Dennis Prager Can Now Mouth Words

In a video released Dec. 2, Julie Hartman says she spent eight hours in the hospital with Dennis. “So many of you are asking for information… All we want is information. This is going to be weeks, months for him to recuperate. If we’re not telling you information, it’s not because we are withholding it. We don’t have information… Dennis is 100% mentally there. He even said it to me with his limited ability to mouth words.”

I find it odd how everybody who knows Prager’s condition won’t say much about it.

It must have to do with his boss Salem and its affiliates and ad contracts. As long as the daily show remains the Dennis Prager show, even with substitute hosts, Salem can charge full price, but once Salem admits that Dennis Prager will never be back, they immediately lose money.

It doesn’t matter how much Dennis Prager values honesty and transparency, we’re talking a buck here, buddy, and the lawyers’ directions come first.

A Nov. 20 post on RadioDiscussions.com reads: “The problem with replacing a show is that affiliates sign contracts for that show. Scheduling guest hosts doesn’t change their contracts. But if they completely replace the show, the affiliate contract becomes void. So it’s easier to just have guest hosts. Also, the guest works with Prager’s team. Replacing the show puts the production team out of work.”

A friend says:

I guess Prager fans don’t know the meaning of words open and transparent. If Prager or Hartman wanted to be transparent, someone should explain (1) the circumstances under which Dennis hurt his back and neck. Was he drunk, was he under the influence of medication, was he sleepy and fell when he got out of bed in the middle of the night and had to urinate? Where did he fall? The most dangerous room to fall in is the bathroom followed by the kitchen because of the hard surfaces. Was he knocked unconscious by the fall? Could he get up? Was he immediately transported to the hospital? The next stage in transparence is the diagnosis. What did the physicians who examine him find. What tests did they run and what did they learn. How long was he hospitalized before they did surgery. Was Surgery laid out to Dennis as his best option for treatment. What surgery was performed. It doesn’t do to say neck and back, the answer should be more exact and precise. What was his prognosis before surgery and immediately after surgery. At what point did the doctors (or staff) realize that he had developed pneumonia. What sort of pneumonia was diagnosed. What was his prognosis and how has the prognosis changed he first was diagnosed with pneumonia. What has the treatment been. How successful has the treatment been And what is his prognosis today. Instead we have nothing substantive (as you point out) possibly to hide his condition from Salem [as well as advertisers and affiliates].

I wonder if Prager’s doctors were educated at Prager University?

I suspect that when Dennis Prager’s life is on the line, he has no interest in all the supplements he shills such as Ruff Greens, The Wellness Company, Nerve Renew, Jigsaw Health, Relief Factor, Riduzone, but instead he wants the best medicine available, not the nonsense he pushes on air such as Zelenko Protocol. Dennis Prager rejects studies that don’t accord with his common sense, but I suspect that when it comes to his own care, he wants the most rigorous available.

Justin Peters wrote for Slate Nov. 8, 2021:

Why Are Right-Wing Radio Hosts Still Being Such Jerks About COVID?

On Monday, Nov. 1, Dennis Prager began his popular radio show with a very strange boast. “I rarely say, ‘I did the following.’ It’s not my style,” the 73-year-old conservative host and YouTube culture war impresario said. “But I believe I am responsible for the CDC announcing the following: that if you have natural immunity you are less immune than if you have the vaccine.”

Prager was referring to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, released on Friday, Oct. 29, which found, basically, that the immunity conferred by full vaccination with an mRNA COVID vaccine is more effective than the “natural immunity” gained by having had and recovered from COVID-19. Good news, right? Ha! If you welcomed the CDC’s findings, you are almost certainly not in Dennis Prager’s target demographic.

The CDC’s conclusions are broadly in line with the scientific consensus on the efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. And they directly contradict Prager’s contention, voiced over and again on his long-running, nationally syndicated show, that natural immunity to COVID-19 is superior to vaccinated immunity. To Prager, the CDC’s latest findings did not mean that he, Prager, was wrong—they meant that the liberal, corrupt health agency had ginned up a bogus study in order to cloud the debate and specifically silence his voice.

“All I did was open up to you, my audience,” Prager said, referring to his advocacy for natural immunity. “I had no idea that I would shake up the nest to the extent that I did.” Assuring his audience that he had done “a lot of homework on COVID,” and highlighting an Israeli study from August (even though it has not yet been peer reviewed and had certain limitations that ought to make any prudent person think twice before citing it as definitive), Prager weaved a fantastical counternarrative as a way of underscoring his central point: that the CDC study in question was a dirty, rotten lie. “To some of you, it is stunning to say the CDC is lying,” said Prager. “To me, it is like saying the sun shines brightly when there are no clouds.”

Huh? Why would the CDC rush out a false study—co-authored by more than 50 people—just to neutralize a random right-wing radio host? Why would Prager presume calumny and conspiracy in the agency’s motives? These fair questions naturally beget another fair question: Why are so many right-wing talk show hosts still being such dicks about COVID measures?

…“I took ivermectin for the last year and a half as a prophylactic, believing, and I put my actions where my mouth was, believing that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and zinc, et cetera, over the course of time, that it would prevent COVID from being seriously injurious to me,” Prager said on that Nov. 1 show, railing against those fools in the media who dared to characterize ivermectin as a mere “horse dewormer.” As per the irrationalist imperative to willfully confuse correlation with causation, the host presented his victorious bout with COVID as clear evidence both of the merits of Dr. Prager’s Curative Elixirs and of the superfluity of the various vaccines. By ostensibly proving that his ivermectin use was what prevented him from dying from COVID, Prager hoped to demonstrate that he was once again privy to the “real truth” that the liberal establishment is determined to suppress.

For decades now, the most successful conservative broadcast media sources have sought to isolate their audiences by constantly sowing distrust of any news outlet or official entity that exists outside of the hard right. The unifying theme is the notion that there are no depths to which the deep state, liberal media, and elitist professoriate will not stoop in order to advance their godless, anti-American, and culturally transgressive agendas.

So for committed Pragerheads, it is perfectly rational to believe—even as 750,000 Americans have died due to COVID-19—that the media is still suppressing the real truth about ivermectin and that the CDC is basically SPECTRE, because right-wing media has literally spent decades convincing its audience that politics is as conspiratorial and simplistic as a James Bond movie. “It’s impossible, virtually impossible, to live in a right-wing bubble,” Prager said on his program on Wednesday, in a statement that is so un-self-aware as to be almost entirely self-aware. Prager surely understands how right-wing media works, even as he also surely understands that he can never, ever publicly admit it.

This cynical strategy, enervating enough in normal times, is especially frustrating in the midst of an ongoing public health crisis in which lots and lots of people are still dying in part thanks to the endemic misinformation being spread by dummies on the radio. Actually, dummies might not be the right word here. No matter what you might think of their politics, Prager and his nationally prominent peers are not stupid. You can tell this is true because they are so adept at dancing right up to the lies-and-lunacy line while almost never crossing it. The evening opinion hosts on Fox News, for example, rarely tell outright lies; instead, they draw false equivalencies, or cherry-pick outlying details and use them to inaccurately characterize the whole, or offer misleading narratives that can be explained away as matters of opinion.

Even Prager is not explicitly anti-vaccine. He does not say that the vaccines don’t work, or that they are actively harmful to those who take them. Instead, he disparages them via a boatload of logical fallacies that he presents as plain common sense. “I have never once told any of you or anyone not to take the vaccine; it is not my province to tell you what to do. But it is my province to tell you the truth, and the truth is that natural immunity is stronger,” said Prager on Nov. 1. “Alex Berenson wrote about this. He’s the guy who was with the New York Times until he started telling the truth.”

As always with right-wing anti–virtue signaling, deflection is the point here. Prager and his peers’ goal writ large is to get their audiences so hot and bothered about federal government overreach and the scurrilous rascals in the elitist media that those audiences do not stop to think critically about what these hosts are actually selling. When Prager threw his show to commercial break, his announcer reported that The Dennis Prager Show was broadcasting “live from the Relief Factor Pain-Free Studio.” The ad gave away the game.

As historian Rick Perlstein observed in his seminal Baffler essay “The Long Con,” and as anyone can observe by watching or listening to more than 20 minutes of conservative broadcast content, right-wing media is and has long been underwritten by billions of dollars of advertising for dubious curatives. While lots of reputable news sources also have some questionable advertisers, the practice is particularly pervasive on the right…

“The strategic alliance of snake-oil vendors and conservative true believers points up evidence of another successful long march, of tactics designed to corral fleeceable multitudes all in one place,” wrote Perlstein. “One weird trick”–style remedies, in a very real sense, pay the salaries of hosts such as Prager; these hosts are incentivized to tout them just as their audiences are conditioned to trust them. The vaccines threaten the framework of burnished shit that supports and sustains these sorts of programs…

On Monday, Prager led off his show by blasting the city of Los Angeles for a new ordinance that would require patrons to show proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test in order to dine inside a restaurant, get a haircut, or engage in certain other indoor activities. Prager warned of “the communist hell that all communists create, and will in the United States if allowed,” and bemoaned “the love of power and the hypochondriacal fear, the maniacal fear that pervades the left about [COVID] and global warming.” Then, he threw the show to a commercial for Relief Factor, in which he spoke glowingly about the supplement’s “100 percent drug free ingredients, each helping your body deal with inflammation.”

…the layout of HumanEvents.com on the day it featured an article headlined “Ideas Will Drive Conservatives’ Revival.” Two inches beneath that bold pronouncement, a box headed “Health News” included the headlines “Reverse Crippling Arthritis in 2 Days,” “Clear Clogged Arteries Safely & Easily—without drugs, without surgery, and without a radical diet,” and “High Blood Pressure Cured in 3 Minutes . . . Drop Measurement 60 Points.” It would be interesting, that is, to ask Coulter about the reflex of lying that’s now sutured into the modern conservative movement’s DNA—and to get her candid assessment of why conservative leaders treat their constituents like suckers.

When Prager came back, he was at it again about natural immunity and the CDC—“who I believe are professional liars,” he clarified. By sowing doubt over the vaccines and crying foul over mandates, Prager and his peers are running through the tribal script of right-wing infotainment, otherizing every idea and institution that could plausibly be considered “liberal.” But in a very real sense, they just don’t want the liberals’ miracle drugs, because they already have plenty of their own.

In 2012, Rick Perlstein wrote:

The Long Con – Mail-order conservatism

In 2007, I signed on to the email lists of several influential magazines on the right, among them Townhall, which operates under the auspices of evangelical Stuart Epperson’s Salem Communications; Newsmax, the organ more responsible than any other for drumming up the hysteria that culminated in the impeachment of Bill Clinton; and Human Events, one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite publications. The exercise turned out to be far more revealing than I expected. Via the battery of promotional appeals that overran my email inbox, I mainlined a right-wing id that was invisible to readers who encounter conservative opinion at face value…. I learned of the “23-Cent Heart Miracle,” the one “Washington, the medical industry, and drug companies REFUSE to tell you about.” (Why would they? They’d just be leaving money on the table: “I was scheduled for open heart surgery when I read about your product,” read one of the testimonials. “I started taking it and now six months have passed and I haven’t had open-heart surgery.”) Then came news of the oilfield in the placenta…

These are bedtime stories, meant for childlike minds. Or, more to the point, they are in the business of producing childlike minds. Conjuring up the most garishly insatiable monsters precisely in order to banish them from underneath the bed, they aim to put the target to sleep.

Dishonesty is demanded by the alarmist fundraising appeal because the real world doesn’t work anything like this. The distance from observable reality is rhetorically required; indeed, that you haven’t quite seen anything resembling any of this in your everyday life is a kind of evidence all by itself. It just goes to show how diabolical the enemy has become. He is unseen; but the redeemer, the hero who tells you the tale, can see the innermost details of the most baleful conspiracies. Trust him. Send him your money. Surrender your will—and the monster shall be banished for good.

This method highlights the fundamental workings of all grassroots conservative political appeals, be they spurious claims of Barack Obama’s Islamic devotion, the supposed explosion of taxpayer-supported welfare fraud, or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

And, in an intersection that is utterly crucial, this same theology of fear is how a certain sort of commercial appeal—a snake-oil-selling one—works as well. This is where the retail political lying practiced by Romney links up with the universe in which 23-cent miracle cures exist (absent the hero’s intervention) just out of reach, thanks to the conspiracy of some powerful cabal—a cabal that, wouldn’t you know it in these late-model hustles, perfectly resembles the ur-villain of the conservative mind: liberals.

In this respect, it’s not really useful, or possible, to specify a break point where the money game ends and the ideological one begins. They are two facets of the same coin—where the con selling 23-cent miracle cures for heart disease inches inexorably into the one selling miniscule marginal tax rates as the miracle cure for the nation itself. The proof is in the pitches—the come-ons in which the ideological and the transactional share the exact same vocabulary, moral claims, and cast of heroes and villains.

…Lying is an initiation into the conservative elite. In this respect, as in so many others, it’s like multilayer marketing: the ones at the top reap the reward—and then they preen, pleased with themselves for mastering the game. Closing the sale, after all, is mainly a question of riding out the lie: showing that you have the skill and the stones to just brazen it out, and the savvy to ratchet up the stakes higher and higher. Sneering at, or ignoring, your earnest high-minded mandarin gatekeepers—“we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” as one Romney aide put it—is another part of closing the deal.

May 15, 2023, Dennis said: "The electrical grid cannot support the demands being made because of environmentalists…" He read from this Substack post by Robert Bryce

On May 4, members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission delivered stark warnings to the members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The agency’s acting chairman, Willie Phillips, told the senators, “We face unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our nation’s electric system.”

FERC Commissioner Mark Christie echoed Phillips’ warning, saying the U.S. electric grid is “heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability.” 

Dennis: "This is completely because of Joe Biden and the Democrats… Why do these people want to destroy the economy? Because it is all about chaos and power… We are in for quite a ride. What happens when you don't get electric power? Do you understand we won't have enough electricity?"

Does anyone without an agenda believe that Joe Biden and the Democrats want to destroy the economy and that the Democrats are the sole reason for strains on the electrical grid?

Dennis: "It's shocking that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told the truth."

Prager's agenda is epistemic sabotage. He wants you to know that you are being lied to by Big Government, Big Media, Big Law, Big Academia and the like, that he is on your side battling the nefarious elites, and that he will give you the truth to the best of his ability while the establishment sources will not.

Once Prager successfully conned himself that he was uniquely qualified to discern the truth and that the powers that be were lying, my guess is that this transformation happened in high school through the massive social reinforcement flowing from his charisma, it was easy to con the rubes. 

Dennis: "Was this reported in the New York Times? The LA Times? Washington Post? CNN? MSNBC? NPR? PBS?"

Like the typical guru, Dennis tells you that competing sources of influence are lying to you while he gives you the truth. 

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off on Dennis Prager Can Now Mouth Words

How Bodies Read and Write: Dostoevsky’s Demons and Coetzee’s Master of Petersburg

Michael Kochin wrote a chapter in the 2013 book, Dostoevsky’s Political Thought:

The writer must give up his soul in order to write. He must give up his soul to become the body writing.

To write Stavrogin, then, the writer must be open to possession; he must be willing to be seduced by the loss of personality necessary to produce writing that is of other than personal value. The moral danger for the writer-for the writer writing with the body-is this possession. Stavro­gin, after all, is not a writer, but he is a rapist. Pyotr/Nechaev is not a writer, but he is a murderer. To write the possessed, the writer himself must allow his body to be possessed by their demons. He cannot appease these demons with mere blood-as we have seen, the writer must “give up his soul.”

Both novels show us this close relation between literature and the extreme mistreatment of bodies at the hands of governments, terrorists, criminals, the self, and demons. Coetzee’s Nechaev recognizes this, say­ing to Dostoevsky in a dripping cellar with two hungry children feeding on a loaf of bread earned by their streetwalker mother: “I suppose you want to hurry home and get this cellar and these children down in a notebook before the memory fades.” The suffering of children, he rec­ognizes, is precisely the sort of thing that motivates the writer. Suffering children, like the budding breasts of the young girl Matryona, inspire the writer, that is, both suffering and erotic passion open the writer to posses­sion by demonic spirits. Suffering offers the writer the occasion for in­dulging the transgressive pleasure of possession. Suffering, or its Latin equivalent, passion, licenses the writer to divest himself of the controlling subjectivity of his non-writer self.

The possession invoked by the spectacle of suffering can motivate the writer and the reader to suffer with the suffering-it can instill compas­sion. Yet the spectacle of suffering can also move the writer and the reader to revel in the delight in his own power felt by the deliberate perpetrator of suffering. Indeed, the writer thus can present us with the torturer as clearly as he or she can present us with the tortured. Coet­zee’s Dostoevsky knows well and puts to work in writing Stavrogin’s confession that there is generally more “real life” in fictional rapists than in fictional victims.62 The question that remains is whether U1e writing itself is conducive to the alleviation of this suffering, or whether it merely affords the reader a view of the spectacle of that suffering from a safe aesthetic distance. Faced with a choice between vitality and morals, every writer will choose vitality-and every serious man will choose morality. One would like to believe that the writer suffers with his victims, and thus his art encourages the serious reader to get out of his easy chair and act to alleviate human suffering. But the real Dostoevsky wrote Stavro­gin’s confession, and the real J. M. Coetzee wrote The Master of Petersburg.

How_Bodies_Read_and_Write

Posted in Literature | Comments Off on How Bodies Read and Write: Dostoevsky’s Demons and Coetzee’s Master of Petersburg

From Argument To Assertion

Michael S. Kochin writes in Argumentation 23, No. 3 (August 2009).:

There are, however, two fundamental rhetorical difficulties with laying out one’s premises, reasoning, and conclusions. Since arguments are anticlimactic if they are explicit, the speaker who is excessively explicit in his or her reasoning is liable to fall into what one may call “the arguer’s dilemma,” with its two horns, the horn of banality and the horn of incomprehensibility. Either the audience can see where you are going before you get there (first horn), or they can’t (second horn). If they can see where you are going, they will lose attention, since to quote Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969 §98, 469), “an anticipated argument is a banal argument,” and the arguer has impaled himself on the horn of banality. If the audience can’t see where you are going, that is, in all likelihood, because they can’t follow the thread of your argument, and the arguer loses their attention as he squirms gored and suspended on the horn of incomprehensibility. If the audience can’t follow your argument, this means that even if you have managed to persuade them, we cannot say that they are persuaded to adopt your conclusion by accepting the argument you have offered for it.

So if you want to argue, you have to find some way out of the arguer’s dilemma: either you have to compose an argument that your audience is able to follow but not to anticipate—an extraordinary achievement—or you have to aim in arguing at some effect other than persuading your audience of the truth of your conclusion through their following and accepting your argument…

…outside mathematics, and certainly in practical affairs, the facts are never all on the table: the question is whether one has the resources to challenge the factual assertions that lead to the conclusions one wishes to reject—whether one can find the key or pick the lock. The issue is what the sociologist of science Bruno Latour has called a “trial of strength”: can you muster the resources required to overcome your opponents’ facts? This can be done by disputing the truth of your adversary’s facts, that is, by arguing, since, The New Rhetoric puts it, “recourse to argumentation is unavoidable whenever… proofs are questioned by one of the parties” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969, 8). More often, one puts the adversaries’ strength to the trial by offering alternative facts that make your opponents’ claims seem irrelevant—that is, if one has not been bludgeoned into aporia or absence of recourse by the force of the adversaries’ assertions into accepting their arguments.

…Gerald Rafshoon, Jimmy Carter’s principal advertising man in Carter’s 1980. Presidential reelection campaign: “If we had to do it all over again, we would take the 30 million dollars we spent in the campaign and get three more helicopters for the Iran rescue mission” (Popkin 1991, 4). One could claim, with Samuel Popkin, that Rafshoon’s statement shows the limits of image-making as against political reality. But we will better understand the gravity of Carter’s and Rafshoon’s problem if we remind ourselves that the most effective image of President Carter would have been a news broadcast of him receiving the freed hostages.

…In our life together discussion is instrumental to action: discussion is a cost, not a benefit, and so we can only afford some discussion, whether that discussion consists of facts or of arguments. Any new factual assertion threatens the solidarity we have achieved, and thus the ability to act which that solidarity has fostered.

Posted in Rhetoric | Comments Off on From Argument To Assertion

Trust & Evidence on the Internet

Michael S. Kochin published this essay in Rhêtorikê: Revista Digital de Retórica 0 (March 2008):

First, newspapers and television don’t have footnotes. Even newspaper science reporting and editorials, both of which almost always rely on other reporting, do not use footnotes to direct us to that reporting [while] political blogs are rich in hyperlinks, the internet equivalent of footnotes.

…online newspapers, the Guardian in England or Ha’aretz in Israel, frequently provide links for further information. Such links are not generally source links but exit links: I cannot recall a single instance in which the link was to the specific sources for the factual claims in the article2. So my second observation is that blogs, and in particular public affairs blogs, have footnotes, that is to say, they source their claims through hyperlinks…

Third observation: public affairs blogs and online communities of other sorts have already played crucial roles in politics in the United States….

As Walter Lippmann puts it[,] “a code of right and wrong must wait upon a perception of the true and the false.” Insofar as political institutions see truth or correctness, they are largely engaged in sifting claims of fact rather then assessing arguments. As Lippmann writes, “useful discussion … instead of comparing ideals, re-examines visions of the facts.”

Some examples: what mattered in the period immediately before the second Gulf War was whether Saddam Hussein had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. What matters is what are the expected net costs of global warming…

Persuasion, then, is largely a matter of getting one’s claims of fact seen as true and relevant… To quote Walter Lippmann again, “Except on a few subjects where our own knowledge is great, we cannot choose between true and false accounts. So we choose between trustworthy and untrustworthy reporters.”

…When do we resort to argument? Real speeches heavy on arguments seem to aim to present the speaker as calm, serious, and knowledgeable. In public life, one argues not in order to demonstrate the claim for which one is arguing, but firstly, to show that one possesses homonoia, that one shares the common prejudices or values that appear in the presuppositions and conclusions of one’s argument, or, secondly, to demonstrate phronesis, to show mastery of the subject matter by displaying relevant knowledge in coherently organized detail. Arguing is thus a way of presenting facts and principles so as to show one’s character as worthy of trust.

To be trusted is to be trusted as a knowledgeable, unbiased source of relevant facts. “Trust me” is a comparatively rare appeal.

Thus we need guidance on the ocean of facts. This point was explored at length after the First World War by Walter Lippmann, and his set of solutions was institutionalized into the American policy Establishment. This establishment rests on three components: first, think-tanks and government research bureaus; second, objective reporting in newspapers
and broadcast media; third, editorialists in that media who draw out the consequences of what is reported for their readers and instruct them which politicians or issues ought to be supported…

What we can see now about the Lippmannite establishment is that the primary mediation is institutional. Not the official who wrote or complied it, but the bureau or think tank stands behind the report. Not the reporter, but the newspaper, wire service, or television network stands behind his or her reportage. In that respect the Lippmannite establishment is quite different from the academic and scientific establishments. In the case of “the media,” it is made as difficult as possible for the viewer, reader, or consumer to get behind the institution to the sources. The print reporter “protects his sources. ”The television news network sequesters the raw footage from which the broadcast report is cut and edited. The wire editor for the local paper edits down the wire report without even an ellipsis mark to note what has been deleted. We, the consumer of these mediated reports, have no choice but to rely on the institutional reputation of the newspaper or television network that the factual claims in the report as presented are correct and representative.

…Small countries like Israel have disproportionately large establishments, simply because of the inverse of economies of scale. After all, it takes a certain number of people to run an establishment, and those are going to be a higher proportion of the well-informed and hyperliterate in a smaller country. To present facts other people have not considered is to threaten the way things are going on. Faced with these facts the established elite has a conflict of interest: on the one hand that elite needs correct facts
in order to go on, and on the other hand they cannot go on pursuing their projects if these projects are perpetually being called into question.

…New facts that threaten our picture changes the action by a kind of backwards induction, since we cannot carry out the action if we cannot hold to the picture that rationalizes them. The Establishment media of the Lippmannite era, say 1919-1999, engaged in a kind of gatekeeping of facts that allowed policy Establishments to maintain solidarity and the integrity of their projects.

Now conformity to established opinion is always and everywhere the price of being or remaining within the Establishment. Yet simply by the numbers small countries have less room for a counter-establishment which presents facts uncongenial to the establishment, or for any kind of informed opinion outside the establishment. In the United States so many people are excluded from the policy establishment by sheer force of numbers, that any hyperliterate person interested in public affairs can find a job as an academic, reporter, or think-tank researcher.

In small countries it is more-or-less impossible to have influence on the course of affairs from outside the establishment, given the higher relative reward to anyone who might pay attention to ignore you and keep in good with “The Powers that Be.” In Israel, disagreeing with the mainstream of elite opinion guarantees that one will have no influence, and unless one is fortunate to have landed an academic position, no income.

…In small countries, or at least in Israel, there is less room for counterestablishment mediators, largely because there are fewer hyperliterate people to do the job. In Israel there are no influential political blogs, and there is no influential nationalist media outlet, no Israeli right-wing equivalent to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. The Israeli media still speaks truth to power, but it speaks only those truths with which the established media is comfortable. Nobody in Israel is speaking truth to the established “old” media after the fashion of the pro-Bush bloggers in the Rathergate scandal.

Smallness, I conclude, has a perverse consequence for foreign policy. The Taoist strategy manual “The Master of Demon Valley” teaches “To be small means there is no inside; to be large means there is no outside.” This has two consequences: First, small countries have no inside: their affairs are more determined by what goes on outside of them than are those of big countries. Second, small countries have no inside: they don’t have inside of them a counterestablishment, including public affairs blogs, that can present uncomfortable facts about the challenges coming from outside.

I am always astonished by how much better Americans understand Israel than Israelis understand America, even though Israeli national survival depends, in great part, on a successful understanding of America. Small countries, having no inside, have a greater need to be guided by accurate information about what is outside, but in fact they have less accurate information about what is outside. We need to keep in mind Cass Sunstein’s observation that “blunders are significantly increased if people are rewarded not for correct decisions but for decisions that conform to the decisions made by most people”. Establishments may sometimes heed mavericks, but they never reward them.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on Trust & Evidence on the Internet

Donald Trump – The President Of Vice (12-4-24)

01:00 Vice is bad, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/04/opinion/donald-trump-vice-voters.html
03:00 Commentary mag: There Are Nations in Crisis—Just Not Ours, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqSB6OeDxow
08:20 Among Transition hiccups, Trump survives stuff that no political mortal could survive, says Mark Halperin, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/among-transition-hiccups-trump-survives-stuff-that/id1573813504?i=1000679240142
12:00 Humor & Morality, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158042
19:00 Variations in Moral Concerns across Political Ideology: Moral Foundations, Hidden Tribes, and Righteous Division, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158050
24:20 Does Hunter Biden need a pardon to save himself from triggers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme1_gt4GJM
29:00 Covid & Epistemic Coercion, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158056
55:10 Kip joins to talk about the horror of editing one’s own thoughts
1:00:00 The SS St Louis ship is denied entry to the USA in 1939, but was it welcomed by anyone?, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
1:26:00 Asabiyyah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah
1:30:40 Israel’s elite is quite different from the Israel majority, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkKsENN0S2M
1:34:14 The primacy of military power
1:36:30 What’s going on in Syria?

Posted in America | Comments Off on Donald Trump – The President Of Vice (12-4-24)

Epistemic Coercion

Stephen Turner writes in Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2024, vol. 61, no. 3:

“Words such as state, republic, society, class, as well as sovereignty, constitutional state, absolutism, dictatorship, economic planning, neutral or total state, and so on are incomprehensible if one does not exactly who is to be affected, combatted, refuted, or negated by such a term. Above all the polemical character determines the use of the word political regardless of whether the adversary is designated as non-political (in the sense of harmless), or vice versa if one wants to disqualify or denounce him as political in order to portray oneself as non-political (in the sense of the purely scientific, purely moral, purely aesthetic, purely economic, or on the basis of similar purities) and therefore superior.”
[Carl Schmitt, (1932) 1996, pp. 31–32].

* …the regimes of science and expertise are ineradicably political and coercive. But if regimes of science and expertise are ineradicably political and coercive, what remains
is the problem of our choice of regimes, and how to accommodate them in a democratic order. We must come to a reckoning with the disillusion from the idea of the purity of science and the neutrality of expertise. We cannot simultaneously valorize “the science” as a real institutional fact and insist on “following the science,” and ignore the practical meaning of the imperfect institutional processes that make it up, and the value choices that are made within science, which may diverge from the values that derive from democratic processes.

* …The Covid pandemic saw the development and widespread use of actual means of knowledge suppression and epistemic engineering, both within science and with respect to expert claims, within nominally free societies….The rationale for the use of these means was that malinformation, misinformation, and disinformation were sufficiently pervasive in the digital world that they produced harms that justified not merely correction or disagreement but intervention to alter the cognitive climate. The reasoning produced a novel concept, “cognitive security,” as well as a plethora of new jargon terms, many of which were designed to conceal the partisan nature of the technical interventions under such bland terms as “curation” and treating interventions as forms of cybersecurity.

* New revelations about the role of governments and drug companies in these interventions, and their extent, occur almost daily. And in each case they show that the interventions cross whatever line still exists between partisanship and scholarship, fact and value, and claims warranted by sufficient evidence as distinct from plausible assumptions that might warrant policy preferences, and any line between coercion and persuasion. And under Covid, in medicine, we have seen unambiguously direct coercion: taking the licenses of doctors for failing to abide by problematic guidelines, or censorship based on definitions of misinformation which were themselves based on policy agendas with little evidence behind them. What is especially important in the presence of novel technologies of persuasion is the question of whether these are novel instruments of epistemic control or coercion, and whether they require new forms of control, and new forms of resistance, in order to serve the purposes we expect discourse, either in science or the public sphere, to achieve.

* Power also comes in two basic forms: commands which are enforceable and hegemonic power which takes the form of pervasive conditions of constraint that are unconsciously internalized as normal and then serve as self-imposed limits on thought and behavior that are not even recognized as such.

* we can find examples of explicitly coerced personal experiences that generate largely inarticulable knowledge: a paradigm case would be Eisenhower’s decision at the end of the Second World War to force Germans to watch films of the concentration camps by making it a condition of getting stamps to obtain food.

* Most of our explicit knowledge comes from others. We judge what we are told by a combination of two variables: our assessment of their trustworthiness (and motives) and our assessment of their competence to speak and their access to the subject.

* The mechanisms of power in science are familiar: they include exclusion, article rejection, failure to endorse, to fund, to employ, to allocate scarce resources to, failure to attend to, and so forth. There are also many rewards for cognitive conformity and conforming to standards of achievement. All of these are forms of censorship, in the sense that they are, like overt censorship, means of controlling and manipulating the cognitive environment.

* Changing minds is difficult. Silencing and excluding is not. The easiest point of coercive entry into the epistemic environment is at the moment of transmission. Preventing publication, delegitimating the sources, threatening the speakers, are all common means of exercising this kind of coercion. They were lavishly employed during the Covid pandemic.

Posted in Stephen Turner | Comments Off on Epistemic Coercion

Variations in Moral Concerns across Political Ideology: Moral Foundations, Hidden Tribes, and Righteous Division

From The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (2022):

* Traditional Conservatives (19 per cent). This group is patriotic, religious, moralistic, and tends to lament what it perceives as the gradual erosion of a bygone and glorified American way of life. They tend to believe that America is a fair society, and that people’s success is the result of hard work and effort rather than luck and circumstance. They strongly approve of Donald Trump’s job performance, and tend to agree in traditional notions of American identity, such as having two American parents, speaking English, and being Christian. They tend to get their news from Fox News and from talk radio, and are suspicious of traditional media, believing that it is biased in favour of liberal causes and tends to be anti – religious. Traditional Conservatives’ more important concerns are foreign tensions, jobs, and terrorism.
Devoted Conservatives (6 per cent). This group is highly active, highly engaged, uncompromising, and nationalistic in its views. Members of this group have a higher income than any other group, and feel significantly happier and more secure than the average American. They are staunchly supportive of Donald Trump and his ‘America First’ policies, including a ban on travel from Muslim – majority countries and a wall on the US — Mexico border. They tend to oppose compromise, and are the most likely to believe there is a need to ‘defeat the evil’ within our country. They feel the most pride in the American flag, and are deeply loyal to the ideals for which it stands. Their most important issues are immigration, terrorism, jobs, and the economy.
Overall, the results revealed a number of interesting insights regarding the psychological roots of political polarization in the United States:
Tribal membership predicts political views better than self – identified political labels…. For example, support for building a wall on the US – Mexico border was predicted better by tribal membership than by self – identified ideology (as measured by the question asking people to indicate their political on a scale ranging from ‘very liberal’ to ‘very conservative’). The same was true for overall approval of Donald Trump, and beliefs that racism and sexual harassment remain serious problems in the United States. In addition, when predicting concern for each of the moral foundations, tribal membership does a significantly better job at predicting four out of the five moral foundations (purity, authority, loyalty, and fairness) than self – identified ideology. (The one exception is harm, in which there is no significant difference between the models.) Overall, this helps confirm the notion that tribal membership (obtained directly from measurements of core beliefs) is a powerful predictor of explicit political attitudes. Moreover, it helps explain the seemingly unlikely election of Donald Trump by revealing the ‘hidden tribes’ in America that would be most susceptible to his message of threat and his expressed desire to return to the putative ‘golden years’ of American greatness.

* endorsement of the care foundation is most closely correlated with the view that hate speech is a real problem in America and that sexism is pervasive. Endorsement of fairness is associated with the views, for instance, that women are paid less solely because of their gender and that the world is a dangerous place. Endorsement of the loyalty foundation is associated with pride in seeing the American flag and feeling as though being American is central to one’s identity. The authority foundation is associated with support for the Muslim travel ban and the view that the police should be more protected than Black Lives Matter activists. Endorsement of the purity foundation is associated with opposition to gay marriage and the view that changing attitudes towards sex are causing American to lose its moral foundation. Overall, these results show a strong and intuitive relationship between people’s endorsements of various moral foundations and their professed views regarding a variety of current political issues. More broadly, the results show that moral foundations have important power in predicting not just people’s underlying ideology but also their political opinions.

* perceived threat subsequently correlated with such attitudes as support for the Muslim ban, and support for the US – Mexico border wall. Another important predictor of political attitudes was parenting style. Devoted Conservatives were a full three times more likely to endorse authoritative as opposed to permissive parenting values (for instance, preferring preferring ‘good manners’ to ‘curiosity’, and ‘respect for elders’ to ‘independence’) In turn, endorsement of authoritative parenting principles positively predicted a slew of political opinions, including opposition to gay marriage, being ‘pro – life’ in the abortion debate, and believing that people’s gender is fixed at birth.
A final important difference between the tribes was in views about personal responsibility. Corroborating the observations of past research, 86 per cent of Progressive Activists believed that people’s lives are determined by forces outside their control, while 98 per cent of Devoted Conservatives believe that people are largely responsible for their own outcomes in life. These viewpoints are subsequently correlated with a variety of policy decisions. For example, those who endorse the former perspective (vs those endorsing the second) are more than twice as likely to support expanding the government safety net, 25 per cent more likely to say that refugees are America’s moral responsibility, and 35 per cent more likely to believe that women are discriminated against in the workplace.

Conservatives tend to believe that it is only through disciplined and effortful adherence to a certain set of pre – established obligations — including one’s family, one’s country, one’s religion, and existing laws and traditions — that the individual may become a good and moral person. To the liberals, by contrast, true personal success is achieved not by taming the inner spirit, but by cultivating and freeing it. Progress, therefore, is achieved by releasing people from pre – existing moral obligations, and instead allowing them to pursue their own authentic path of self – expression.

Posted in America, Ethics | Comments Off on Variations in Moral Concerns across Political Ideology: Moral Foundations, Hidden Tribes, and Righteous Division

Humor & Morality

From The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (2022):

* when one is engaged humorously one adopts a certain static ‘state of mind, a way of seeing and being, a special mental ‘set’ towards the world and one’s actions in it’ that calls for nothing. …a paratelic state precisely to distinguish it from the telic states that underwrite more serious, goal – directed forms of activity. … in laughter we often lose control of our normal abilities to act voluntarily in goal – directed ways. In laughter, muscle tone decreases and, in extreme cases, it is accompanied by the non – voluntary production of tears, and even by incontinence…

* developed comic sensibilities are, like developed moral and linguistic sensibilities, highly culturally situated.

* Richard Wiseman’s ‘Laugh Lab’ 4 reports that people from Ireland, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand prefer jokes implicating word – play, such as:
patient : ‘Doctor, I’ve got a strawberry stuck up my bum.’
doctor : ‘I’ve got some cream for that.

Americans and Canadians, in contrast, prefer jokes that seem to turn on a sense of superiority, for instance:

texan : ‘Where are you from?’
harvard grad : ‘I come from a place where we do not end our sentences with prepositions.’
texan : ‘Okay — where are you from, jackass?’

Wiseman’s data also suggests that Europeans display a preference for ‘surreal’ jokes, and for jokes about subject matter that makes many Americans uncomfortable — jokes about death, and marriage, for example. And Germans, apparently, don’t display preferences for particular kinds of jokes, but like them all equally.

* people who dislike complexity, novelty, or symmetry display a relative preference for incongruity – resolution humour: those possessed of strong preferences for incongruity – resolution relative to nonsense forms of humour also tend to prefer simple art forms, and simple patterns of dots on a card, relative to ‘fantastic’ art forms and more complex dot patterns…

* Affiliative forms of humour tend to be more popular in collectivist cultures, which emphasize the interdependence among the members of social groups, while aggressive forms of humour are more highly appreciated in societies where the needs of individuals take precedence over the needs of the group or community…

* Laughing together often is consistently cited by successful couples as something that promotes the strength of their relationships…

* In an early but well – known evolutionary theory of humour, Gruner hypothesized that laughter originated in the ‘sexy’ vocalizations that signalled victory in aggressive conflicts among our male ancestors ( Gruner 1978 ; cf. Eibl – Eibesfeldt 1973 ). Laughter, Gruner reasoned, still functions as a dominance signal that’s been updated to reflect the ways that more complex linguistic capabilities have made it possible to ‘defeat’ others in conversation.

* There is some evidence supporting a sexual selection model of humour. Women tend to laugh more than men do, and to seek out men who make them laugh; men tend to tell more jokes, and to seek out women who will laugh at their jokes ( Provine 2000 ; Lundy, Tan, and Cunningham 1998 ). Greengross and Miller (2011) found that intelligence predicts humour ability, that humour ability predicts mating success, and that males, relative to females, have more humour ability.

* comedians tend to be more suspicious than average, more intelligent, angrier, and more depressed. The early lives of the professional comedians interviewed were, moreover, typically characterized by intense feelings of isolation and deprivation. Subsequent research also suggests that many of the same familial conditions that predispose to the development of gelotophobia characterize the early lives of professional humourists: in general, comedians tend to describe their mothers very negatively, and in fact it appears that the mothers of children that go on to become professional humourists are selfish, controlling, less kind, and less likely to be intimately involved in the lives of their children than the average… the comedic skills of professional humourists are developed as a tool to cope with uncongenial family environments — in particular, as a way dealing with feeling of anxiety and rejection, and of gaining the attention and approval of otherwise dismissive parents. Following Ruch and Proyer (2009), it has been suggested that those who professionally seek out the laughter of others might be called gelotophilic. Gelotophiles more generally seek out or cultivate situations in which they can elicit the laughter of others, which is experienced as a source of joy and validation.

* self – disparaging forms of humour can facilitate depressive etiologies, and professional humourists score unusually highly on measures of psychotic traits, even relative to other creative artists and performers…

* Comic sensibilities may, then, be developed in different ways as tools to cope. But it remains unclear whether having a good sense of humour provides a good strategy for coping across the board. Abilities to produce comic materials are associated with premature mortality, and that link — like that between comedy and tragedy — may have deep roots. In a seminal study of young children, it was found that high ratings of a child’s sense of humour, from both parents and teachers, predicted a greater likelihood of dying over seven decades ( Friedman et al. 1993 ). A much more recent study found an inverse relationship between comedic talent and longevity, in a cohort of professional male comedians from Britain and Ireland ( Stewart et al. 2016 ). And it’s not just that the lifestyles of professional humourists from the UK are riskier than the average; it looks as though their level of comedic talent also matters: the funnier the comedian, the more likely they were to die prematurely. In the case of comic duos, the funnier of the two comedians was three and a half times more likely to die prematurely, relative to their partner, even after adjusting for differences in age ( Stewart et al. 2016 ).

Posted in Humor | Comments Off on Humor & Morality

The rise of the “substackademic”

Chris Bickerton writes:

A successful academic entrepreneur must make themselves their primary focus. In an odd way, the academic entrepreneur is the realisation of Foucault’s call for a “cultivation of the self”. The constant curation of one’s status as a source of insights is the route to success…

To whom do academic entrepreneurs address themselves exactly? Instead of creating a new public through the elaboration of a distinctive body of thought, academic entrepreneurs more often than not address each other and a small quasi-public drawn from a narrow social elite, such as those who will pay for the insights the academic entrepreneur provides. The “substackademic” will struggle to go beyond a relatively closed conversation with like-minded individuals, one where the conversation itself is driven by the search for Likes and Up-votes.

The final and perhaps greatest danger is that by breaking free from the academy, the academic entrepreneur is exposed to all the vagaries of corporate and political power. Political and social elites are the core audience for the academic entrepreneur, making them dependent upon their interest and goodwill. Speaking truth to power when one is entirely dependent upon its munificence is a perilous enterprise.

…research in the social sciences is dominated by lots of little dots; what is missing are the threads to bring these dots together. Many of today’s thinkers are not from within the academy at all. They are professional writers, or occasionally journalists who have risen above the cut and thrust of chasing news to devote themselves to writing.

News and intellectual labor rarely pay for themselves.

Posted in Academia | Comments Off on The rise of the “substackademic”

Decoding the Trump Transition (12-3-24)

04:00 Hunter Pardon, Day 2, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme1_gt4GJM
11:00 The “If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor” Pardon and Kash Patel,
https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/the-if-you-like-your-doctor-you-can
17:30 Say Nothing tv show, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_Nothing_(TV_series)
19:30 Americans used to be known for their plain speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0arXVZ72hvI
24:20 Inflation was the result of Biden’s failed attempt to buy off voters, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0arXVZ72hvI
27:00 Joe Biden’s Ukraine catastrophe
31:20 Donald Trump & Gaza, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViqsVFGazLs
34:20 Jesse Waters
43:00 Are Democrats too nice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViqsVFGazLs
47:20 If you’ve met one Irishman, one Aussie, one Brit, one Frenchman, one Jap, you’ve met them all, but not with Americans, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/supplementary-material-19-critic-o-rama-with-extra-trans-dimensional-alien-demons
51:20 Jordan Petersen’s lazy Christian apologetics
59:00 Are there are any proud Biden Democrats?
1:08:00 Kip joins to discuss morality in America
1:17:30 Mike Benz does not optimize for truth
1:21:00 What is the nature of truth?
1:28:00 My different experiences with God, Christianity & Judaism
1:40:00 Why We Don’t Change (and what you can do about it) | Dr. Ross Ellenhorn, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTzA15BQzHo
1:42:00 The buffered identity, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=149512
1:43:00 The Embodied Expression Of The Elite Attitude, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=157628
1:48:00 Smart people ‘especially prone to tribalism, virtue signaling and self-deception’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158031
1:52:00 ‘Trump Is De-Stereotyping Republican Foreign Policy’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158024

Posted in America | Comments Off on Decoding the Trump Transition (12-3-24)