My Principles For Understanding The World

These are my rules for life and these are my principles for decoding reality:

* We live in a post-modern world. There’s no one narrative that adequately explains reality.

* Personalities are usually less powerful than situations. The news media focuses on personalities because that is a more compelling story than focusing on structure, but structure shapes the world more than individual whims. For example, as I write this in April of 2024, Bibi Netanyahu is Israel’s Prime Minister and his personality gets a lot of media coverage. If someone else were Israel’s prime minister at this time, Israel’s conduct toward its enemies wouldn’t change much. For example, if Bibi decided to support an independent Palestinian state, he would simply be removed from power because the majority of Israelis are not in a mood to give the Palestinians anything. If a Haredi Gadol came out in favor of Zionism, he would no longer be a Haredi Gadol.

A structuralist understands that what happens in Ukraine or Israel or Nigeria has nothing to do with America’s vital interests. To adopt a lesson from Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, don’t confuse the urgent for the important.

Sometimes, however, individuals are more important than situations. If anyone but Hitler had led Germany during WWII, there would not have been a Holocaust.

* We’re all locked in an iron cage together and nobody is coming to save us. To survive, you as an individual and as a nation want to become as strong as possible because you never know what might happen and possessing strength is the best way to survive.

* (Almost) nobody cares about out-groups.

* The stronger your in-group identity, the more negatively you feel about out-groups. “Ties bind and blind.” (Jonathan Haidt)

* The more stable and cohesive you are, the better. The more divided and unstable your competitors, the better for you.

* Everybody has a hero system. Most people get it from their community, noted Ernest Becker. Liberalism and leftism are the hero systems that thinks they have transcended hero systems. Most people seem unaware that their hero system is a product of contingent circumstances, and it is this subjective hero system that drives liberals to condemn imaginary sins such as racism, bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia and the like while people on the right condemn sins that are imaginary from a liberal perspective such as gay sex and trans identity and drug experimentation.

* For the normal person embedded in a group, his purported racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, prejudice and the like are not the opposite of morality, but the proper foundation for morality. This bloke loves specific people and is loved by them and thus he has an in-group and a hero system and everything he needs for meaning and morality. Such a person is less likely to engage in reckless behaviors than those who are unmoored.

* “Anti-Semitism is as natural to Western civilization as anti-Christianity is to Jewish civilization, Islamic civilization and Japanese civilization.” (Maj. Kong)

* You could do worse than the TV show Yellowstone for wisdom about life:

* “Until they find a cure for human nature, a man must stand with his people.”

* “Mister, I don’t know you, but if you’re wearin’ that brand, you must be a bad man.”

* “Should is a useless word, almost as useless as hope.”

* “A man who puts a hand on a member of my family never puts a hand on anything else.”

* “No one has a right. You have to take a right, or stop it from being taken from you.”

* “Lawyers are the swords of this century. Words are weapons now.”

* “It’s the one constant in life. You build something worth having, someone’s gonna try to take it.”

* “All men are bad, but some of us try really hard to be good.”

* In a 2006 lecture, Tom Wolfe said: “Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world – so ordained by some almighty force – would make not that individual but his group…the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles.”

* Almost nothing we think and feel is ours alone. Instead, we depend upon cues from our group. We experience reality through our group identity. Christians, Jews, Japanese, gays and members of other groups see the world primarily through their primary group identity. In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”

[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

* Marginalized movements attract marginalized people. Nothing great can be built by losers.

* There are no solutions. Only tradeoffs. (Tom Sowell)

* Crime and other anti-social behavior waxes or wanes depending upon our willingness to punish it.

* Much of what is considered expertise is an expertise at playing the game of expertise. Much of education is learning to play the game of education. I broke many stories (such as an HIV outbreak in porn and LA’s first latino mayor was getting divorced after an affair) as a blogger because regular journalists were not incentivized to report them.

* What will determine the success of an administration? Events, my dear boy, events. Situations will shape us as much as we shape situations. If an election takes place in a time of great threat, the right-wing candidate will likely be better positioned to win. On the other hand, if people are relatively safe and prosperous, the left-wing candidate will likely be better positioned to win.

* If you want to preserve native life, you have to restrict invasive species.

* The common denominator in all punditry is self-importance aka I see things you don’t see and therefore you need to listen to me. Do your favorite commentators optimize for truth or for some other value, such as success? I have no interests in the Biblical views of those who can’t read the Bible in its original languages and I have no interest in the Middle East views of pundits who can’t read Arabic.

* Our problems are rarely our problems, they are just symptoms of deeper problems. We usually prefer to think about symptoms rather than the disease because symptoms seem so fixable while the disease seems too challenging for comfort. For example, I sometimes obsess about why I am not married and I blame it on bad luck and other external factors, but inside I know my bachelorhood is just a symptom of my deeper issue with connecting with others, which in turn is just a symptom of my ultimate disease – my troubled relationship with myself and with reality (religious people might call reality “God”).

The 4-22-24 New Yorker points out:

That’s why thoughtful scholars—including the philosopher Daniel Williams and the experimental psychologist Sacha Altay—encourage us to see misinformation more as a symptom than as a disease. Unless we address issues of polarization and institutional trust, they say, we’ll make little headway against an endless supply of alluring fabrications.

* Democracy dominates our rhetoric, but most of life runs on hierarchy.

* Democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive. All functioning democracies contains considerable elements of dictatorship, socialism, capitalism, and oligopoly. For example, the president of the United States has the same foreign policy powers as King George III. On the other hand, dictatorships such as Nikita Kruschev‘s Soviet Union often contain elements of democracy (witness the removal of Kruschev from power after the Cuban missile crisis). When dictator Joseph Stalin was fighting the second world war, he re-opened churches and allowed his people many things that they wanted in exchange for their efforts against the Germans.

Who’s the boss? The situation is the boss.

* There’s no magic key to unlocking how the world works. The closest thing we have to a magic key to reality is the predictive power of IQ for large groups. Kindness, for example, requires empathy, which is a form of abstract thought, and the capacity for abstract thought is measured by IQ. If a thousand 80 IQ people spill a drink on the floor of a public gathering, a thousand 100 IQ people spill the same amount of liquid, and a thousand 120 IQ people spill the same amount, the higher IQ groups will be more diligent about cleaning up the spill.

* Left and Right politics are evolutionary adaptations that enabled our ancestors to survive challenging environments and to pass on their genes. In some circumstances, a left-wing approach to reality will be more adaptive. In other circumstances, a right-wing approach will be more adaptive. As the 2013 book Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences notes: “[T]he political left has been associated with support for equality and tolerance of departures from tradition, while the right is more supportive of authority, hierarchy, and order.”

* When almost all of our institutions are dominated by the left, it makes sense for non-leftists to have a kneejerk suspicion of the establishment. When the left controls the cultural means of production, discussion is often a sham. Stephen Turner noted in 1989: “For Hobbes and Schmitt, one might say, discussion is always an illusion or an instrument of authority, not its basis.”

When the left decides the “real issues” and the “real experts,” it makes sense for those not of the left to rebel against these proclamations. When science funding is largely determined by the left, why would non-leftists not suspect the claims of science? When those who determine and award expertise are on the left, does it not make sense for those not on the left to harbor suspicion about this expertise? Who decides who gets tenure at a university? Dominantly, it is leftists. Those out of power are more likely to believe that the world is not right than those in power. Given that most American institutions are dominated by the left, why would non-leftists be at ease with the current power structure?

* Our political, cultural, and personal tendencies are strongly influenced by our genes.

* Religion, from a secular perspective, is a subset of culture, which comes from genes and environment. African Christianity, for example, is very different from Scandinavian Christianity.

* As long as tens of millions of people such as the Japanese are more decent than the most committed nations of monotheists, I’m not sure how one can argue that God is necessary for ethics (something I’ve believed almost all of my life). Our behavior is shaped by who we love more than by our beliefs, texts, and practices.

* There’s no reason you should pay attention to politics unless it gives you pleasure. For the average person 99% of the time, it doesn’t matter much who’s president of the United States. Most people don’t get their meaning in life from anything as abstract as politics. Most people get their meaning from family. If they have room in their life after family, they get their meaning from their work, friends, and interests. You can accurately assess people by their closest connections. We can only date and relate to people like us.

* In reality as opposed to liberal theory, nobody has the right to anything unless you are lucky enough to live in a society that is strong and enforces your rights, but rights can still all be taken away at any time by elites due to a real or putative emergency. The sovereign decides the state of exception, notes Carl Schmitt. There is no objective enforcement of the law because law is operated by human beings who react in unique ways due to their genes, imprinting and situation.

* If it becomes socially acceptable for minority groups to pursue their own interests without regard to the majority’s interests, majorities will start acting in their own interests without regard for minorities.

* You are judged by the company you keep. We attract people like ourselves. If you want to figure out someone, look at their ancestors and look at their closest friends.

* Much of human behavior can be understood by simply asking — what’s easiest? Most people most of the time will do what is easiest. The reasons people give for their behavior usually have nothing to do with their real reasons. People almost never say what they mean nor mean what they say.

* Most people primarily want approval from a small group such as their family or their profession and this desire usually outweighs their yearning for truth. You can never persuade anyone to believe anything if their income and status depend upon not understanding.

* Everyone tries to adapt to their circumstance to best insure their survival. Why do people act the way they do? They’re trying to insure their survival. Some people do this through violence, other people through litigation, and other people by sucking in a maximum of welfare. Some people try to insure their survival by expressing love and other people try to do it through selfishness. Every organism tries to create an environment around it that is most conducive to its thriving. Every organism has a strong reaction against anyone trying to hurt it.

* “Two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area.” (E. Raymond Hall, a professor of biology at the University of Kansas and the author of The Mammals of North America)

* “The degree of cooperation between organisms can be expected to be a direct function of the proportion of genes they share.” (University of Washington anthropologist Pierre L. van den Berghe)

* Diversity and proximity often lead to conflict and tragedy. The more united a people, the stronger (usually).

* Most of us aren’t significant (beyond the handful of people who love us). If somebody does not get their primary source of meaning from family and friends, then they either have extraordinary talents or they are deluded. People seeking meaning are usually lonely and neurotic.

* We weren’t born yesterday. We did not evolve to be gullible. The left dominates academia and media but that doesn’t turn people into leftists. We all tend to do a good job detecting when other people are seeking to manipulate us against our best interests. We tend to do a bad job detecting our own faulty thinking.

* Left and right politics are ultimately different strategies for dealing with Darwinian selection pressures. In some cases, a left-wing approach will be more adaptive (more welcoming to strangers, more innovative in how you organize family and communal life, more egalitarian, more lenient in punishing criminals, more freedom for sexual expression), while in other cases, a right-wing approach will be more adaptive (more suspicious of strangers, more traditional, more hierarchical, more severely punishing of violations of group norms).

* Predisposed: “People who support greater military spending, harsher punishment for criminals, and restrictive immigration are not doing so just to infuriate liberals but because they are more physiologically and psychologically attuned to negative eventualities.”

* Predisposed: “[E]thnocentrics do not give a fig for individual rights.”

* Predisposed: “The connection between conservatism and free market principles as a relatively recent development.”

* The battle doesn’t always go to the strong and the swift and the powerful, but that’s the way to bet. Experts aren’t always right, but expertise in a particular area will usually be more right than the opinions of the less informed.

* I’ve never found generational critiques compelling. Compared to group differences, the differences between Boomers and Zoomers are trivial.

* Any rando can say anything. We think more clearly when we think socially. If you want me to read a dissident perspective on public health matters, show me a meta-analysis published in a prestigious journal.

* You can’t understand anything outside of its situation.

* Much of what we think about the world comes from the emotional payoff we receive from that type of thinking. In the most profound things beyond the strictly physical objects around us, we don’t usually see the world as it is. Instead, we see it as we are. If you think a lot about the world coming to an end, for example, the chances are that it makes you feel important. You see through the BS! If you believe that salvation is only through Jesus or Torah or Mohammed or Marx, that similarly makes you feel important.

* When Israel is accused in the UK parliament of war crimes, it is a perverse compliment. A normal human reaction to high-achieving people is to tear them down. Nobody berates the Arabs for being savage because nobody expects much from them. When whites are accused of every evil under the sun, it is similarly a perverse compliment.

* Most people look at the world in terms of what is good for their group. Only WASPs consistently argue in terms of one universal morality.

* We did not evolve to be happy. We evolved to survive. We have a negativity bias. Wikipedia: “Evolutionary mismatch (also “mismatch theory” or “evolutionary trap”) is the evolutionary biology concept that a previously advantageous trait may become maladaptive due to change in the environment, especially when change is rapid.”

* People will say and do almost anything to augment their status. Status is the most powerful force in life that’s rarely discussed. We don’t like strivers and yet we’re all strivers. Professions (such as law, medicine, clergy, accounting, dentistry) strive to increase prestige and income by doing things that hurt the majority, such as psychiatrists diagnosing ordinary human sadness as the medical illness of depression and then prescribing pills that have no more efficacy than the placebo effect. As Adam Smith wrote in his 1776 book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

* Different people have different gifts. Different plants and animals have different gifts. Life evolved differently in different situations.

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on My Principles For Understanding The World

Analyzing Steve Sailer’s Latest Interview (7-13-23)

01:00 Truth in an Age of Lies ft. Steve Sailer | Restoring Order – EP 264
03:00 How about a media reckoning, an elite reckoning for the racial reckoning that provoked tens of thousands of extra murders
29:30 JF Gariepy on the French race riots, https://twitter.com/JFGariepy/status/1675664697155092481
43:00 The safest strategy is the group strategy
57:20 France’s George Floyd moment, https://twitter.com/JFGariepy/status/1674942822737117185
1:09:00 Elliott Blatt joins to discuss Richard Spencer dunking on Zoomers
1:11:00 I don’t find generations such as Boomers and Zoomers a useful category
1:34:00 Saving yourself for marriage is often an excuse from avoiding intimacy
1:36:30 Carmel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California
1:38:00 Carpenters, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carpenters
1:39:00 We’ve only just begun, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ve_Only_Just_Begun

Posted in Steve Sailer | Comments Off on Analyzing Steve Sailer’s Latest Interview (7-13-23)

Decoding Jean-Francois Gariepy (7-12-23)

01:00 JF Gariepy on Twitter https://twitter.com/JFGariepy
02:00 Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=121464
03:00 Jean-Francois Gariepy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-François_Gariépy
05:00 The One Study That Changed JF Gariepy’s View On Vaccines, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=142625
08:00 Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller publish another terrible “vaxxed/unvaxxed” study, https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2020/05/29/hooker-and-miller-publish-terrible-vaxxed-unvaxxed-study/
25:00 JF Gariepy Analyzes The Cofnas Critique, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=127067
Highlights, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143746
35:00 JF Gariepy’s tips to a desperate 43 yo man, https://twitter.com/JFGariepy/status/1678563193323438082
39:30 JF Gariepy promotes cyber currencies, including Bitcoin at its highs
46:00 Rating JF Gariepy on the Gurometer, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19PKXFn3qrzWr6nx622g9cEzyNBow0svQs_dN4fP3hjY/edit
58:45 JF REVEALS HOW HE GOT NICK FUENTES BANNED FROM YOUTUBE
1:00:00 J.F. GARIEPY VOWS TO WORK WITH ANTIFA TO BRING DOWN NICK FUENTES
1:01:20 JF Gariepy lists the 5 reasons why one has to care about Jews to understand the world, https://twitter.com/JFGariepy/status/1676385435474440195
1:29:00 JF Gariepy: Papacito, a French commentator, totally nails it on what Europeans need to do in response to French riots: absolutely nothing, https://twitter.com/JFGariepy/status/1675664697155092481
1:29:50 The French Question
1:33:00 Ricardo joins the show
1:36:00 Quiz Show, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiz_Show_(film)
2:05:00 Richard Spencer’s excellence at hosting Twitter Spaces
2:06:00 Charles Johnson and Richard Spencer
2:23:00 RFK Jr. phenomenon

Posted in JF Gariepy | Comments Off on Decoding Jean-Francois Gariepy (7-12-23)

Recovering from a red pill overdose

Posted in Addiction | Comments Off on Recovering from a red pill overdose

Recovering From The Red Pill

According to Wikipedia:

The concept of red and blue pills has since been widely used as a political metaphor, especially among right libertarians and conservatives in the United States, where “taking the red pill” or being “red-pilled” means becoming aware of the political biases inherent in society, including in the mainstream media, and becoming an independent thinker; while “taking the blue pill” or being “blue-pilled” means unquestioningly accepting these supposed biases.

The concept is also used among leftists to refer to members of the alt-right and others who subscribe to extremist right wing beliefs or conspiracy theories.

Most people I know (mostly from conversations I’ve had online) who’ve taken the red pill have damaged their lives by saying things that damage their most important relationships — such as with family, friends, community, work, and educational institution.

The road to recovery from the red pill, it seems to me, is to seek to have the best possible relations with everyone in your life. If you make connection your goal, you’ll develop healthy habits that will help you along a good path. You don’t have to change your mind about politics. You just learn you can’t talk about politics with everyone.

The biggest reason that many people blow up their lives after taking the red pill is that they feel an overwhelming need to hurt people. Hurt people hurt people. So hurt people who take the red pill use this new information to cut down other people who then retaliate against them. People who are OK with themselves and don’t feel a need to go around hurting people with their new insights don’t tend to blow up their lives.

It helps to expose yourself to multiple points of view from the most profound advocates, and to learn that you aren’t so smart after all, and it is not your role to go around delivering divine karma.

For those who’ve taken the red pill and embraced absurd conspiracy theories such as that the Jews are responsible for most of the evil in the world, that Covid vaccines are an evil plot to render much of humanity sterile, that the U.S. government blew up the twin towers on 9-11, I’ve never seen anyone recover from that.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Recovering From The Red Pill

Decoding Dennis Dale (7-10-23)

01:00 Dennis Dale went off on me last night then deleted his stream, https://twitter.com/eladsinned
23:00 Why is the right so stupid these days? II (6-16-23) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enpHovRlJi4
1:16:00 I may be a loser but at least I saw through the BS! https://rumble.com/vjxes9-seeing-through-the-bs-7-15-21.html
1:23:00 Elliott Blatt joins to talk about Colin Liddell
1:26:00 Colin Liddell’s website, https://neokrat.blogspot.com/

Posted in America | Comments Off on Decoding Dennis Dale (7-10-23)

Why The Media Blackout On An Anti-Lockdown Study From Johns Hopkins? (7-9-23)

01:00 MSM take affirmative action ruling personally
16:00 Media blackout on John Hopkins study on lockdowns, https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hopkins-university-study-lockdowns-media-blackout
19:00 Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19?, https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/02/06/did-so-called-johns-hopkins-study-really-show-lockdowns-were-ineffective-against-covid-19/?sh=3cc24fa81225
33:00 Judge stops Biden administration from most outreach to social media
36:00 French race riots
53:00 Tudors: The History of England from Henry VIII to Elizabeth I, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=149106
59:00 Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus on tribalism and creativity
1:03:00 Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: The Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144294
1:16:00 Desmond Ford – 1929-2019 (3-10-19), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uPAZVZUU4s
1:29:00 Nationalism & Multiculturalism, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=149137
1:35:00 Liberalism and the autonomous individual, https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/four-big-questions-for-the-counter
2:07:00 Defining neo-liberalism
2:12:00 Defining left and right through evolutionary pressures
2:21:00 The Inscrutable Ideology of the New China, https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-inscrutable-ideology-of-the-new
2:28:00 China: Empire, https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/china-empire

Posted in America | Comments Off on Why The Media Blackout On An Anti-Lockdown Study From Johns Hopkins? (7-9-23)

My Recommended Reading List

Here are the books that have most influenced me:

* Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences (2013)
* Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior by John M. Doris (2005)
* The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J. Mearsheimer (2001)
* The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities by John J. Mearsheimer (2018)
* The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Charles Murray (1995)
* Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History by Marc B. Shapiro (2015)
* Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised by March B. Shapiro (2003)
* Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884-1966 by Marc B. Shapiro (1999)
* The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York by Robert Caro (1974)
* Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl (1946)
* Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: On the Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia by Rony Guldmann (work in progress)
* Forgive for Good: A Proven Prescription for Health and Happiness by Fred Luskin (2003)
* Twelve-Step Guide to Using The Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book: Personal Transformation: The Promise of the Twelve-Step Process by HerbK (2004)
* Men and Marriage by George Gilder (1986)
* Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin (1975)
* Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer (1989)
* Fairness and Freedom: A History of Two Open Societies: New Zealand and the United States by David Hackett Fischer (2012)
* Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe by Hugo Mercier (2020)
* The Extended Mind: The Power of Thinking Outside the Brain by Annie Murphy Paul (2021)
* The Examined Life: How We Love And Find Ourselves by Stephen Grosz (2014)
* Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities by Eric Kaufman (2019)
* The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America by Eric Kaufman (2004)
* 12 Steps to Spiritual Awakening by HerbK (2023)
* Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity by James D. Tabor (2012)
* The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon (2009)
* Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find – and Keep – Love by Rachel Heller and Amir Levine (2012)
* Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love By Sue Johnson (2013)
* The Father Factor: How Your Father’s Legacy Impacts Your Career by Stephan B. Poulter (2006)
* The Mother Factor: How Your Mother’s Emotional Legacy Impacts Your Life by Stephan B. Poulter (2008)
* Betrayals: The Unpredictability of Human Relations by Gabriella Turnaturi (2007)
* Middlemarch by George Eliot (1871)
* War & Peace by Leo Tolstoy (1869)
* Corporate Confidential: 50 Secrets Your Company Doesn’t Want You to Know – and What to Do About Them by Cynthia Shapiro (2005)
* The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm (1990)

Posted in Books | Comments Off on My Recommended Reading List

MedPage: What You Need to Know About That ‘Johns Hopkins’ Lockdown Study

From Medpage.com:

A paper being touted as the “Johns Hopkins study” that suggested lockdowns didn’t reduce COVID deaths has serious flaws and is being misinterpreted, experts said.

Fox News has charged that there’s been a “full-on media blackout” of the paper, but science and medical experts argue the real reason for not covering the paper is because of its limitations.

First, the paper is a “working paper” that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Also, it was published on the website of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at the Johns Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences in Baltimore.

Study author Steve Hanke, PhD, is the founder of the institute. He is an applied economist, not an epidemiologist, public health expert, or medical doctor. Hanke is also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Hanke’s co-authors are Jonas Herby, MS, a “specialist consultant” at the Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, and Lars Jonung, PhD, professor emeritus of economics at Lund University in Sweden — a country that famously opted out of lockdowns and only recommended masks in public. Again, neither of Herby nor Jonung are medical or public health experts.

The trio are “highly regarded economists who have also been extremely anti-lockdown since March 2020,” tweeted Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia, who posted a thorough critique of the paper.

Its key conclusion was that lockdowns only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2% on average, but several researchers said that number is unreliable.

For starters, experts commenting for the U.K. Science Media Centre warned about the paper’s questionable definition of “lockdown.” Samir Bhatt, DPhil, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, said in that statement that the study’s “most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is.”

“The authors define lockdown as ‘the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention [NPI].’ This would make a mask-wearing policy a lockdown,” Bhatt stated.

Neil Ferguson, PhD, also of Imperial College London, said in the same statement that by that definition, “the U.K. has been in permanent lockdown since 16th of March 2021, and remains in lockdown — given it remain compulsory for people with diagnosed COVID-19 to self-isolate for at least 5 days.” Ferguson is the director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and the Jameel Institute at the college.

Questions also have been raised about the quality of the included studies. Of the 34 papers ultimately selected, 12 were “working papers” rather than peer-reviewed science. And 14 studies were conducted by economists rather than public health or medical experts, according to Forbes.

Meyerowitz-Katz highlighted his concerns with the paper’s inclusion criteria, as it doesn’t include “modelled counterfactuals…the most common method used in infectious disease assessments” which excludes “most epidemiological research from the review,” he tweeted.

He added that the “included studies certainly aren’t representative of research as a whole on lockdowns — not even close. Many of the most robust papers on the impact of lockdowns are, by definition, excluded.”

“All of this adds up to a very weird review paper,” he tweeted. “The authors exclude many of the most rigorous studies, including those that are the entire basis for their meta-analysis in the first place. … They then take a number of papers, most of which found that restrictive NPIs had a benefit on mortality, and derive some mathematical estimate from the regression coefficients indicating less benefit than the papers suggest.”

“All of this together means that the actual numbers produced in the review are largely uninterpretable,” he tweeted.

Posted in Covid | Comments Off on MedPage: What You Need to Know About That ‘Johns Hopkins’ Lockdown Study

Nationalism & Multiculturalism

In his 2015 book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, Andrew Heywood wrote:

* One key source of multicultural thinking stems from the attempt to refashion liberal beliefs to take into account the importance of communal belonging. In this view, individuals are seen as being culturally embedded creatures who derive their understanding of the world and their framework of moral beliefs and sense of personal identity largely from the culture in which they live and develop. Distinctive cultures therefore deserve to be protected or strengthened, particularly when they belong to minority or vulnerable groups. This leads to an emphasis on the politics of recognition and support for minority rights, which, in the case of national minorities, or ‘First Nations’, may extend to the right to self-determination. However, a more radical strain within multicultural thinking endorses a form of value pluralism which holds that, as people are bound to disagree about the ultimate ends of life, liberal and non-liberal, or even illiberal, beliefs and practices are equally legitimate.

* Only enforced assimilation or the expulsion of ethnic or cultural minorities will re-establish monocultural nation-states.

* The most common criticism of multiculturalism is nevertheless that it is the enemy of social cohesion. In this view, shared values and a common culture are a necessary precondition for a stable and successful society.

* A cultural nation (such as the Greeks, the Germans, the Russians, the English and the Irish) has a national identity that is rooted in a common cultural heritage and language that may long pre-date the achievement of statehood or even the quest for national independence. A political nation (such as the British, the Americans and the South Africans) is bound together primarily by shared citizenship and may encompass significant cultural and ethnic divisions. Similarly, political thinkers may advance rival civic and organic views of the nation. The ‘civic’ concept of nationhood, supported, for example, by liberals and socialists, is inclusive in the sense that it places heavier emphasis on political allegiance than on cultural unity, and stresses that the nation is forged by shared values and expectations. The ‘organic’ concept of nationhood (advanced by conservatives and, more radically, by fascists) is exclusive in that it gives priority to a common ethnic identity and, above all, a shared history.

* For over 200 years the nation has been regarded as the most appropriate (and perhaps the only proper) unit of political rule. Indeed, international law is largely based on the assumption that nations, like individuals, have inviolable rights, notably the right to political independence and self-determination. The importance of the nation to politics is demonstrated most dramatically demonstrated by the enduring potency of nationalism and by the fact that the world is largely divided into nation-states… Supporters of the national principle portray nations as organic communities. In this light, humankind is naturally divided into a collection of nations, each possessing a distinctive character and separate identity. This, nationalists argue, is why a ‘higher’ loyalty and deeper political significance attaches to the nation than to any other social group or collective body. National ties and loyalties are thus found in all societies, they endure over time, and they operate at an instinctual, even primordial, level.

* There are two contrasting views of the nation-state. For liberals, and most socialists, the nation-state is largely fashioned out of civic loyalties and allegiances, while for conservatives and nationalists it is based on ethnic or organic unity.

* The nation-state is widely considered to be the only viable unit of political rule and is generally accepted to be the basic element in international politics. The vast majority of modern states are, or claim to be, nation-states. The great strength of the nation-state is that it offers the prospect of both cultural cohesion and political unity. When a people who share a common cultural or ethnic identity gain the right to self-government, community and citizenship coincide. This is why nationalists believe that the forces that have created a world of independent nation-states are natural and irresistible, and that no other social group could constitute a meaningful political community. This view also implies that supranational bodies such as the European Union (EU) will never be able to rival the capacity of national governments to establish legitimacy and command popular allegiance. Clear limits should therefore be placed on, in this case , the process of European integration, because people with different languages, cultures and histories will never come to think of themselves as members of a united political community.

* Internally, nation-states have been subject to centrifugal pressures, generated by an upsurge in ethnic and regional politics. This has meant that ethnicity or religion have sometimes displaced nationality as the central organizing principle of political life.

* Those who criticize the nation-state ideal point out either that a ‘true’ nation-state can be achieved only through a process of ‘ethnic cleansing’ – as Hitler and the Nazis recognized – or that nation-states are always primarily concerned primarily with their own strategic and economic interests, and are therefore an inevitable source of conflict or tension in international affairs.

* Nationalism can broadly be defined broadly as the belief that the nation is the central principle of political organization. As such, it is based on two core assumptions: first, humankind is naturally divided into distinct nations, and second, the nation is a political community in the sense that it is the most appropriate, and perhaps the only legitimate, unit of political rule.

* Liberal nationalism assigns to the nation a moral status to the nation similar to that of the individual, meaning that nations have rights, in particular the right to self-determination. As liberal nationalism holds that all nations are equal, it proclaims that the nation-state ideal is universally applicable. Conservative nationalism is concerned less with the principled nationalism of self-determination and more with the promise of social cohesion and public order embodied in the sentiment of national patriotism . From this perspective patriotic loyalty and a consciousness of nationhood is largely rooted in the idea of a shared past, turning nationalism into a defence of traditional values and institutions that have been endorsed by history.

* It would be difficult to overestimate the significance of nationalism to modern politics . For over 200 years nationalism has helped to shape and re-shape history in all parts of the world, making it perhaps the most successful of political creeds. The rising tide of nationalism re-drew the map of Europe in the nineteenth century as autocratic and multinational empires crumbled in the face of liberal and nationalist pressures.

* A fear of disorder and social instability has been one of the most fundamental and abiding concerns of Western political philosophy. Order has, moreover, attracted almost unqualified approval from political theorists, at least in so far as none of them is prepared to defend disorder. However, there are deep differences regarding the most appropriate solutions to the problem of order. The public/natural order divide has profound implications for government and reflects differing views of human nature. At one extreme, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) argued that absolute government is the only means of maintaining order because the principal human inclination is a ‘perpetual and restless desire for power, that ceaseth only in death’.

* In modern politics, the conservative view of order links it closely to law, often viewing ‘law and order’ as a single, fused concept. Domestic order is therefore best maintained through a fear of punishment, based on the strict enforcement of law and stiff penalties, and on respect for traditional values, seen as the moral bedrock of society.

* The chief flaw of modernist thought, from the most postmodern perspective, is that it is characterized by foundationalism, the belief that it is possible to establish objective truths and universal values, usually associated with a strong faith in progress. Jean-François Lyotard (1984) expressed the postmodern stance most succinctly in defining it as ‘an incredulity towards metanarratives’. By this he meant scepticism regarding all creeds and ideologies that are based on universal theories of history that view society as a coherent totality.

* Realism, in its broadest sense, is a tradition of political theorizing that is ‘realistic’ in the sense that it is hard-headed and (as realists see it) devoid of wishful thinking and deluded moralizing. Key early thinkers in this tradition included Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). Realism has nevertheless had its greatest impact as a theory of international relations. Realist international theory is, primarily, about power and self-interest. The realist power-politics model of international politics is based on two core assumptions. First, human nature is characterized by selfishness and greed, meaning that states , the dominant actors on the international stage, exhibit essentially the same characteristics. Second, as states operate in a context of anarchy , they are forced to rely on self-help and so prioritize security and survival. Realist theory can therefore be summed up in the equation: egoism plus anarchy equals power politics.

* Realism can claim to be the oldest theory of international politics. It can be traced back to Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 bce), and to Sun Tzu’s classic work on strategy, The Art of War , written at roughly the same time in China. However, as a theory of international relations, realism took shape from the 1930s onwards as a critique of the then-dominant liberal internationalism , dismissed by some realists as ‘ utopianism ’. With the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, realism became the pre-eminent theory of international relations during the Cold War period. Among the reasons for realism’s dominance was that the Cold War, characterized as it was by superpower rivalry and a nuclear arms race , made the politics of power and security appear to be undeniably relevant and insightful.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Nationalism & Multiculturalism