Decoding Decoding The Gurus

I love this center-left podcast by two center-left academics (Christopher Kavanagh and Matthew Brown) decoding the new breed of secular gurus (such as Jordan Peterson, Ibram X. Kendi, Eric and Bret Weinstein, Joe Rogan) by examining their facts and logic.

Here is an overview of their mission:

By guru we refer to the standard definition of “an influential teacher or popular expert” but our specific focus tends to be the subset of gurus who make liberal use of ‘pseudo profound bullshit’ referring to speech that is persuasive and creates the appearance of profundity with little regard for truth or reference to relevant expertise. The recurring characteristics identified collectively trend towards negative traits, so a high score on the gurometer could be regarded as identifying ‘bad’, potentially exploitative gurus who produce ersatz wisdom: a corrupt epistemics that creates the appearance of useful knowledge, but has none of the substance. The characteristics identified have not been empirically validated but are based on our personal assessments. Taken together, they help us in the task of spotting gurus in the wild.
Galaxy-brainness
Galaxy-brainness is an ironic descriptor of someone who presents ideas that appear to be too profound for an average mind to comprehend, but are in truth reasonably trivial if not nonsensical. Gurus often present themselves as fonts of wisdom, and it is an all-encompassing kind of knowledge that tends to span multiple disciplines and topics. Their arguments often link together disparate concepts, such as quantum mechanics, logic, and the nature of consciousness. A guru will often present themselves as a polymath, who can offer novel insights with reference to many different fields. They will often allude to their own accomplishments, and exaggerate them to a shameless degree. They will confidently offer hot takes on technical topics, and with a wave of their hand, dismiss the perspectives of genuine experts. This is, of course, a confidence trick that relies on the recipient being convinced of their unique intellectual powers. Various performative flourishes can assist in this deception, such as unnecessary references to high or specialist literature, the use of jargon and technical terms. On closer inspection, these references can often be recognised to be entirely superfluous and largely tangential to the argument being presented. However, the recipient is not expected to dig too deeply or to fully understand the references being made. Indeed, they are probably most effective when the recipient does not understand them at all; they are merely allusions intended to signal a deep level of knowledge.

I want to do a little decoding of their decoding.

In their latest episode,guest Robert Wright says: “You should be able to talk about that [cognitive empathy for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine] without being accused of repeating Putin talking points. I was against NATO expansion in the 1990s.”

Kavanagh: “This Russian official said we regard Ukraine as an important part of our sphere of influence. The West is trying to take this strategic ally and pull them into their orbit. They had a leader who was more pro-Russian and was ousted and they want to draw closer ties to the EU. And all through that conversation, the thing that struck me, and I think I’m more sensitive to it because I’m from Ireland, which way they orientate their foreign policy? What group or society they want to be closer to?”

Great question. And if Kavanagh had gone deeper, he would have seen that there are no rights here. There’s no higher authority to turn to resolve this dispute. Rights, generally speaking, over have meaning within particular nation-states at particular times. Those rights are extended by countries to their citizens. There are no universal human rights because there is no universal power with the capacity to protect those rights. The United Nations, for example, has no power to guarantee anybody’s rights.

With international relations, we’re all stuck in an iron cage together and nobody is coming to rescue us. Whatever rights we build come from taking power in a part of that iron cage and making ourselves as powerful as possible to minimize incentives for others to fight us.

There are various declarations about international human rights, but they have no power. The human rights movement developed in the 1970s after left-wing activists became disillusioned with politics but still wanted to act in a way that feels virtuous, so they wrapped themselves in the mantle of international morality. Prior to this development, human rights were understood as rights extended by nation states to their citizens.

Kavanagh: “Tough luck. You are not the rulers.”

If Russia invades and take territory from Ukraine, Russia is the ruler.

Kavanagh: “You can put pressure on them.”

Russia doesn’t have to abide my Chris Kavanagh’s feelings. The only basis for his declaration of international human rights is his feelings but his feelings aren’t dispositive. Wars don’t end or fail to start because of Chris Kavanagh’s feelings. If he had an argument, he’d make the argument, but as he has no argument, all he can enunciate is that feels something.

Kavanagh: “What you can’t do is send people into the country and deny that you’re doing it.”

And yet that is what happened. Kavanagh can deny reality until the cows come home, and yet reality is.

So we have this academic who’s normally so rational and logical crying out against reality and wailing that what is should not be. And on what basis? Because Chris Kavanagh has feelings opposed to reality. If Kavanagh wants to cite international law as the basis for his argument, then who enforces international law? Nobody unless some other powerful nation wants to enlist international law in its own interests.

The first and foremost task for any state is to survive and if you don’t put your survival above international law, you’re not going to survive for long. America violates international law all the time when it is in its interests to do so.

This is the way of the world and always has been — the strong take what they want and the weak endure what they must.

That you don’t like this and you feel that because the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that you, Chris, were to carry Excalibur and rule the cosmos is not dispositive.

Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Kavanagh: “Militarily annex parts of the country. And that’s what they did. And the way the person spoke about it, Ukraine doesn’t have the right not to be in Russia’s sphere of influence and they don’t have the right to be closer to NATO.”

What rights does Ukraine possess? The rights it can protect. No more and no less. And in the protection of its rights, it is going to crush a ton of other rights, because nations will do anything to survive.

But they won’t do that? No, they’ll do that too.

Kavanagh: “And when it comes to NATO membership, I’m always stuck with the feeling…”

That’s all you have on this, mate. Your feelz. Strange feelings lying deep inside about enforcing universal human rights is no basis for a system of international relations. Supreme power derives from supreme military power backed by supreme economic power, not from some farcical emotional ceremony.

You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery feeling threw a moral mandate at you!

Kavanagh: “Ukraine was on the precipice of entering NATO and that wasn’t the case.”

Ukraine was a de facto part of NATO. Just because it wasn’t officially a part of NATO doesn’t mean it wasn’t unofficially a part of NATO. A lot of what is unofficial is more real than what is official. In some places, for example, the unofficial economy is far bigger than the official economy. The unofficial gossip you get from coworkers is often more real than the employee handbook.

Russia is struggling against Ukraine because it is primarily fighting NATO, not Ukraine.

Kavanagh: “If Ukraine was admitted to NATO, that is their right.”

A right granted and enforced by whom? You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery feeling threw a moral mandate at you!

How many battalions does international law command?

How many battalions does universal human rights command?

How many battalions does Chris Kavanagh’s feelings command?

About as many as I command.

I DM’d Kavanagh on Twitter May 29, 2022: “I was just reading Ronald Coase’s 1974 paper on the free market of ideas, and I was wondering when did this cease to get the default support of intellectuals? I think it was after the rise of the internet when university intellectuals had the unpleasant experience of being critiqued by those they regarded as their inferiors? It’s a bit like the press being all for freedom for themselves but not for broadcasters. Intellectuals are all for their own freedom of expression, but not for the masses online.”

I got no response. Kavanagh says on the show that he actively engages with people on Twitter DM, but he found no reason to engage with me.

Posted in Academia | Comments Off on Decoding Decoding The Gurus

The News Is What Bureaucracies Report

If you can’t base your news on a bureaucratic report, you’re swimming outside the normal news business (because you can’t normally get sued for reporting what a bureaucracy reports).

I’m reading Paul Pringle’s 2022 book (Bad City: Peril and Power in the City of Angels). He criticizes people who won’t speak to him, but when I reached out to Paul, twice, he apparently sent my interview requests to his publicist, where they died. So Paul Pringle is no different in this respect from the people he criticizes. Paul wants his subjects to speak to him, but Paul won’t speak to me.

Paul’s book has stirred controversy, and I’m unaware of any deep interview with Paul following its publication to get his responses to the criticism.

I’ve also reached out to the major characters in this book and they also did not respond to me.

Here are some key excerpts from this new book:

* But a key line [in the Pasadena police report] was not redacted—the one listing witnesses to the overdose. Entered there was the name of a single witness: “Puliafito, Carmen Anthony.” His relationship to the victim was described as “friend,” and the rest of the line noted that he was a sixty-five-year-old white male. Finally.

I now had an official record that placed Puliafito at the scene of the overdose. The most important element of Khan’s tip was now confirmed. The pressure on USC and Nikias to tell the truth about the dean was about to become crushing.

* Matters had descended to a level where the government of Pasadena, an affluent city of international repute—home of the Tournament of Roses and the California Institute of Technology—refused to decode for the region’s newspaper of record the bureaucratic shorthand on a publicly available form.

So now, as I had told the mayor it might be, the story was as much about the Pasadena cover-up as it was about Puliafito and USC.

* USC had come to regard the editor and publisher of the Times as someone in service to the university. They reminded me that the broader relationship of USC and the newspaper had changed. A balance of power that existed
between USC and the Times for generations had been subverted—so that it had become tilted in USC’s favor. Numbers-wise, this was no revelation—not for the past ten years or so. As the Times reeled from sharp declines in print circulation, revenues, and the size of its staff, USC had enjoyed a boom decade. The university was erecting more and more buildings as it expanded its campus, while the newspaper could no longer even claim title to its headquarters: Tribune had spun the Times and its other papers into a separate company; it kept the Spring Street landmark in the original company and then sold it. And as layoffs at the Times became as regular as the seasons, USC’s remained one of the largest employers in L.A.

* [Matt] Lait and I agreed we would do this quietly—that is, without telling Maharaj and Duvoisin. We were certain they would not approve of the added reporting firepower, even though editors routinely threw more staffers at stories that had the potential to deliver a significant impact. So the expanded USC team would be kept secret from the top editors of the newspaper, on a story of considerable importance to them and the city. It was beyond extraordinary and a sorrowful sign of the distress the Times had fallen into.

And it was risky. Maharaj and Duvoisin could view our actions as insubordinate, and I had heard of instances in which they apparently punished those they perceived as disloyal, critical of their decisions, or in any way a threat to their positions. Maharaj and Duvoisin ordered a Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter in the Sacramento area to relocate almost immediately to L.A. after she raised an ethical concern about their acceptance of a grant from an organization that had a conflict of interest with her reporting. For weeks, the reporter, Paige St. John, was forced to drive 430 miles to L.A. on Sundays and sleep on colleagues’ spare beds and even in her car during the workweek, then drive back home on Friday evenings. And after he took the beating in Los Angeles Magazine, Maharaj
overruled other masthead editors in ordering that the Times’s Pulitzer Prize nomination of the opioid series be submitted as a “staff” entry, rather than as the work of the three reporters who produced it. That meant the reporters’ names would not appear on the prize if the series won (it did not). This was widely seen in the newsroom as a particularly cruel act of retribution; I believed Maharaj suspected the reporters cooperated with the Los Angeles Magazine writer, even though there was no evidence of that.

* None of us had ever imagined that we would have to sneak around in the Times Building and go dark on company email to report a story. It was the type of stealth insurgency against corporate management that we covered in other industries.

* Nikias maintained his silence except for the occasional letters he sent to the Trojan family. In one of them, he announced that the university had hired the former U.S. attorney for the Los Angeles region, Debra Wong Yang, to lead an investigation of the scandal, an inquiry that Yang promised would be separate from the administration.

That was hard to swallow. Yang was a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a mega-firm with an international presence whose connections to USC were circuit board–like. The firm’s managing partner, Kenneth Doran, was a graduate of the university’s Gould School of Law and served on its board of councilors. Doran and his colleagues at Gibson Dunn were donors to the school. And Yang taught at Gould in the 1990s and later represented USC in several lawsuits. Yang told the Times her investigation would be “independent,” adding, “My job is to take it wherever the facts go.” The USC reporting team, the Trojan family, and L.A. at large never learned where those facts took Yang. Whatever she found remained secret, despite expectations that her report would be made public—and that the whole point of the investigation had seemed to be transparency and disclosure.

* Yang wasn’t the only lawyer with USC ties who played a role in the Puliafito affair; another was Jackie Lacey, the L.A. County district attorney.

* She held her swearing-in ceremony at the Galen Center, USC’s basketball arena. Nikias was among the speakers.
“One dedicated Trojan, Mr. Steve Cooley, is passing on the baton to another dedicated Trojan,” he told the audience, “and I am very proud and honored to be here today.”

Lacey gave it back in her inaugural speech. “It is a privilege to be sworn into office on the University of Southern California campus,” she said. “I thank President Nikias and the leaders of this distinguished university.… USC represents so much to me personally. It has been like the iconic center of some of the most important events of my life.”

Nikias later awarded Lacey an honorary degree on behalf of USC. She keynoted a fundraising gala for the law school and participated in other university events. Now, medical board investigators were asking Lacey’s office to consider bringing criminal charges against Puliafito, including a felony count for providing drugs to Charles Warren when he was underage.

* The evidence presented to Lacey’s office was compelling, but the investigators struck out. During Lacey’s first term, three USC football players were accused of violent crimes, but none was prosecuted. Among the players who walked free was Osa Masina, who later pleaded guilty in a Utah sexual assault case, in which the victim was the same woman he had been accused of attacking in L.A.

Another case Lacey’s prosecutors took a pass on involved a Trojan with much more clout than a football player. Jack Leonard and I published an investigative story that showed thousands of dollars in taxpayer-financed
improvements were made to the home of L.A. County supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas. We reported that county crews performed the work—all without permits—on the orders of administrators who ultimately reported to Ridley-Thomas, one of the most powerful politicians in L.A. In response to our story, Lacey’s office opened an investigation into whether the work amounted to a misappropriation of public funds.

* Seven years later, a federal grand jury indicted Ridley-Thomas on charges of accepting bribes from a USC social sciences dean in exchange for directing county funds to the school. The bribes were in the form of a USC job and scholarship for Ridley-Thomas’s son. The supervisor denied the charges.

At least Lacey’s office conducted something of a probe, even if halfblinkered, into Ridley-Thomas’s home improvement project. It extended no such effort to Puliafito. A month after the medical board investigators
referred their findings to the office, prosecutors decided not to charge him, stating that the “current state of the case does not establish sufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.” The DA’s office arrived at that conclusion without even speaking to the Warrens, the family told me.

* With Lacey’s team passing on the case, USC did not have to worry about a more thorough criminal investigation of Puliafito than the medical board could do. Nor would it face the daily headlines of a Puliafito trial.
But there were still all those photos and videos of the drug parties Puliafito paid for. The Warrens had shared many of the images with the medical board investigators but kept copies on their phones and computers and a
hard drive. The photos and videos in the family’s possession would be available if they were subpoenaed in any future civil or criminal case. And they would remain a potential source of embarrassment to USC.

* [Mark] Geragos had told the Warrens that their civil claim against USC and Puliafito could be worth $10 million or more. He persuaded them to go into mediation for a quicker payout than would be possible through a lawsuit.
The mediator Geragos agreed to was Dickran Tevrizian, a retired federal judge who was a Trojan through and through. Tevrizian held degrees in finance and law from USC, a USC scholarship fund was named for him, and the university honored him with its prestigious Alumni Merit Award. His wife and three siblings were also Trojans. The Warrens told me they had been unaware of any of Tevrizian’s USC connections until after his selection as the mediator—and then they were told only that he was an alumnus. Even that didn’t sit well with Paul Warren, who asked Geragos how Tevrizian could be an impartial arbiter of the family’s claim against his alma mater. Geragos assured him that Tevrizian was a good choice.

(Tevrizian later insisted to me that he had disclosed his Trojan ties to all the parties in the mediation. When I asked him if he had anything in writing to support that, he replied that he would no longer engage with me.)

Everything about the mediation was secret—the participants, the nature of the claim, and the outcome—so my reporting on it had been limited, including with respect to Tevrizian’s role. But I did learn that USC’s lawyers played hardball with the Warrens, with threats to shame them publicly over their own conduct, which the family saw as a smear in the making. One of Geragos’s associates handled most of the case, and the hoped-for $10 million became a $1.5 million offer from USC. The associate persuaded the Warrens to accept it to avoid an interminable and vicious court battle. Of the $1.5 million, $600,000 went to the Geragos firm, a handsome payday for the lawyers.

In return for their end of the money, the Warrens had to agree in writing to never speak publicly about the issues in the mediation—meaning all their encounters with Puliafito—and to help USC quash any subpoenas that might be issued for testimony or records about the ex-dean. It was the sort of nondisclosure agreement that the #MeToo movement, ignited months earlier by the sexual assault allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, wanted scraped from the legal landscape.

There were two more conditions for the Warrens: The family had to surrender to USC all those photos and videos of Puliafito doing drugs, along with any emails, text messages, or anything on paper about him or the university. And the Warrens had to destroy their copies of the images. If they didn’t, there would be no money. Who were they to reject the advice of a famous lawyer? So the deed was accomplished when the lawyers marshaled Paul, Mary Ann, Sarah, and Charles to a tech shop in downtown L.A., where the photos and videos were deleted from their phones and
computers—a wipe so thorough that they had to create new Apple IDs when it was completed.

Puliafito was part of the mediation agreement. He and his lawyer signed it, as did attorneys for USC—including Yang. She apparently saw the muzzling of the Warrens and the destruction of their evidence of Puliafito’s
drug crimes as part of her charge to conduct an “independent” investigation of the scandal. After I learned of the wiping of the devices, I contacted Yang. She would not speak to me or answer written questions I sent her.
Geragos also refused to be interviewed. Through his attorney, Nikias said he knew nothing about the mediation agreement, even though one of the attorneys who signed it for USC, the university’s general counsel, reported
to him. Lacey said she was unaware that the photos and videos and other material were destroyed. “That should be looked into,” she said. As far as I could determine, it was not.

The Warrens’ devices were wiped in November 2017. That was a month after the death of Dora Yoder’s infant boy, a twenty-five-day-old who had meth in his body. The tragedy brought Los Angeles County sheriff’s homicide detectives into Puliafito’s life.

* The LAPD opened what would become one of the city’s biggest sexual abuse investigations ever. Before arresting Tyndall and charging him with twenty-nine felonies (he pleaded not guilty), detectives would spend a year interviewing witnesses and alleged victims all over the United States. But there was one person they didn’t even ask to speak to: Max Nikias. As far as I could determine, the LAPD and the district attorney’s office kept the
investigation confined to Tyndall. They showed no interest in learning whether USC administrators had violated any laws in how they responded to the complaints about Tyndall’s abuse of patients. That was in glaring contrast to the broader investigations of the sexual assault cases involving former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky and former Michigan State University physician Larry Nassar. In those probes, authorities examined the actions of university administrators, which resulted in criminal charges against the presidents of both schools.

* Audry Nafziger said Tyndall abused her when she was a USC law student in 1990. She went on to work for many years as a sex crimes prosecutor for the DA’s office in neighboring Ventura County. “If you’re not looking, you’re never going to find anything,” Nafziger said of the failure of L.A. investigators to conduct an inquiry into USC administrators. “Why is USC different from Penn State? Why is it different from Michigan State?”

* When he bought the Times, Soon-Shiong hired [Norman] Pearlstine, the former top editor at The Wall Street Journal and Time Inc., to run our newsroom. He’d been in the job for eighteen months when Jack and I walked into his office to discuss a possible conflict of interest involving two largely softball pieces Pearlstine had written about Huawei, the Chinese communications giant U.S. officials suspected was an arm of Beijing. Another Times reporter and I had learned that Pearlstine, before joining the paper, served as a consultant to a Toronto-based company whose subsidiary claimed to do business with Huawei. And a Chinese national whom Pearlstine had hired
for a tech position at the Times, Max Wu, was actually an officer in the Toronto company; he had a byline with Pearlstine on one of the Huawei stories and a credit line on the other. Jack and I believed that, at minimum,
the stories should have included an editor’s note informing the reader of the ties between the Toronto firm and Pearlstine and Wu. But Pearlstine started shouting almost as soon as we asked him about it. He said there was no
conflict. And an editor’s note never appeared.

* Pearlstine had been losing more and more support in the newsroom, including for making only anemic moves to diversify our mostly white staff. He rebuffed calls for his resignation. A fresh sexual harassment scandal shook the paper, forcing the resignation of the man Pearlstine had hired to run the Times’s Food section. With the walls drawing close, Pearlstine’s resolve to block the Ching stories seemed to falter. The piece on Ching’s dabbling in veterinary medicine finally ran, and it triggered an investigation by the L.A. city attorney and then criminal charges. Ching eventually was convicted after pleading no contest. Pearlstine had almost spared him that fate.

Over the ensuing months, allegations of other ethical transgressions at the Times surfaced, including those involving conflicts of interest. There were embarrassing stories about the paper in other publications, and then in our own pages, and that was it for Pearlstine. In December 2020, he announced his retirement and returned, with no fanfare, to New York.

* A year and a half after his firing, [Davan] Maharaj’s tenure at the Times made news again. NPR’s Folkenflik, with some clandestine help from me, reported that Maharaj had received a secret payment of more than $2.5 million from pretronc Tribune after threatening to sue the company for wrongful termination. Folkenflik’s story revealed that Maharaj made a surreptitious recording of [Michael] Ferro saying that Southern California billionaire and philanthropist Eli Broad was part of a “Jewish cabal” that ran L.A. The decision by Tribune and Ferro to pay off Maharaj, as Folkenflik wrote, kept Ferro’s anti-Semitic epithet hidden from the public. Maharaj should have
immediately exposed it, but he instead concealed it ultimately for his financial benefit. Through a spokesman, Ferro denied to NPR that he uttered the slur. Maharaj’s attorney told the outlet his client was not paid to keep anything secret and the settlement reflected his “almost 30 years of exceptional service” to the Times. Apart from a role in a small journalism nonprofit based in Jamaica, Maharaj faded from view in the media world.

[Marc] Duvoisin fared better in the business. He landed an at-large editing job at the Houston Chronicle and later became editor in chief of the Chronicle’s sister paper, the San Antonio Express-News. Nobody at either publication
had reached out to the USC reporting team for a reference on him.

Posted in Journalism, Los Angeles, USC | Comments Off on The News Is What Bureaucracies Report

Donny Pauling – From PK To Porner To Pastor To Convict To Truck Driver (8-5-22)

00:20 Thirteen Lives movie
02:00 Christian nationalism
10:00 Ex-pornographer, ex-pastor Donny Pauling joins the show, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Donny_Pauling
12:30 Ex-Chico pornographer who turned to God charged with sex crimes involving minors, https://www.newsreview.com/chico/content/porn-preacher-popped/16513680/
1:01:00 Shelley Lubben, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_Lubben
1:03:00 Former Porn Pastor Craig Gross Expands Evangelical Boundaries Again with Christian Cannabis, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-porn-pastor-craig-gross-expands-evangelical-boundaries-again-with-christian-cannabis-301468617.html

Posted in America, Pornography | Comments Off on Donny Pauling – From PK To Porner To Pastor To Convict To Truck Driver (8-5-22)

Liberals, race, religion, bigots, essentialism (8-4-22)

The Left derides those who ascribe essential qualities to Jews, Christians, Muslims, blacks, whites, Anglos, Germans, Japanese, Nigerians. And the Left is right. Just because somebody is a member of one of these groups does not determine anything. There is no self (we’re different in different situations) and no true Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc (because Jews, Christians and Muslims have many differences and they’re all different in different situations). Ancestry, upbringing, culture, situations and incentives affect how people behave. So too, just because someone says something ugly on a podcast does not make them a hater or a bigot. The Left wants to ascribe essential qualities to people who say bad things.

Generalizing is an inherent part of being human and is distinct from essentializing. When we generalize that Ashkenazi Jews don’t normally work in blue collar jobs, we’re probably right about 80% of the time. When we generalize that Ashkenazi Jews in America are not poor, we’re probably right about 80% of the time. With generalizing, I would expect, comes an awareness that we’re generalizing and that we’re doing it to save time and bandwidth. For example, a proselytizing Jehovah’s Witness is generally of no interest to me, and so I generally ignore them, but I understand that some of them might be interesting and in exceptional circumstances, worthy of a conversation. When we essentialize, meaning we attribute certain essential qualities to somebody because of their group or because of something they’ve said or done, we lack awareness.

Both generalizing and essentializing should be circumscribed by contingency. My goodness and my badness is contingent upon circumstance. My loudness and my quietness is contingent upon circumstances. Almost everything is contingent and situational. At most, specific personalities and moral characters are domain specific. In this domain, this person tends to be reliably in this direction. At work, Joe tends to be industrious while in the religious sphere, he tends to be lazy. Jane tends to be diligent with her accounting work but loose with her love. Shlomo is precise with his religious observance but flexible with his business ethics.

Richard Spencer says “Christianity is a loser religion.” There’s no essential Christianity. There’s no inherent or even generalized connection between losing and Christianity.

What people say about themselves bears only a passing resemblance to the truth. My father told me that religion in America is a mile wide and an inch deep. Most Americans claim to be Christians but for only a tiny minority does it affect how they behave (as opposed to regular church-goers in Europe and Australia who lead religiously-infused lives distinctly different from the majority). Christian nationalists these days tend to not be very Christian. Christian is a safe uniting identity for majority white groups who want to organize in their self-interest against an onrushing tide of Leftism.

Everybody wants to rule the world, everybody wants to feel cosmically special. Christian nationalist is one growing way of doing this.

Richard talks (40 minutes in) about Christianity inspiring people to have babies. I think it would be truer to say that in America, people who want to have babies are more likely to identify with Christianity. Once you decide on your sex life (monogamous or adventurous), your religious choices follow.

Richard asks why Christians are so against eugenics. Well, in America, it is a reaction to the globalist and libertine ethic. Christians having a positive or negative view on eugenics is contingent on the situation.

Posted in America, Ethics | Comments Off on Liberals, race, religion, bigots, essentialism (8-4-22)

Nancy Pelosi Risks WWIII To Burnish Her Legacy (8-4-22)

02:00 Tucker Carlson tonight
16:00 Nancy Pelosi visits Taiwan
17:00 Cuban missile crisis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
20:00 The Situation Zoom: Pelosi Visits Taiwan | GoodFellows: Conversations From The Hoover Institution, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ-4EM-pfRU
40:00 Dooovid joins
42:00 Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: The Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia 2, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144294
1:11:20 Practical identity, https://www.commentary.org/articles/joseph-epstein/grief-psychology-philosophy/
1:16:00 Guardian: “Many People – Even Many Queer People – Have Internalized the Idea That Contracting Sexually Transmitted Infections Is Bad”, https://www.unz.com/isteve/guardian-many-people-even-many-queer-people-have-internalized-the-idea-that-contracting-sexually-transmitted-infections-is-bad/
1:18:00 Monkeypox just the latest virus to threaten gay intimacy, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/02/monkeypox-gay-lgbt-sex-intimacy
1:33:00 Alt-Right Homer Simpson
1:35:30 Richard Spencer on the Catholic menace
1:42:00 Anthony Cumia and Kevin Brennan Cover Kerryn Feehan’s OnlyFans

Posted in America | Comments Off on Nancy Pelosi Risks WWIII To Burnish Her Legacy (8-4-22)

The End Of Globalization Means The Lights Go Out (8-3-22)

00:20 Tucker Carlson on last night’s primary results
14:00 Jordan Peterson says the world is getting better
18:00 Economic Disaster is Already Here – Peter Zeihan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjYDcuOlK_M
29:30 Dooovid joins, https://twitter.com/RebDoooovid
40:20 Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: The Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia, Part Two, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144294
59:00 Conservatives skeptical of coronavirus vaccines battle to lead a hospital, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/30/florida-hospital-conservatives-sarasota-election/
1:07:40 Medical Education Goes Woke, https://www.wsj.com/articles/medical-training-goes-woke-association-of-american-medical-colleges-doctors-11658871789?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
1:27:20 Ken Brown, Liars on the Right #9: Stephen Miller, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5SMKwIuIp4
1:41:30 STRIKE AND MIKE – THE INFAMOUS ORBAN RACIST COMMENTS

Posted in Alt Right, America | Comments Off on The End Of Globalization Means The Lights Go Out (8-3-22)

The Rise Of Christian Nationalism (8-2-22)

00:30 China is an ethno-state (Han)
01:30 China did not celebrate Nancy Pelosi’s arrival in Taiwan
22:00 From Proud Feudal Lord To Cringing Courtier, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144484
26:00 WEHT to Minneapolis?
30:30 Christian nationalism, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144498
38:50 Why did Beverly Hills High go downhill?
43:30 Dooovid joins, https://twitter.com/RebDoooovid
1:02:00 Love songs turning into lust songs
1:52:00 Richard Spencer, Mark Brahmin on Q Anon

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Rise Of Christian Nationalism (8-2-22)

Why Is There Christian Nationalism?

Orthodox Jews today are more observant and more educated in Torah than Orthodox Jews at any previous time in history. Why? Because in our secular world, it takes far more effort to identify as Orthodox.

I hear that today’s Christian nationalism is a new thing in America. I’m no expert on Christian nationalism, but it seems to me that just as Orthodox Jews have to go to greater efforts to maintain their identity than did their predecessors in America, so too Christians have to go further to maintain their hero-system.

We all live by stories. We make our meaning collectively. When there’s same-sex marriage, that diminishes the meaning of traditional marriage. If we are to hold on to our belief about our special place in the cosmos, we have to go to greater efforts today than we did yesterday.

Christian nationalism is a reality-enhancing device for people who want to hold on to their story. At a different time and place, these people would have no use for Christian nationalism, but now that the Christian story and the Christian hero-system is increasingly disdained by our elites and their institutions, the Christian has to go to greater lengths to protect his understanding of himself (which depends upon his hero-system).

One reason we’re so unhappy these days is that our natural, normal and healthy sense of superiority is reduced by the presence of so many alternative hero-systems in our midst (hero-systems that are frequently privileged over our own) and we see how other groups see themselves as cosmically special and that reduces our ability to believe that we’re special.

Nationalism is a mindset. Who do we think is our in-group? Race matters, but so does culture, geography and religion. The more we have in common with others, the closer we feel to them. Diversity means we have little in common with others. To build a coherent cohesive high-trust society in America requires building up the dominant in-group and one way of doing that is Christian nationalism. Examples of Christian nationalists include Nick Fuentes, Godward Podcast, and Milo Yiannopoulos. They appear disenchanted by America, by Republicans, and by the Alt Right, so instead of building an in-group around something socially stigmatized such as white nationalism, they instead choose to build around Christianity. “Christ is king” is easier to say than “Hitler did nothing wrong.”

I don’t think Christian nationalism in America has much to do with Christianity beyond using it as an agreed-upon story and hero-system for people who don’t have other stronger in-group identities.

Here are some related thoughts by philosopher Rony Guldmann:

* Martha Nussbaum: “What inspires disgust is typically the male thought of the male homosexual, imagined as anally penetrable. The idea of semen and feces mixing together inside the body of a male is one of the most disgusting ideas imaginable—to males, for whom the idea of nonpenetrability is a sacred boundary against stickiness, ooze, and death. The presence of a homosexual male in the neighborhood inspires the thought that one might oneself lose one’s clean safeness, become the receptacle for those animal products. Thus disgust is ultimately disgust at one’s own imagined penetrability and ooziness, and this is why the male homosexual is both regarded with disgust and viewed with fear as a predator who might make everyone else disgusting.”

* Ernest Becker calls hero-systems: “The fact is that this is what society is and always has been: a symbolic action system, a structure of statuses and roles, customs and rules of behavior, designed to serve as a vehicle for earthly heroism. Each script is somewhat unique, each culture has a different hero system. What the anthropologists call “cultural relativity” is thus really the relativity of hero-systems the world over. But each cultural system cuts out roles for earthly heroics; each system cuts out roles for performances of various degrees of heroism: from the “high” heroism of a Churchill, a Mao, or a Buddha, to the “low” heroism of the coal miner, the peasant, the simple priest, the plain, everyday, earthy heroism wrought by gnarled working hands guiding a family through hunger and disease.

“It doesn’t matter whether the cultural hero-system is frankly magical, religious, and primitive or secular, scientific, and civilized. It is still a mythical hero-system in which people serve in order to earn a feeling of primary value, of cosmic specialness, of ultimate usefulness to creation, of unshakable meaning. They earn this feeling by carving out a place in nature, by building an edifice that reflects human value: a temple, a cathedral, a totem pole, a skyscraper, a family that lasts three generations. The hope and belief is that the things that man creates in society are of lasting worth and meaning, that they outlive or outshine death and decay, that man and his products count. When Norman O. Brown said that Western society since Newton, no matter how scientific or secular it claims to be, is still as “religious” as any other, this is what he meant: “civilized” society is a hopeful belief and protest that science, money and goods make man count for more than any other animal. In this sense everything that man does is religious and heroic, and yet in danger of being fictitious and fallible.”

* Peter Berger observers, “[I]t may be assumed that a musician in the making in contemporary America must commit himself to music with an emotional intensity that was unnecessary in nineteenth century Vienna, precisely because in the American situation there is powerful competition from what will subjectively appear as the ‘materialistic’ and ‘mass culture’ world of the ‘rat race.’ Similarly, religious training in a pluralistic situation posits the need for ‘artificial’ techniques of reality-accentuation that are unnecessary in a situation dominated by religious monopoly. It is still ‘natural’ to become a Catholic priest in Rome in a way that it is not in America. Consequently, American theological seminaries must cope with the problem of ‘reality-slippage’ and devise techniques for ‘making stick’ the same reality.”

* If reality-accentuation is in order, this is because the meanings which sustain our self-understandings cannot serve this function while being recognized as mere fictions of the human mind, and must rather be upheld as transcendent existences immune to the vagaries of human predilection—forces “to be reckoned with.” The sense that others have a hand in upholding—or in failing to uphold—an order of things upon which we all depend may seem downright mystical. But framed in another way, it becomes commonsensical. Human beings do not merely entertain an understanding of “what individuals may reasonably expect of one another” but also of “what is to be done.” Our relations are mediated, not only by contractual or quasi-contractual understanding, but also by a shared sense of things’ significance which all have a hand in sustaining.

* Our identities presuppose particular social narratives. And others’ failure to satisfactorily play their parts in the story can upend our efforts to play our own. They can cause “reality-slippage” because their decision to go off-script can upset the plausibility of the narrative against which our own identities are plausible. Just like a movie, our identities can continue to engross us only to the degree that their narrative coherence is established and preserved. Whether or not we elect to designate this narrative coherence as “moral order,” we may all be threatened by those whose actions impliedly call into question the basic purposes governing our lives. What Justice Blackmun calls “mere knowledge that other individuals do not adhere to one’s value system” can present such just a threat, not as an isolated piece of information, but as a data point that resists the narrative that sustains our identities. Deviant behavior contaminates the data set, and so impacts the narrative that may be extrapolated from it.

* Ernest Becker: “[o]ne culture is always a potential menace to another because it is a living example that life can go on heroically within a value framework totally alien to one’ own.”

* In revealing the fictional nature of one culture’s answers to these questions, another culture can undermine the necessary precondition of a hero-system, and thereby to reduce its adherents to the status of animals among animals.

* we have all been “cemented” or “harnessed” to a particular way of life. Becker explains why:
“You get a good feeling for what the self “looks like” in its extensions if you imagine the person to be a cylinder with a hollow inside, in which is lodged the self. Out of this cylinder the self overflows and extends into the surroundings, as a kind of huge amoeba, pushing its pseudopods to a wife, a car, a flag, a crushed flower in a secret book. The picture you get is of a huge invisible amoeba spread out over the landscape, with boundaries very far from its own center or home base. Tear and burn the flag, find and destroy the flower in the book, and the amoeba screams with soul-searing pain.
“Usually we extend these pseudopods not only to things we hold dear, but also to silly things; our selves are cluttered up with things we don’t need, artificial things, debilitating ones. For example, if you extend a pseudopod to your house, as most people do, you might also extend it to the inventory of an interior decorating program. And so you get vitally upset by a piece of wallpaper that bulges, a shelf that does not join, a light fixture that “isn’t right.” Often you see the grotesque spectacle of a marvelous human organism breaking into violent arguments, or even crying, over a panel that doesn’t match. Interior decorators confide that many people have somatic symptoms or actual nervous breakdowns when they are redecorating. And I have seen a grown and silver-templed Italian crying in the street in his mother’s arms over a small dent in the bumper of his Ferrari.
We call precisely those people “strong” who can withdraw a pseudopod at will from trifling parts of their identity, or especially from important ones. Someone who can say “it is only a scratch on a Ferrari,” “the uneven wall is not me, the wood crack is not me,” and so on. They disentangle themselves easily and flexibly from the little damages and ravages to their self-extensions….”

* We are not strategic agents in actual life because all of our calculations and planning must reckon with a background sense of things’ significance which pre-exists these, delimiting the directions which they can take.

* We do not, in our everyday experience, encounter the world as would a strategic agent, as an enumerable set of “things” each of whose “properties” may or may not be relevant to our ends. Quite the contrary, the significance we sense always inheres in things prior to any reflection on “our” ends.

* [Without a place in the larger order, we are unintelligible to ourselves.] If individuals cannot readily alter social meanings at will, this is because that very will originates from out of those meanings.

* Meaning is first encountered in the world, not in any disembodied interiority…

* Hero-systems are not idle “symbolic” luxuries, intangible “cultural” concerns, but rather a biological necessity.

* As emphatic as some conservatives may be in their warnings that same-sex marriage threatens the basic institution of marriage, they have always been at a loss to explain how precisely this should be. How could the presence of the same-sex couple next door possibly impinge on the stability of one’s own marriage? So the liberal reflex has always been to dismiss the conservative view as just thinly disguised mean-spiritedness, or else as the symptom of some unacknowledged fear or anxiety that is being “taken out” on those who have nothing to do with the conservative’s real problems, which are being disguised in ostensible worries about the preservation of the traditional family. This, after all, is one of the reasons why the benighted must “grow” and become “aware.” But many on the Left have in more sophisticated terms acknowledged that the destruction of the family is precisely their aim, and that same sex-marriage will, beyond extending legal rights to gay and lesbian couples, be tactically useful to this end. Lesbian activist Masha Gessen told a sympathetic audience: “Gay marriage is a lie. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”
She explained that “I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
If “marriage elasticity” has “marriage extinction” as its ultimate aim, the reason is not that the traditional 1950s-style nuclear family would become somehow criminalized, but that such elasticity would erode the hero-system that has historically underpinned that family, depriving that institution of its traditional social meaning. The “family” being targeted by the “homosexual agenda” is not the bare practices of cohabitation, financial interdependence, and child rearing by legally bound adults, but the hero-system of social conservatives, that thick structure of aspirational roles invoked by talk of traditional family values. And this is exactly what conservatives are referring to in warning that the family is under attack.
The institution of same-sex marriage can carry implications for heterosexual couples insofar as “traditional marriage” thereby becomes but one possible interpretation of a civil institution, rather than its intrinsic and uncontested meaning. It constitutes, not merely an expansion of rights, but also the regulation of social meaning, because it can upset the social plausibility, and therefore the personal resonance, of the traditional interpretation notwithstanding that no one is being physically disabled in their marital activities. To the extent marriage becomes socially understood as just another agreement rather than a sacrament, its value will have to be viewed as residing in individual sentiments rather than in a transcendent dispensation that ratifies these sentiments. Traditionalists are thereby threatened with a different interpretation of themselves, confronted with the possibility that the sacredness which they had imputed to their practices is but the reification of their own idiosyncratic emotions. Nothing prevents them from asserting that whatever the legal status of same-sex marriage may be, it is only marriages like their own that truly count in the eyes of God. But given 1) that this interpretation is now contested and 2) that social meanings are “forces to be reckoned with,” the meaning with which traditionalists would like to imbue their marriages will not necessarily be the meaning that their marriages actually end up carrying for them. Conservatives worries about liberals’ “attack on the family” are therefore more sophisticated than liberals are prepared to acknowledge.

Posted in Christianity | Comments Off on Why Is There Christian Nationalism?

From Proud Feudal Lord To Cringing Courtier

There was a time when I ruled my virtual kingdom (blog) like a feudal lord. I didn’t have to concern myself with integrating into the wider world. I grew my own virtual vegetables. I had my own virtual solar panels. I crafted my own virtual clothes. I was the king of my kingdom. I had the right of the first night. I loved. I hated. I laughed. I cried. I ate beans and I broke wind. I courted porn stars and I studied Talmud. I was self-sufficient. I was my own man. I cut down trees. I ate my lunch. I went to the lavatory. On Wednesdays I went shopping and had buttered scones for tea.

Then, starting in 2007, social media began taking over. I spent more time on Facebook, Youtube and eventually Twitter and as I adapted to the terms of service (TOS) of these big corporations, I was changed. With time, I internalized their TOS and it increasingly regulated me. My story was modified by their story. My hero-system integrated their hero-system. They impurified my essential bodily fluids.

To make personal the lofty analysis of philosopher Rony Guldmann, I was progressively emasculated. I was stripped of my glorious self-sufficiency. To retain any vestige of my former power and prestige now required, not blogging prowess, but cultivating the right relationships. I was transformed from a warrior to a courtier. I was no longer foot loose and fancy free. I became subject to the continuous division and regulation imposed by dependence on others. Now my value did not lie with my own efforts, but in the favor I found in the almighty algorithms. I was no longer a free man, the master of my own virtual castle. I now live at court and I serve the prince. I’m surrounded by others. I must behave toward each of them in exact accordance with their rank and my own. I must learn to adjust my gestures exactly to the different situations. Life is now a stock exchange in which my value is continuously assessed. Gone are the days in which joking could lead to mockery and from there to violent disagreement and violence itself in the span of a few minutes. Gone too are the days in which I could leap from the most exuberant pleasure to the deepest despondency on the basis of slight impressions. For what matters now are others’ impressions rather than my own, and the foremost task becomes impression-management.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on From Proud Feudal Lord To Cringing Courtier

Dearly Beloved (8-1-22)

00:30 We are gathered here in the sight of God, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144407
05:00 Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: The Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia 2, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144294
24:00 Tucker Carlson on possible war with China over Taiwan
1:15:30 Robert Malone – A vaccine scientist’s discredited claims have bolstered a movement of misinformation, https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/24/robert-malone-vaccine-misinformation-rogan-mandates/
1:17:00 Bob Saget, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Saget
1:18:20 Publications on the right such as American Greatness are unreadable
1:24:50 David Remnick at the New Yorker
1:28:25 Laurene Powell Jobs
1:30:00 Norman Podhoretz and John Podhoretz and Commentary magazine
1:31:00 Why is the LA Times so boring?
1:35:00 Matt Yglesias, restaurants, productivity

Posted in America | Comments Off on Dearly Beloved (8-1-22)