economics, 20 percent of professors at the leading universities, 21 percent of high level civil servants, 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington, 26% of the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media, 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the fifty top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series.” [pp 26-27]

The last thing, however, that non-Jews are allowed to do in the U.S. is to objectively discuss the kind of psychological and sociological patterns that help explain why the quality of Jewish political and social decision-making has, on average, not always been as strong as their IQs, work ethic, argumentative skills, interest in public affairs, and self-confidence in their own judgment might suggest. The first President Bush understood this, but the second didn’t seem to have learned this lesson before the Iraq Attaq (although he seems to have learned a little in the aftermath, with Feith gone, Wolfowitz kicked upstairs, and Perle out of fashion).

What are some of these common self-debilitating Jewish tendencies? Off the top of my head, I’d suggest:

– Utopianism: Bombing Iraq into an America-loving democracy is only the latest disastrous project

– Cult-Worship- of- the-All-Knowing-Scholar-Sageism: Marxism, Freudianism, Randism, Straussianism, etc.

– Ethnocentric nostalgiaism: vividly seen in the current immigration debate, where Ellis Island-worship is substituted for facts and logic

– Be-Like-Meism: e.g., the common suggestion by Jewish pundits that all Mexican illegal immigrants have to do is act like the Jewish immigrants of 1906 and everything will turn out fine. Well, swell …

– Pseudo ethnic Humilityism: few Jews actually believe that Mexicans are just like Jews — they think Jews are much smarter — but they don’t want anybody else to notice that Jews are smarter so they advocate immigration policies that depend for their success upon Mexicans being just as smart as Jews. That this immigration policy is obviously bad for the country is less important than keeping up the charade that nobody mentions in the press that Jews are smarter than everybody else on average.

– Rube Goldbergism: overly complicated plans and analyses with too many moving parts to work reliably (e.g., the neocon plans for fixing the Middle East through invasion)

– Is-It-Good-for-the-Jewsism: I am a huge fan of enlightened self-interest, so I don’t object to this on principle

– Rube Goldbergian Is-It-Good-for-the-Jewsism: This could also be called He-Who-Says-A-Must-Say-B-C-D-E-Q-W-and-Zism. Jewish intellectuals have a tendency that on any topic related to Jews, they tend to think baroquely many steps down the line. Thus, the full panoply of the subjects that have been assumed to be bad-for-the-Jews and therefore ruled out of discussion in polite society is breathtakingly broad — for example, IQ has been driven out of the media in large part because it is feared that mentioning that Jews have higher average IQs would lead, many steps down the line, to pogroms.

– Missing-Piece-of-the-Puzzleism: One obvious problem with this tendency is that you can’t make a Rube Goldberg analysis work in the real world if you’ve banned the use of crucial moving parts, such as IQ

– Pay-No-Attention-to-that-Man-Behind-the-Curtainism: The biggest unmentionable, as the Mearsheimer-Walt brouhaha demonstrated once again, is also one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle for understanding how the modern world works: the influence of Jews.

– Enemy Nostalgiaism: Difficulty identifying current and future enemies because of emotional obsession with past enemies: e.g., the obsession with “The Passion of the Christ” combined with the inability to identify growing Latin American populism as a future threat due to immigration, etc.

– Faux Sabraism: as Francis Fukuyama pointed out to Charles Krauthammer, American neocon thinking about Iraq was motivated less by hardheaded is-it-good-for-Israel analysis — Sharon’s government was only modestly enthusiastic about the Iraq Attaq — than by What-Would-the-Israelis-Do emotions. Armchair warriors like Douglas Feith are particular susceptible to this kind of Let’s Pretend thinking..

Ironically, Jewish writers themselves are obsessed with Jewish influence, even in fields where Jews have virtually no influence, such as soccer. I’m reading How Soccer Explains the World: An (Unlikely) Theory of Globalization by Marty Peretz’s latest young man to edit The New Republic, Franklin Foer. This Jewish soccer fan’s book is hilariously obsessed with the Jewish role in soccer, even though that role is almost nonexistent. The great majority of Jews live in America and Israel, two countries that are almost irrelevant to the story of soccer.

Did you know that a Jewish team won the Austrian national championship in 1925? Isn’t that the most fascinating thing you’ve ever heard in your life? Well, Foer seems to think so, as he travels to Vienna to interview elderly Jews about their memories of that amazing team, but it turns out that none of the old Jews in Vienna can remember it or, for that matter, ever had any interest in soccer. But Foer still scrapes together a full 10 pages on this epochal team. Similarly, his chapter on English soccer hooligans is based on the perhaps not quite reliable memories of one middle-aged yobbo who is (surprise!) half-Jewish.

As you’d expect, references to the Jewish Holocaust pop up throughout this book on soccer. On the other hand, Foer’s 26-page chapter on soccer in Ukraine never mentions the Ukrainian Holocaust of 1932-33. I wonder why?

Unfortunately, as you might expect from one of Marty Peretz’s minions, Foer’s writings about Jews and soccer are so hamstrung by powerful emotions and worries about what exactly is good for the Jews to put down in writing about the Jews that they are largely analytically worthless for learning anything directly about Jewish tendencies. You have to read between the lines, and that’s not popular these days. Not Safe For Work.

Even sillier are Will Saletan’s current articles in Slate on his visit to Germany to see the World Cup, which an impudent editor re-titled “Don’t Mention the War” after the addled Basil Fawlty’s warning to his hotel staff about their poor German guests in the funniest scene in all of Fawlty Towers (and thus likely the funniest scene in sit-com history):

No Nazi jokes. That’s what I told myself when I landed in Frankfurt on Saturday to see the World Cup. The Germans are throwing a very nice party, especially for journalists. They’re setting aside tickets, even giving us free train travel. The least we can do is not mention you-know-what. But then you ride a German train, and you sit in a German stadium throbbing to the chants of a nationalist mob, and it all comes back.

The dark humor started last week. I’m on a fellowship in Cambridge with a few Englishmen who haven’t forgotten the Hun. The other day, a lecturer showed us a couple of slides fictionally depicting England under Hitler. The idea, which the speaker meant to challenge, was that if this or that hadn’t happened, history would have unfolded in a completely different way. That’s why Churchill said of the Royal Air Force, “Never has so much been owed by so many to so few.” Fortunately, the few on whom Britons are relying this week are just footballers, and the adversary is just Paraguay. But remind me again: What’s that South American country to which the you-know-whos disappeared?…

It’s a beautiful trip, full of chalet-like villages nestled in valleys. Churches are everywhere. Windmills circle in the breeze. On the train, everyone’s friendly. Americans play video games or yap on cell phones; Germans read books. It’s such a civilized country. Sitting on that train, listening to reassuring announcements, I tried to imagine how hard it must have been for German Jews to recognize the early days of you-know-what. Maybe that’s why they took so long to get out. Good folks can’t turn bad, can they? But they did, and they could again, and so could the Brits, and so could we.

But as I was saying, you-know-what is gone. It’s been replaced by the new you-know-what, the one that hit us on 9/11 and hit the Brits last year. On the way to Hamburg, I wondered about that. Wasn’t the 9/11 plot launched from Hamburg? Is it just coincidence that the home of the old fascism incubated the new fascism?

Well, if it’s not a coincidence, it’s because people like Will Saletan have browbeaten the modern Germans into not being so insensitively nationalistic as to throw out the Muslim extremists infesting their country.

And here’s Saletan’s bizarre sermon on why the Serbs, those New Nazis, deserved their loss to the Dutch in the their opening round match:

Maybe the match says something about why so many Dutchmen protected people like me when you-know-what roamed the earth. Maybe it says something about why so many Serbs perpetrated their own ethnic cleansing in the war before the war on terror. Or maybe it’s all in my head. All I know is, the man who led that cleansing is dead, and he died in the prison of the international justice system, and that prison is in Holland. And I’m going home with a couple of orange jerseys in my bag.

Uh, actually, not that many Dutch protected people like you, Will. As Franklin Foer points out (inevitably) in his soccer book:

But more than rediscovering this history of resistance, the Dutch fabricated it. As historians have pointed out tirelessly in recent years, the Dutch did a better job collaborating with the Nazis than stopping them. Holland lost a higher percentage of its Jews to the Holocaust than any other country.

As a reader points out, Saletan may be confusing the Dutch and the Danes, who sneaked their Jews out to neutral Sweden (which Saletan probably remembers as Switzerland).

And those Dutch peacekeepers sure distinguished themselves in Bosnia!

Meanwhile, the Serbs fought the Nazis and their Croatian allies for all five years their country was occupied by the German Army. Serbs died by the hundreds of thousands at the hands of the Nazis and Nazi-Wannabes. Gratitude is why Israel backed Serbia for most of the 1990s. And the Serbs ended up as the most ethnically cleansed Balkan nation of the 1990s.

And, anyway, it’s just a boring soccer match…

Saletan’s essay is a classic example of how much of America’s Kosovo policy was based not on facts but on modern Jewish-Americans’ psychodramas, most notoriously Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s, about getting revenge on the Nazis by sticking it to the Serbs. As Chris Caldwell wrote in the New York Times about former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s memoirs: “For her, every conflict is a replay of the Munich conference of 1938…” Albright was born in Czechoslovakia, which was dismantled at the Munich conference when the Great Powers took away its border province of the Sudetenland due to agitation by its German population, so it’s hardly surprising she’s obsessed with it. Obsession, however, is not precisely what you want in a Secretary of State, as we saw with Albright. The great irony of Albright’s life is that when she finally got power in her hands, her lifelong fixation with Munich manifested itself in a hilariously twisted manner. She staged her own Great Power conference (Munich-Rambouillet) to take away from a small Eastern European country (Czechoslovakia-Yugoslavia) its border province (Sudetenland-Kosovo) due to agitation by its disaffected minority ethnicity (Germans-Albanians).

The unexpected consequence of our Kosovo war and the campaign of anti-Serbism was growing anti-Israel sentiment among Europeans, who then saw Israel’s West Bank occupation as the equivalent of Serbia’s Kosovo occupation. This analogy was a natural one to everybody outside the sphere of influence of the U.S. media, but since American Jews are the most intense consumers as well as producers of American media, they got blindsided by this analogy.

In summary, the crucial question for Jews is: Is it good for the Jews to obsess over “Was it good for the Jews?” Or should they, when thinking about immigration and foreign policies, ask, “Will it be good for the Jews?”

And for Americans as a whole, the crucial question is: Is it good for America if a powerful group is free from all outside analysis, no matter how objective?

A reader responds:

You state that keeping the fact of high Jewish IQ’s on the down low is the reason for public ixnay on the IQ alktay in ublicpay. Hmm, I could swear that the big factor is fear of noting that blacks had low IQ’s was the big mover. What has swayed US domestic policy more, the PC need to see non-whites as virtuous, talented victims held back by WE, the man, or all that Jewish stuff?

I thought the obvious public lens on the Balkan damn fool thing was that the Kosovo muslims were BLACK, and the Serbs were Klansmen just as much as the Kosovos were Jews and the Serbs Nazis.

Heck, I’d say the whole Euro American divide re: Israel is as much about European white guilt as American Jew-guilt, yah? Europeans aren’t nearly so guilty about what they did to blacks as to the beige and brown, Arabs largely among them, and the Israelis are seen as Europeans doing some nasty colonial thing to the Arabs, yah? But Americans don’t automatically see Arabs as minority victims, where we do recognize Jews as historical victims needing to defend themselves.

Euros feel bad about colonialism, and guilt compensate by taking the Arab side in what they see as a colonial land grab. Americans have no guilt regarding Jews or Arabs, but they do feel good about being Holocaust liberators, so they take the Jewish side in what they see as the Jews surrounded on all sides, fighting off the Huns.

In fact, couldn’t this be seen as the Euros doing that liberal intra-white status game of who’s more beastly to the minorities? The Euros establish moral superiority by being more tolerant of the Arabs than their fellow westerners, the Israelis? And the Israelis are helpfully just different enough –they’re Jews, and their problems don’t really directly touch Europe, except as riling their own problem urban minorities?

Couldn’t one say Euro superiority to Israelis, and concern for rioting domestic Arabs, is like NE libs and their superiority over Red State rednecks, especially those in high black population southern states who must actually deal with the issue, and their simultaneous concern for rioting blacks in Harlem?

Another reader writes:

One Jewish characteristic which may considerably underlie several of the others might be a tendency to religious fanaticism. In Antiquity, Jews were certainly not regarded as being especially smart or good at business; instead it was their extreme religious fanaticism that attracted attention. And one might argue that during a couple of millenia of living as religious minorities in Europe and elsewhere, the less fanatic Jews might probably have tended to convert for pragmatic reasons and merge into the larger Gentile population.

I suspect that one reason this plausible Jewish characteristic attracts relatively little attention is the extreme secularism of modern Jews, probably about the least religious ethic group in most countries. But I would suggest that the same underlying psychological tendency easily manifests itself in lots of “secular religions,” which helps to explain why Jews are so prominent in almost every conflicting ideological movement, ranging from Marxism/Communism to libertarianism, liberalism, multiculturalism, neo-conservatism, environmentalism, pro-Israelism (and anti-Israelism), and everything else.

And Hans Gruber looks at the flip side of the coin:

One possible explanation for the Utopian tendency is that Jews are much more secular than the general population. Religion is a human universal. It’s possible that religion satisfies inherent desires for purpose, for meaning, and for immortality. Secular peoples, lacking the fulfillment religion provides, might then seek a sort of substitute from political ideology and creating paradise here, today (therefore ensuring their immortality as well). Religious peoples, however, tend to accept the imperfection of this world for the promise of paradise in the next, staving off Utopian impulses.

You also mention reverence for the “all-knowing-scholar-sage.” This is also consistent with the secular explanation because this is essentially the replacement of a religious priesthood with a secular priesthood. The priest or rabbi gives us guidance on how to live our lives, and so too does the secular priesthood of “all-knowing-scholar-sages.”

Steve Sailer wrote Dec. 18, 2019:

I’d agree that Ashkenazis over the last 200 years have had extremely impressive levels of intellectual creativity relative to, say, high IQ East Asians, although it’s worth noting that Europeans in general have been pretty creative.

Keep in mind, however, that Ashkenazi Jews didn’t contribute much to European culture before the Jewish Enlightenment, which lagged about 75 years behind The Enlightenment. There were a small number of Jewish geniuses before, say, David Ricardo, such as Spinoza in the 17th Century and the part-Jewish Montaigne (who was first published in English translation in 1603 and influenced Shakespeare’s Tempest, and Shakespeare likely met his translator, John Florio, in the 1590s).

But Jews did not become major contributors to European advancement until well into the 19th Century. For example, it’s hard to explain the embarrassing Freud Cult without grasping that Europe and America in the first third of the 20th Century was full of brilliant young Jews who were rather lacking in Jewish intellectual heroes. So those who weren’t willing to throw in with Marx often elevated the bourgeois Freud to an absurd level of deference. Eventually, Jews got plenty of genuine intellectual heroes like Einstein, so we don’t hear much about Freud anymore.

One interesting question that will be answered over the course of the 21st Century is whether Jewish creativity will remain as high as in the 20th Century.

Of course, most of the comments are aghast that Stephens (the former editor of the Jerusalem Times) would spill the beans on Jewish IQ.

In reality, as you and I know, but NYT readers don’t seem to know, Jews in general and Ashkenazi Jews (German and Eastern European) in particular, are, per capita, the world’s smartest, richest, and most influential ethnicity. I n their 1995 book Jews and the New American Scene, the prominent social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset, a Senior Scholar of the Wilstein Institute for Jewish Policy Studies, and Earl Raab, Director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, pointed out:

During the last three decades, Jews have made up 50% of the top two hundred intellectuals, 40 percent of American Nobel Prize Winners in science and economics, 20 percent of professors at the leading universities, 21 percent of high level civil servants, 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington, 26% of the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media, 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the fifty top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series. [pp. 26-27]

You can’t really understand how the world works without being cognizant of these data.

Gemini says:

Sailer correctly identifies a tension between two major theories of Jewish IQ. The Cochran-Hardy-Harpending theory posits that the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews evolved because of the selective pressures of “middleman” occupations (finance, trade) that required high literacy and numeracy. Sailer contrasts this with the MacDonald theory, which suggests eugenic breeding specifically for scholarship and rabbinical argumentation.

His critique of MacDonald is grounded in intellectual honesty: he notes that while the theory is “intuitively plausible,” it lacks the quantitative evidence necessary to prove that the “magnitude of the eugenic effect” was sufficient to create a statistical shift in a population. In biological terms, it is one thing to identify a selective pressure; it is quite another to prove that the pressure was strong enough to produce the observed phenotype (high verbal and mathematical intelligence) within a few dozen generations.

The “Rabbi-Student” Model of Secular Intellect

The most compelling part of Sailer’s analysis is his observation of how traditional religious structures were transposed into secular intellectual movements. He argues that Marx, Freud, Ayn Rand, and Leo Strauss essentially operated as charismatic leaders of secular “cults.”

Extra-rational Charisma: Sailer argues that these figures didn’t just win through logic; they won through a messianic, “egomaniacal” presence that mirrored the authority of a brilliant rabbi.

The Strauss Example: His critique of Leo Strauss is particularly sharp. He characterizes “Straussianism”—the idea that great philosophers wrote in “perfect speech” with secret codes—as a form of high-level “crackpottery.” By comparing it to Kabbalah or Bible Codes, Sailer suggests that even the most “worldly” neoconservatives have a deep, perhaps unconscious, hunger for a charismatic authority figure who holds a “secret decoder ring” to reality.

The “Culture of Critique” and Social Cost

Sailer touches on a sensitive area by questioning whether “Jewish cultural tendencies should be the only ones completely excluded from any critique by outsiders.” He frames this not as an attack, but as a plea for consistent analytical standards.

The inclusion of the reader’s letter regarding Rothman and Lichter’s Roots of Radicalism provides a psychological dimension to this critique:

Family Dynamics: The distinction between “mommy-dominated” (Jewish) and “daddy-dominated” (Christian) households in the 1960s radical movements is used to explain why Jewish radicals often thrived post-rebellion (as they were fulfilling a family tradition of intellectual combat) while Christian radicals often struggled (as they were truly alienated from their families).

The Cost of “Dismantling”: The letter’s anecdote about NYC therapy captures a recurring Sailer theme: the “culture of critique” is highly effective at deconstructing systems, but when applied to an individual’s personality or a nation’s social fabric, it can leave the subject “inert” or “crippled” while the “therapist” (or intellectual leader) thrives.

Sailer’s analysis is a mix of legitimate scientific skepticism and provocative cultural commentary. He is at his best when identifying patterns of behavior—like the transition from religious scholarship to secular messianism—that professional academics are often too cautious to touch.

However, the analysis relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and broad sociological generalizations (like the “mommy-dominated household” theory). While these provide a cohesive narrative that explains certain historical phenomena, they risk oversimplifying the vast diversity within both Jewish and Christian communities. Sailer’s strength is in making these “extraordinarily obvious” patterns visible, even if the underlying mechanisms remain a subject of intense debate.

This seems unassailable: “Sailer touches on a sensitive area by questioning whether “Jewish cultural tendencies should be the only ones completely excluded from any critique by outsiders.” He frames this not as an attack, but as a plea for consistent analytical standards.”

Gemini says:

The statement feels unassailable because it appeals to the fundamental principle of universalism. In a liberal intellectual framework, the idea is that no group, regardless of historical status or power dynamics, should be exempt from the tools of sociology or cultural criticism. If we analyze the cultural tendencies of Anglo-Protestants, the Japanese, or the Amish, the logic follows that the same lens should be applied to Jewish cultural patterns.

Sailer is essentially making a case for the end of a certain kind of American exceptionalism. His argument is that by the 21st century, the Jewish community in the West has reached such a high level of success, influence, and security that the protective “shield of vulnerability” used in the 20th century is no longer a functional fit for reality. He is calling for a move toward a more “mature” relationship where analysis doesn’t automatically imply animosity.

However, the reason this remains a flashpoint is the tension between pure intellectual consistency and the historical reality of how such critiques have been used.

Critique from an outsider often carries a different weight than critique from an insider. When an insider like Rothman or Lichter analyzes Jewish radicalism, it is usually interpreted as a self-reflective attempt at community understanding. When an outsider like Sailer or MacDonald does it, the audience often scans for a “subtext of hostility.” This is the primary hurdle to his plea for consistent standards; in the real world, the “who” often matters as much as the “what.”

The specific traits Sailer identifies—the “culture of critique” or the messianic intellectual leader—are often the same traits that have allowed for massive Jewish contributions to Western civilization. A critique that focuses only on the disruptive elements of these traits can feel like a one-sided ledger. This is where the “consistent analytical standards” can get muddy, as it is difficult to isolate a cultural tendency’s negative externalities from its positive achievements.

Groups that hold significant intellectual or cultural capital naturally develop defensive mechanisms to protect their status and narrative. Sailer’s argument is essentially an attempt to pierce that closure, suggesting that the “merciless laws of logographic necessity” he mentions regarding Strauss should be applied to the groups themselves.

The statement is a classic example of a “dangerous” idea that is framed in such a way that it is difficult to argue against without sounding like you are defending a double standard. It places the burden on the defender of the status quo to explain why a specific group should remain “above analysis” in an era that otherwise demands total transparency.

What are the dominant critiques of gentiles by Jewish intellectuals and of Jews by gentile intellectuals? What are the dominant critiques of Christianity by Jewish intellectuals and of Jews by gentile intellects?

Gemini says:

The intellectual exchange between these groups is often a struggle over the definitions of universalism, particularism, and the proper role of religion in a secular society. These critiques are rarely about simple theological disputes and are more often about how each group’s internal logic affects the broader social fabric.

Critiques of Gentiles by Jewish Intellectuals

The most persistent critique involves the concept of the potential for relapse. Many Jewish intellectuals, particularly in the post-war era, have argued that gentile “civility” is a thin veneer that can easily crack under economic or social pressure, revealing deep-seated tribalism or antisemitism.

Another dominant critique centers on lack of critical reflexivity. Intellectuals like those of the Frankfurt School suggested that gentile culture often suffers from a “pathology of normalcy,” where the majority accepts oppressive or irrational social structures simply because they are traditional. This is contrasted with a Jewish “culture of critique” that feels a moral obligation to deconstruct and question the status quo.

Critiques of Jews by Gentile Intellectuals

Gentile critiques often focus on dual loyalty and group cohesion. This is the observation that Jewish communities maintain a level of “status closure” and internal networking that can seem exclusionary to the majority. The critique suggests that while Jews champion universalist values for the broader society, they sometimes maintain a strictly particularist and protective stance for their own group.

A second critique, often seen in the work of thinkers like Steve Sailer or Kevin MacDonald, involves the disruptive nature of intellectual deconstruction. The argument is that Jewish intellectuals have been the primary drivers behind the dismantling of traditional Western guardrails—such as the nuclear family, national identity, or religious tradition—while the group themselves remains highly resilient.

Critiques of Christianity by Jewish Intellectuals

The primary Jewish critique of Christianity is that it is a religion of “the spirit” that neglects “the law.” From a Jewish perspective, the Christian focus on internal faith and grace can lead to a moral vacuum in the physical world. If salvation is guaranteed by belief, the rigorous, daily discipline of the mitzvot (commandments) is lost, which Jews argue is the only real way to sanctify life on earth.

There is also the critique of triumphalism and supersessionism. Jewish thinkers have long pointed out that Christianity’s internal logic requires Judaism to be “finished” or “obsolete.” This creates a structural inability for Christians to see Jews as a valid, ongoing covenantal people, leading to a history of proselytization and persecution that Jews view as a fundamental flaw in Christian ethics.

Critiques of Judaism by Christian Intellectuals

Christian critiques often center on the idea of legalism and “the letter of the law.” Since the time of Paul, Christian intellectuals have argued that Judaism is a religion of “bondage” to rituals that cannot truly transform the human heart. They argue that the Jewish focus on outward performance creates a barrier between the individual and a genuine, living relationship with the Divine.

Another critique involves ethnic particularism. Christians, who view their faith as a universal message for all of humanity, often critique Judaism for being tied to a specific bloodline and land. To the Christian mind, a religion that is not actively seeking to save the whole world can appear insular or even “tribal,” missing the “Great Commission” to bring the light of God to every nation.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Jewish Gifts & Challenges