John Derbyshire’s “Dissidents and Doom”

Recently there has been some hand-wringing in neoreaction about the tendency for non-mainstream thinkers (i.e. neoreactionaries, among others) to be contrarian and anti-social. Well, that is true. It kind of goes along with the territory. Going against a well-established and popular consensus (right or wrong) by yourself in the face of possible harm (financial and/or physical) takes a very special type of personality.

First, Warg Franklin penned a piece on the parable of the raft. Then, Nick B Steves had a follow up piece which was also pretty good. In summary, both articles at once acknowledged both the virtues and the flaws of the dissident personality. It has both, of course. Not to mention that neoreaction wouldn’t exist without it. We are nothing if not dissidents from a well established and alarmingly overbearing Cathedral.

The obvious problem with the dissident personality is that they tend to be very hard to get alone with. And then if they do form groups, many or most of the people in the group have the tendency not to get along with each other because they don’t get along with anyone; least of all other people who are hard to get along with. The moment the group starts doing something they don’t like, they wont hesitate to go it alone so they can have their way completely. Clearly that isn’t a very good trait for a society that requires social cohesion. Though the enabling of the cathedral from mass acquiescence of a generally conforming populace is really bad, having a population full of people with the dissident personality that could short-circuit the cathedral would probably be just as bad, but for different reasons. (Well, maybe not AS bad, but it would have problems). Fortunately, we don’t need that many. A firm unshakable belief in 10% of the population is enough to change a consensus.

There is always the possibility that the dissident is completely wrong and the consensus is right. In which case their contrarian determination can only cause trouble. Still, there are definitely times where the dissident is right and everyone else is wrong; in which case they suddenly become quite valuable if they can convince everyone else.

Of course, given Steves’ and Warg’s purposes of herding the cats of neoreaction it is no wonder that this problem is often on their mind. They deal with it a lot. I have to admit that I myself am guilty of giving in a little too much to my own dissident temperament…

Given that, though, I think they came down a little hard on the dissident personality type because of their experience. I don’t blame them, but I think a defense of the dissident personality and why it is so important is needed so that perspective isn’t lost. Fortunately one already exists. It was written years ago by John Derbyshire and to this day it is still one of my favorite articles produced by the alternative-right (before the modern incarnation changed the meaning of that term a bit). In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Steves’ use of the word “dissident” in this context and connotation didn’t originate in Derbyshire’s article/speech. (If you don’t remember the exact title, it can be hard to locate.)

The article was actually a speech given to the providence college republicans titled “Dissidents and Doom” and is related to his book “We are doomed: reclaiming conservative pessimism.”

Personally, I prefer the written transcript. In it he outlines why dissidents are important and the critical role they serve when a culture goes completely off the rails. I recommend the whole thing, but I will provide a few choice quotes. I don’t think I can top what he has already done, and I don’t want to reinvent the wheel anyway, so I will let him explain. First, what is the dissident personality?

The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic, speaking broadly, is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what might be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king’s command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true.

I see in these dissidents a lot of the personality characteristics that my loved ones complain about in me: a stubborn cussedness, a disdain for cant and wishful thinking, a lack of interest in what I am supposed to believe and supposed to say. “Who doesn’t want to be a good citizen?” I don’t, not if it involves saying things I know to be preposterous.

Derbyshire definitely agrees that the dissident can be hard to get along with, but he is more inclined to see the glass is half full:

At root this tendency is antisocial. Indeed, if you mix with dissidents much, you notice how fissiparous they are, how they can never agree among themselves about anything for very long. The dissident scene is full of petty animosities and slanders. I find dissidents to be individually admirable and attractive, but collectively hopeless. I’m glad to know they are there, though — that I’m not the only member of what my mother called “the awkward squad.”

And even gives it to totalitarians that a society full of contrarians wouldn’t be great:

And in fact, though it’s an awful thing to say, and I’m going to smother it with qualification, in fact the totalitarians have a sort of a point. A society can’t be stable without widespread unthinking conformism. That’s why dissidents are unpopular. I have spoken to quite liberal and well-educated people in China about high-profile dissidents like Wei Jingsheng. They are not very respectful of dissidence. Mostly they just think dissidents are a bit wrong in the head. Sometimes, and you especially hear this from women, you’ll hear: “He can do what he likes on his own account, but think of the harm he’s doing to his family.” Along with the association with madness, there is an association with social chaos — in the case of Chinese people, fear that too much independence of mind could bring back the terrible chaos of the Cultural Revolution.

Just as the association with chaos has some justification, at least in societies traditionally or recently disorderly, so has the association with craziness. The totalitarians who put dissidents into mental hospitals are of course doing a wicked thing, but again, there’s a little grain of truth in the wickedness. Dissidents are poorly socialized. As Eugene said: “Who doesn’t want to be a good citizen?” And the poorly socialized are seen by the better socialized as a bit nutty.

On how a dissdent should exercise restraint:

The sensible dissident should in fact practice a lot of self-restraint. He should in particular show a proper respect for the idols of the tribe. When I was a teenager back in England it was the custom at movie theaters that when the movie program ended, the National Anthem would be played. Everyone was supposed to stand up and be still for the duration. Well, of course, by the age of sixteen I had seen through all that stupid monarchy stuff — a bunch of rich people living in palaces and doing no useful work. Stand up for them? Not me! So I and some like-minded coevals would bravely sit through the anthem. This generated a lot of disapproval from other patrons, leading once or twice almost to fist-fights. We’d made our dissident point, though.

Now I know that the point was not worth making. Harmless tribal rituals are not to be objected to. They are part of the glue that holds a nation together. That’s a fundamental conservative insight. If you’re going to dissent, dissent about something that matters.

What matters? Truth.

Truth is one of the central features of the dissident personality and it is no wonder neoreaction attracts people with that personality type given its similar disregard for feelings and sociability for the sack of truth. As a group we all care more about truth than we care about keeping our heads down or sparing feelings. And it is this concern for unmitigated truth which implies that when a dissident speaks (or writes), you should at least hear him out. His main value which leads to him being a dissident in the first place is his sole concern with the truth; especially with respect to social pressure and conformity. This concern leads the dissident to find methods of sifting truth from fiction. Methods the average person never bothers to learn for themselves. Chances are that he is much more likely to speak the truth (or at least his honest perception thereof) as a result. Derbyshire describes the thinking of the average person in comparison to the unmitigated pursuit of truth:

The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list …

When the magical (I wish this to be so: therefore it is so!) and the religious (We are all one! Brotherhood of man! The universe loves us!) and the social (This is what all good citizens believe! If you believe otherwise you are a bad person!) and the personal (That bastard didn’t show me the respect I’m entitled to!) all come together, the mighty psychic forces unleashed can be irresistible. Ask Larry Summers or James Watson.

Derbyshire also goes on for a while about “soft-totalitarianism,” what we would call the cathedral. One of the examples he uses is on black/white IQ differences, but there are other examples:

At the beginning of lecture 25, “Intelligence, Genes, and Environment,” [Princeton neuroscientist Sam Wang] promised a discussion of group differences, but all we got was some bland stuff about males vs. females. In one of the lectures on learning he skated as close as he dared to the dread topic, but then opened an escape hatch and dropped through it. The name of the escape hatch is “Eyferth,” a great favorite with those on the nurture side of the nature-nurture issue. Klaus Eyferth was a German researcher who in 1961 published a study on the children of black and white U.S. servicemen born to German women. The study showed no overall difference in average IQ between black and white children. There are all sorts of open questions about the study: we don’t for example know the IQs of the fathers. The really big question, though, is this: Since the Eyferth study has been such a huge hit, and gets mentioned by every politically correct commentator on the human sciences, how is it that in fifty years — fifty years! — nobody has been able to replicate the findings?

The 2003 Turkheimer study that claimed to show heritability of IQ is lower in low-income families is another one of these nurturist darlings. David Brooks cites it uncritically in his new book, which I reviewed in the last but one issue of National Review. Sam Wang refers to it too, also uncritically. Neither of them seems aware that at least three attempts to replicate Turkheimer’s findings came up with results that were either null or else the opposite of what Turkheimer claimed to have found. The omission is pardonable in Brooks’ case — the guy’s just a journalist, after all — but not in Prof. Wang’s.

This is the environment of soft totalitarianism I am speaking about. Quite well-established facts about human nature may not be mentioned, even in a lecture by a professor at a prestigious university — a lecture I paid good money for. (Do I have a case in law here?) Where facts are not well-established, but suggest more than one possibility, only possibilities agreeable to ruling political orthodoxies may be discussed.

It is when pervasive lies and/or denials like that of racial differences, gender differences, socialism, immigration or other parts of the mainstream consensus are both extremely harmful to society and become unmentionable that the dissident personality becomes absolutely critical and indispensable. Only the dissident can withstand the pressure of conformity and tell everyone to pull their heads out of their rears. Society needs them for those inevitable times when Lysenkoism takes over. They are the release valve that can slowly drag the society back to sanity. With the dissident comes the chance to escape collapse. Without them, collapse is inevitable. So when considering whether or not a dissident should be ostracized great care should be taken. Dissidents provide a valuable service and whether or not they are right should always take precedence over whether or not they are disagreeable. That is true in general, but doubly true for neoreaction. It is true that you should protect your community from the sorts who will destabilize it, but at the same time moderation should be shown in such judgements. Not every contrarian is a trolling entryist.

For the non-dissident personality types, as well as for my fellow neoreactionaries, I leave you with Derbyshire’s request in relation to the dissident personality. One I wholeheartedly agree with:

Give the dissident temperament a little respect. When dissidents are obnoxious or nutty, which we often are, cut them some slack. Bring your own critical faculties to bear on the things they talk about, and always check the source materials. Try to learn to spot an urban legend or a convenient truth, especially one you hear a lot from not-very-well-informed people. If, when passing through a public square, you see that they’re burning a heretic at the stake, at the very least don’t join in the applause.

Also, this poem at the end was pretty good:

Here, in this little Bay
Full of tumultuous life and great repose,
Where, twice a day,
The purposeless, glad ocean comes and goes,
Under high cliffs, and far from the huge town,
I sit me down.
For want of me the world’s course will not fail;
When all its work is done, the lie shall rot;
The truth is great, and shall prevail,
When none cares whether it prevail or not.

(Note: Unsurprisingly, in an example of possible lysenkoism, firefox doesn’t recognize “lysenkosim” as a word).

Share Button

PCU

The Hestia Society has recently created an “official” forum for neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment. One of the first forum posts asked what movies or TV shows are out there which aren’t completely drenched with progressive nonsense. As I and others have detailed, many forms of entertainment and writing are little more than progressive propaganda including movies like 12 angry men, TV shows such as the walking dead, video games like mass effect, high school reading assignments, and even standardized tests with reading and writing portions. Also worth considering is that the tests themselves are designed to give skewed results with respect to comparing genders; which can then be used as infallible “science” in other propaganda. Convenient that. Please note that I think the tests still work, just not nearly as well as they could when it comes to specifically comparing average scores between genders.

Anyway, I spent some time thinking about this and gave a few answers in a comment and moved on (which you can see in the second link in this post). However, I had that on the back of my mind while I started on the next thing. Almost immediately after that comment I decided to do some in-depth digging to see what exactly was going on at Mizzou with all these protests in greater detail. Previously I had just glanced at a few articles. I find these sorts of outrage-porn events in the news-cycle depressing and tend to skip over many of them for the sake of my sanity at least until it grows large enough to force me deal with the despair and to look deeper. Events include hunger strikes by a student from a family worth 20 million but who is nonetheless O so oppressed (affirmative action or cronyism?), heads of the University resigning, and “professors” being hit with assault charges. (Also Mizzou isn’t the only University undergoing craziness.) Students are afraid to disagree with the protests because the university is shutting down freedom of speech (not to mention fear of retaliation from extremely crazy leftists),

The University of Missouri police department sent an email urging students to report offensive or hurtful speech – not because it is illegal – but so the Office of Student Conduct could take disciplinary action against these students.

Several of us are afraid to disagree with other students, who in turn may report us to the authorities so we can be “dealt with.” Many students have told me they are also afraid to speak out against the protest narrative, afraid they will be called “racist” and become campus pariahs.

Struggle sessions are real friends. This whole thing is just completely Kafkaesque. I mean the whole scene there just seems to be going completely nuts beyond all reason. People are getting hysterical if the reports are to be believed.  And most people actually seem to be against the radical leftists this time; a hopeful sign I suppose.

There were supposedly two big triggers, although I have to admit it is convoluted and different articles say different things. In one that I have seen, some black guy got mad because allegedly someone yelled “nigger” at him while driving by in a truck. I actually sympathize with him. I really do. I once had some asshole in a truck pass as fast and as close as he could while I was riding a bike and the passenger screamed out his window right as they passed me. I nearly had a heart attack. That was, after all, extremely dangerous for me if I had fallen or he had hit me. As in real danger, unlike someone yelling nigger but doing nothing else otherwise… He then got stopped ahead at a light, though, and I broke his mirror off as I myself ran the light and went on a trail next to the road in some woods where they couldn’t follow in the truck and wouldn’t keep up without a bike of their own. It was a nice revenge, and I don’t feel bad about it. What I am trying to say here is that I know what it is like to be the recipient of grief from an obnoxious asshole in a truck and can even understand why this guy would be mad. However, I can tell the difference between a singular asshole in a truck who needs an ass-kicking (or just ignoring) from a society wide problem of discrimination warranting protests, hunger strikes, and university president resignations. [People do protest for more bike friendly regulations etc, and I have never taken part in such a demonstration]

The other important incident is something I would expect from the onion. Apparently an unknown person went into a unisex bathroom at one of the dorms, shat on the floor, smeared shit all over the walls and door handle, then as a cherry on top (poorly) drew a swastika with their own poop:

Mizzou shit swastika cropped

I am not going to lie. When I first read about this, I laughed. I don’t mean a mild chuckle either, I mean a deep gut laugh that carried on for some minutes. I find this hilarious. Not so much that poop was spread along the walls (which is pretty immature), but the fact that thousands of people have completely gone ape-shit (chimped-out?) over poop on the walls. Like, how is this the reality we live in? How is it people don’t just step back and think “we are talking about poop on the walls, maybe we shouldn’t take this or ourselves so seriously?”

Now, this could have been a false flag where some deranged SJW carries out crimes in an effort to stir up a hornet’s nest of other SJWS, like with the “black church burnings” also happening in Missouri and which probably has contributed to the current growing craziness. Or the fake “confirmed KKK presence” also part of the absurd events going on at Mizzou. As detailed in the previous church burning link, it turns out that a black man was pretending to be a racist white burning churches because he just wants to stir up shit I guess (that is, he wanted to generally increase racial animosity). Of course, I doubt there was any reflection to strike the burnings off the list of white “crimes” after the truth was revealed. That doesn’t fit the desired narrative after all.

As far as the poop swastika goes, this is what I believe happened assuming it wasn’t a false flag. Someone, probably male between the ages of 18 and 21, got drunk and/or high, came back to the dorms late and had to take a shit. He was feeling mad or mischievous or antisocial or something and decided to make a big mess. He then proceeded to shit on the floor. Or perhaps he was so messed up he just shit on the floor for drunk reasons with no particular purpose [it happens…] then decided “I went that far, might as well roll with it. It gives me some ‘good’ ideas….” He then proceeded to spread the shit everywhere and thought it would be funny to make a swastika while he was at it. The only purpose behind his actions were to make people mad and disgust them by breaking taboos so why not? (I seriously, seriously doubt a real Nazi would use shit as his artistic medium) He was after entertainment rather than interested in making a point, as most trolls are. Well, I doubt he expected his shit trolling to escalate into world wide media coverage. Who would? Somewhere there is a poop brigader going “oh shit, my shit really caused a shit storm.” No troll could possibly imagine their extremely intoxicated decision to draw a poop swastika would result in weeks of protests, a hunger strike, complete stifling of free speech, and high ranking university officials resigning. Who would expect that level of over-reaction to some poop spread on the walls of a dorm? As cynical as I am about leftists and how crazy they are, even I wouldn’t have guessed that.

So anyway, these two things plus other alleged grievances led to a series of protests to end “racism,” as was already linked to earlier. In one case a professor, who happens to be an extremely homely white woman, tried to dismiss several journalists from the protest and physically engaged one guy recording video with his phone. Look at the the study topics and publications of this “professor” in the previously linked article:

A closer look at her Mizzou faculty page reveals much.

Her current subjects of reseach include: “50 Shades of Grey readers, the impact of social media in fans’ relationship with Lady Gaga, masculinity and male fans, messages about class and food in reality television programming, and messages about work in children’s television programs.”

Selected publications: “Click, M. A., Lee, H., & Holladay, H. (2013). Making monsters: Lady Gaga, fan identification, and social media. Popular Music & Society, 6(3), 360-379.

Click, M. A., Aubrey, J. S., and Behm-Morawitz, E. (Eds.). (2010). Bitten by Twilight: Youth culture, media, and the vampire franchise. New York: Peter Lang.”

Accolades: “Outstanding Mentor” (2011) and as “Graduate Advisor of the Year” (2013).

How do people like this, doing such asinine and pointless “research,” manage to stay employed? On the taxpayers dime no less (she apparently is paid 4,700 a month). She’s a completely worthless parasite and I wish we could all get a refund on subsidizing higher education. This reminds me of how the taxpayers have spent millions of dollars studying why lesbians are fat. I could have answered that for free.

Its taken awhile to get to the point but the article about the professor and the journalists is what caused me to remember a specific movie that, if not really reactionary, isn’t supportive of SJWs and is what gave me the title of this post. You see, when the professor and student protesters were trying to evict the student journalists they came up with a chant:

“Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go.”

This real-life chant is extremely similar to one used by ultra-feminazis in the 1994 movie PCU. Toward the end of the movie, a group of militant “womenists” chant “This penis party has to go, Hey, hey. Ho, ho.” in protest to a large party being thrown by the protagonists. Talk about synchronicity. I just happened to have non-PC movies on the back of my mind when I read this article thanks to the neoreactionary forum post and immediately remembered that scene in PCU when the eerily similar chant at Mizzou was described.

The gist of the story is that a recent high school graduate (Tom) is going to various universities he was accepted to in order to decide which one he was going to attend. The weekend the movie takes place during is centered at Port Chester University (PCU) in Connecticut. In other words, it is a pun which can be doubly interpreted as Politically Correct University. I think it is also loosely based on a real school in Connecticut called Porter and Chester, though I have no reason to think that school is exceptionally politically correct. The name just happened to be convenient and that is probably the end of the reference. Tom ends up getting assigned someone to show him around who is essentially a nihilistic party animal (Droz) as a result of a practical joke on the later by one of Droz’s friends. Droz reluctantly does show him around after seeing there was no shirking the duty. Tom then proceeds to learn about all the many different radical, prig prog, leftist, student organizations which regularly protest and cause problems on campus. Blacks, gays, militant lesbian feminists, “the causeheads” which have a new cause every week, the grateful dead inspired mega-stoners etc, as well as people pursuing absolutely worthless degrees. Protests in the movie are obnoxious and disturb any sane people within proximity, not unlike real protesters at real universities today. The last group isn’t technically a protest group though; they just get mad that their “work” was deleted thanks to some messing with electricity to the computers by one of the protagonists. And not to leave conservatives out, the movie also has a very cloistered group of white republican Frat guys led by David Spade who spend most of their time hiding (literally) from radical leftists. Ya, really.

This movie definitely isn’t reactionary. If there is a moral to the story it is probably nihilism and hedonism (or maybe just be easy-going and have fun). However, I kind of think “a moral of the story” is a little too much to attribute and expect from a story along the lines of van wilder. It is first and foremost a comedy with a large number of one liners meant to make you laugh, and at that it succeeds masterfully. I feel it should be appealing to reactionaries simply because, if not reactionary itself, it spends the vast majority of its time making fun of SJWs (before the term was even coined). 90% of the time, SJWs are the butt of the joke. This simple fact is quite the breath of fresh air compared to the typically progressivism-oriented fair produced by the media. In that sense it is reactionary from the perspective of the middle, if you want to call anti-moralizing hedonists the middle. Let’s face it, we reactionaries moralize quite a bit and so do SJWs but from essentially diametrically opposed sets of morals. “Middle ground” might be an appropriate, if imperfect, description. I laughed quite a bit watching this movie which, combined with them actually targeting SJWs for once, allows me to forgive their essentially hedonistic message.

I first watched this movie when I was in high school and thought it was very funny. The most memorable moment (from my high school days perspective) being an interaction between a stoner and an old lady which I won’t ruin for you; you will have to watch the movie to find out what I am referring to.  I remember once in college I told many people about it and convinced a group to sit down and watch it. They liked it, but they seemed to think I over-hyped it. One friend (one of two who knows me in person and knows I write this blog, and will be forwarded a link to this post) even said that it was very dated or that it didn’t age well. We watched the movie together in 2006 or so and SJWs weren’t quite our primary concern. Though radical leftism was surely going on, we weren’t as interested or as informed about it as we are now. Needless to say, we have both moved pretty far to the right since we watched this back then…. I took the criticism in stride at the time, but with hindsight from the events from 2010 to 2015 I would say the movie is better suited to the current cultural climate now than it was then, or even probably when it was first released in 1994. In many respects, the satire in the movie has become essentially a reality today; the chanted lines in the movie and in Missouri for example. The leftists of reality today are very like the satirical leftists in PCU from 1994. The convergence of satire and reality is what give the comedic elements their punch. The pilloried leftists in the movie are much like how I would expect the leftists at Mizzou today to act and the movie leftists believe what the Mizzou leftists of today believe. Unfortunately, the movie didn’t do too well when it was first released; it was too prescient and ahead of its time I guess.

Now I want to go ahead and discuss specific quotes and events in the movie, but I don’t want to spoil it for you if you haven’t seen it already. If you go to duckduckgo.com, a search engine which values privacy and doesn’t block streaming websites, and search “PCU 1994 stream” you may be able to watch the movie for free at the first link. I don’t know, though, because I never tried that.

[spoilers follow after the add, stop reading here if you would like to watch this movie prior to learning specific details about the jokes in it or keep going if you don’t care]

The movie starts with Tom going into the frat house dubbed “The Pit.” There is no one there to greet him so he just walks in and observes some pictures on the wall. In the frames from 1950s up to 1967 it shows in each a collection of pictures of respectable looking white men in suits. Then there is a change and in the 1969 image it is just one picture with a bunch of stereotypical dirty hippies; which are also now co-ed. You find out later that frats were banned at the University in 1967, which is what causes the change. It should be noted that banning frats (i.e., congregations of white males) seems to be a real goal today. As Tom moves through the pictures up until the contemporary year, they degenerate and get more shabby until the year prior to the setting of the movie (1993) where it is just a polaroid thumb-tacked to the wall. A not too subtle symbolism of advancing degeneracy. Overall, “the pit” is a very nice old building that is horrendously maintained and disrespected. Its a mess, people rollerblade inside, and grafiti is all over the walls in some rooms.

One of the earliest gags is about how people today often major in quite useless degrees. One of the members of “the pit” is nicknamed “Pigman” and they approach him as he is watching TV and “working” on his senior thesis. Droz explains Pigman’s thesis to Tom. Pigman is trying to prove the Caine/Hackmen theory which postulates that no matter what time of the day or night or which day of the week; there is always at least one Michael Caine or Gene Hackmen movie playing. Droz responds to Tom’s incredulity with the following line “That’s the beauty of college these days, you can major in Gameboy if you know how to bullshit.” Funny to be sure, but also disturbing when you compare it to the work of the actual professor mentioned above whose “research” is on twilight, 50 shades of grey, and lady gaga…. You can’t make this stuff up. This satire is barely satire. Scratch that, a Caine/Hackmen theory is actually more respectable than research on lady gaga and 50 shades of grey by a fair margin.

Towards the end of the movie the topic of useless majors is revisited. A series of people had their theses deleted as a result of an event earlier in the movie, and Droz peddles in providing completed theses to lazy students. To calm nerves he offers to help these people out by providing them ready-made work at no charge. One student wants a thesis for Sanskrit; to which Droz replies awestruck “Sanskrit? You’re majoring in a 5000 year old dead language?” He then gives him a thesis on latin saying that is the best he could do. The next student comes to him and tells Droz that he is majoring in Phys. Ed.  Droz replies “Phys. Ed.? You, out of my room. Seriously get out.” In 2015, we are no longer surprised to read about or meet people getting worthless degrees and doing worthless research since worthless degrees have only gotten more popular over time.

One of my favorite scenes occurs shortly after the description of the Caine/Hackman thesis. Droz finally agrees to really show Tom the campus and he proceeds to describe the culture of political correctness that we are all by now familiar with:

[Droz] “Here’s the deal, you have to get all of that 50s cornball shit out of your head. Its a whole new ballgame on campus these days and they call it PC.”

[Tom] “PC?”

[Droz] “Politically correct and its not just politics, its everything. Its what you eat, its what you wear, and its what you say. If you don’t watch yourself you can get in a boatload of trouble.

[as the conversation goes on, they walk out of the frat house and past a bunch of protesters, agitators, prig progs and advocates who are making noise]

[Droz] “For example, see these girls?”

[Tom] “Ya”

[Girl 1] “We have rights too”

[Girl 2] “choose to choose now”

[Droz] “No you don’t, those are women, call them girls and they’ll pop your face.”

[Tom and Droz continue walking past a series of other activists]

[Male 1] “Save the whales!”

[Male 2] “Gays in the military now!”

[Male 3] “Free Nelson Mandela!”

Notice how the middle one is now a reality…. All of these activists so far are white people for the most part. I would say that is pretty accurate; with the exception of identity politics most of the random SJW causes without reference to a specific human group are majority white. Sad really. At this point Tom and Droz spot a group of ultra-feminazi butch dykes.

[Tom and Droz stop and look ahead, brief pause]

[Tom] “What? Are those women?”

[Droz] “Those aren’t women Tom, they’re womenists”

[shows a bunch of short-haired butch dykes in camo all  looking angry; there is one attractive one]

[Dreadlocked butch dyke to attractive chic] “Hey Sam, isn’t that the guy you used to, uh…?”

[Sam] “Ya”

[Third plain-looking dyke] “You went out with a WHITE MALE!?” [surprised unbelief; all three are white women…]

[Sam] “What?! I was a freshman.”

[Dread Dyke] “Fresh person please.

[Droz attempts to approach Sam]

[Dread Dyke] “He’s coming over here, [blows a rape whistle] Sister’s form a wall!”

[A line of butch dykes form a wall between Sam and Droz.]

[Droz] “Hello, is Sam in there?”

[Dread Dyke] “In there? whats that supposed to mean?”

[Plain Dyke] “Ya, cock man oppressor!”

[Droz] “Why thank you. Can you just tell her that Mr. pokey stopped by”

[blank stares; Tom and Droz leave]

[Dread Dyke] “What the hell does that mean; Mr. pokey?”

[Plain Dyke] “I think he meant his [hmphf] phallus” [erects index fingers]

[Dread Dyke angrily turns to Sam] “You participated in a phallus naming?”

[Sam] “No, no i have no idea”

[Dread Dyke] “You stay away from him Sam, he’s an animal.”

I find this depiction of feminists gratifying. Saying that angry feminists aren’t women is true enough. It also captures the impotent rage well, as well as their stupidity. I also enjoyed Droz’s use of a cocky-funny response and how he held frame during this massive shit test. There are also stories of White! women who seem to hate white men and won’t date them. It is a small group; but they are invariably radical leftists which is what gives them that hate of their own race. They buy, hook, line and sinker, the propaganda that whites are evil oppressors and seek their own destruction. Though they probably did exist in 1994; I can only assume they are more common now. Or else they just get a lot more notoriety and news coverage. Either way, this attitude is perceived to be real among some small groups of radical leftists.

[Tom and Droz continue walking]

[Tom] “This place is kind of insane.”

[Droz] “Wait till you meet the causeheads.”

[Tom and Draz approach a university building. Hippi-looking people have formed a circle holding hands outside the building. Other hippis are dancing weirdly in the circle. Several are dressed in cow costumes. A chic is in front of them with a megaphone leading a chant. You find out later her “name” is Moonbeam.]

[Moonbeam] “What don’t we eat?”

[Protesters] “Meat”

[Moonbeam] “Why don’t we eat it”

[Protesters] “It’s murder”

[repeat ad nauseum]

[Droz] “These, Tom, are your causeheads. They find a world threatening issue and stick with it… for about a week.”

[Tom and Droz approach another pitfiend; a resident of the pit]

[Pitfiend] “Last week it was the ozone layer but now its meat. They were making chili burgers and won’t let anyone in.”

At this point about 7 pitfiends sneak past the protesters by new-age dancing through the crowd. They enter the cafeteria and grab the hamburger and meatballs and other things. As a hippi plays guitar singing hippi music and Moonbeam explains how the life of a student (dying from starvation) is worth sacrificing for a cow or other animals, the pitfiends hurl several hundred pounds of raw meat at the protesters from an upper story window. How satisfying that would be to do in real life.

Shortly afterward, the pitfiends are running but Tom is the last to get out and the only one the causeheads see. A large ultra-leftist mob then chase, with seeming violent intent, one solitary guy. This witch hunt scenario is a continuing gag throughout the movie and true enough in a figurative sense to how actual leftist mobs behave. As Tom was escaping, he happens to run into the group which is most like that of the current most radical and obnoxious protesters. Though in the movie they weren’t portrayed as obnoxious as their real life counterparts with the exception of their opinions. In terms of loudness and physical intimidation real life is worse than fiction (see also, and this). I like to call this all-black group in the movie “the Quanza group.” When Tom runs into them, the leader is giving a monologue on the evils of whiteness. The Quanza leader is saying “And the walls are painted white, and the chalk is white, and the paper is white, and even the copy machine is painted white. This my friend is a white devil’s conspiracy.” This is so absurd that you can’t help but laugh. Unfortunately, it isn’t too far off from the paranoia of real life black activists. The concept of white privilege can be pretty much summed up by the previous statements. Everything, no matter how trivial, is interpreted in terms of white vs. black by many protesters and far left academics. Yet the things often focused on as “white privilege” are typically just as asinine in real life as they were in this satire.

After Tom manages to escape from all the rabid leftists, making their attempt at lynching fruitless, they proceed to plan B and en masse submit complaint forms against the pit. The complaint form is one of my favorite additions to the movie. I used it as the post image at the top, but here it is again below (open in a new tab to read it):

PCU complaint form correct

The reason there are lines through it is because the movie shows this as a close up as “Moonbeam” fills it out. I swear, that name makes me laugh every time. I had to merge several screenshots so you could see everything in one image. I find this very funny. Levels of insensitivity can be no less than “typical.” This suggests that no matter what anyone does everyone is persistently and consistently “insensitive.” Sounds a lot like “white privelege”  and other leftist complaints in real life to me. When it comes to leftists, there is no such thing as someone doing the right thing and everyone is guilty of sins against political correctness. The other options are funny too; levels of offendedness and suggested punishments including written apologies and sensitivity workshops.

At this point the president of the university shows up and has a conversation with “Moonbeam” about the pit and expresses she also would like to get rid of them. Rather than go over every situation in detail; I will just provide some choice dialogue from the university president throughout the film. Some of it is pretty quotable stuff because of its absurdity; at least in my opinion.

  • [Talking to Moonbeam] “Those pit offenders are single-handedly destroying sensitivity levels on campus.”
  • [Addressing the residents of the pit] “Need I remind you that this house already has enough complaints to qualify for a sensitivity awareness weekend? You passed out cigarettes for a smoke-a-thon on earth day. You installed speed bumps on the handicap ramps, and most recently poured 100 pounds of meat on a peaceful vegan protest.” [Beyond hedonism, the pit is a group of super trolls who willfully rustle the jimmies of anyone prigging out]
  • [Addressing a University board member at a upscale party] “Well I think bisexual Asian studies should have its own building, but the question is who goes? The math department or the hockey team?”
  • [Addressing board members again] “I am going to announce the changing of the mascot from the offensive Port Chester Indian to an endangered species. Gentlemen, meet our new mascot: the Port Chester whooping crane.”

The last two especially remind  me of problems in universities today. Creating whole departments dedicated to advancing degeneracy is certainly something modern universities engage in. Various “victims” studies programs is common and a complete waste of taxpayer money. Moreover; leftists do legitimately seem interested in prioritizing these worthless cronyism departments at the expense of real academics and even sports; the later of which at least more people can enjoy. The last quote reminds me very much of the recent controversy with the Washington Redskins. Prig prog bureaucrats recently revoked their trademark primarily because it was “offensive.

Well, this post is already almost 5000 words so I am going to finish with two last scenarios. There are certainly other scenes and jokes worth mentioning; but I will leave it to you to watch the movie and see what they are. I suppose I should also mention that George Clinton the “funk” musician makes an appearance at the end. I am not really a fan; so that could have been left out in my opinion. However, I don’t think it detracts too much from the movie overall. It’s just there. Clinton doesn’t express any opinions, he just sings a song.

In the end there was a depiction of the victim Olympics which I enjoyed. In the scene, all the various groups are in line waiting to get into the party being thrown by the pit. They are impatient so they start trying to use their “victim” status to cut in line. Not only is it funny seeing various groups try to out-victim one another, but it is also illuminating to see the real reasons such groups engage in this: A selfish desire to gain social and financial advantage without actually contributing anything. It starts with the Quanza leader:

[Quanza leader] “I’m a black man; there is no justice for me here in America. I should be at the front of the line.”

[Camera moves towards front of line]

[Gay dude] “Ya well, I’m gay and subject to ridicule and discrimination wherever I go.”

[Camera moves even closer to the front of the line]

[Dread dyke] “Women are oppressed throughout the world, give it a rest.”

And I will leave you with the pitfiend’s take on the whole of PC culture. Though not exactly deep, I think it really captures the zeitgeist of the modern left without going into any sort of detailed analysis. These lines come before the party actually starts and it is getting protested by the “womenists.” This is when they are chanting the quote which reminded me of this movie and is similar to the real chant at Mizzou.

[Womenists] “This penis party has to go. Hey, hey. Ho, ho.

[Droz] “You try to spread joy and the PC shock troops shut you down.”

[Pitfiend Girl] “God, don’t they want to have a good time at least once in their lives?”

[Droz] “That’s a damn good point. The majority of students today are so cravenly PC they wouldn’t know a good time if it was sitting on their faces.”

Share Button

The Kite Runner

I was recently asked to help a 9th grader with a “research paper” that was supposed to be related to a book he was assigned to read in class. This book was called “The Kite Runner.” I had never read this book before, so I was limited to focusing on more generic elements such as “Don’t begin every sentence with the pronouns, and especially not the same pronoun” and make sure that when you switch subjects you make it clear that you did instead of using “they” again and again while switching between different groups: Both problems this student had. (Independent of the book content or essay topic, the essay was horrible. He almost certainly didn’t read the book and didn’t try very hard to BS his way through it).

However, I am not entirely convinced that this student’s lack of interest both in the book and in the essay were all that bad in the grand scheme of things. Specifically, the summaries I have since read on this book strongly suggests to me that it is a very clear case of progressive propaganda being forced onto unwitting children. In fact, I was at once reminded of my own experience in high school with similar propaganda. “Speak” by Laurie Halse Anderson. Where as speak was only concerned with feminists conceptions of rape, “The Kite Runner” appears to focus more on Muslims/Afghans (although it also goes into rape as well).

In summaries of the plot, it follows two boys in Kabul who play with kites together. One is of an Islamic sect which is considered lower class than the other. The lower class boy in one scene protects his superior from being beaten up, while in another, later scene the higher class boy does nothing to stop the former from being raped (by a male). Typical prog lionization of lower classes; as well as an awkward insertion of rape. Later the high class boy escapes the soviet invasion and moves to America as a refugee where he experiences guilt at his luck generally (he regularly imagined the hard lives of his friends back home) as well as specifically with respect to this friend he didn’t save from the rape. Finally, he finds out that this friend who he didn’t save from a rape both had died and also had a son during the general turmoil in the country. He goes back and saves this friend’s son and brings him to America as well.

In this story we seem to have both support of cat-lady style saving of refugees as well as touching on rape hysteria. There was probably little mention that there might be a connection between the ethnicity involved and tendency for rape and violence. At least that is how it seems. Without reading the book, I can’t be entirely sure of how much it is in fact propaganda and how much it is just a story (though my own experience with progressive propaganda leads me to a specific guess). I won’t comment further on the content of the story itself. However, the student also showed me his rubric and instructions on what topics were allowed for the essay. All of the designated topics were clearly progressive points of interest (such as “human rights,” which is what this student chose) which leaves no doubt that whatever merits this story has on its own, if any, it is being used in schools to indoctrinate children into progressive positions.

Moreover, the author also hinted that the story is at least to some degree auto-biographical. The degree that his personal life experiences are in the book, or the degree to which it is completely fictionalized, is not entirely clear. Summaries imply that it isn’t really known how much really happened to the author. My guess is that it is mostly fiction with very loose inspiration from real life events, with the events radically changed in the process of writing. It is far easier to warp fiction to meet the acceptable narrative than to fit real life to it. This ambiguity probably allowed the author to sell more copies to gullible progressives without outright lying about its authenticity. From Wikipedia:

According to Hosseini, the narrative became “much darker” than he originally intended. The Kite Runner covers a multigenerational period and focuses on the relationship between parents and their children. The latter was unintentional; Hosseini developed an interest in the theme while in the process of writing. He later divulged that he frequently came up with pieces of the plot by drawing pictures of it. For example, he did not decide to make Amir and Hassan brothers until after he had “doodled it.” Like Amir, the protagonist of the novel, Hosseini was born in Afghanistan and left the country as a youth, not returning until 2003. Thus, he was frequently questioned about the extent of the autobiographical aspects of the book. In response, he said, “When I say some of it is me, then people look unsatisfied. The parallels are pretty obvious, but … I left a few things ambiguous because I wanted to drive the book clubs crazy.”

Even though the author does seem to be pretty open about it being almost entirely a fictional story, it has not seemed to stop progressives from believing it is only a slightly fictionalized auto-biography.

Anyway, I focused mainly on non-content related suggestions to improve his essay. However, I also made a point that when he spoke of human rights he did so in a very general sense, yet all of the examples from the story were from a very specific group of people with a very specific religion. After all, we don’t hear about Theravada Buddhists raping and murdering Mahayana Buddhists. To generalize Muslim culture in Afghanistan as if it were a world wide issue for every group of people is inaccurate and absurd. This is as much crimethink as I dared to inject into the situation, but I think the point was taken and will be considered by the student. In my head, I thought facetiously that the human rights issue he should write about is forcing young children in schools across the country to read and write about progressive propaganda; with their essay conclusion being determined in advance of writing. I did not say this however, as I anticipated the comment would not be appreciated by the adults who would no doubt hear about it. If you are a parent, I would suggest keeping an eye out for this story in your child’s curriculum so that you can do any necessary damage control when they are forced to regurgitate prog propaganda as a graded assignment.

Share Button

Cathedral Censorship in Action: Colin Flaherty banned from Youtube

This will be a short post. I just want to draw attention to yet another example of people not following the “right” narrative being bullied, badgered, pressured and purged.

Part of the “acceptable” narrative is that all races (and genders) are equal in every conceivable way. Not just in terms of being treated fairly before the law, but also in potential for success or potential for crime. When one group statistically commits more crimes than other groups, this axiom is violated. The strategy of progressives is not to look at this information and reject the axiom, but to double down and create rationalizations that allow the axiom to coexist with facts that clearly debunk it.

It is well known (and empirically verified) that blacks commit more crimes than whites, and that in interracial violence blacks are much more commonly the aggressor against the out-group, especially whites, than vice versa. This is a clear violation of the axiom that all groups are equally criminally, or equally non-criminal. In love with their axiom, progressives invent (rationalize) nonsense theories and hypotheses such as white privilege and systematic racism to explain the disparity and keep their axiom too. Of course that is bullshit, and genetics is in the process of showing these differences are innate. Once enough “warrior” alleles at various gene locations are identified, it is almost certain blacks will have a greater frequency of them than most other groups and that will be determined to be the true cause of their higher likelihood for violent crime.

There are people out there who actively work against the progressives and make the information about the reality of inter-racial violence, and especially black violence, known. Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire for example. Another such person is Colin Flaherty, author of ‘White Girl Bleed A Lot’: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It and ‘Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry’: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it.. In these books he demonstrates the reality and extent of black on white violence and how much more often whites are the victims of blacks rather than the other way around.

In addition to these important books, he also had a youtube channel which posted videos, both privately recorded and found in the media, which demonstrated both black violence and the media’s blatant attempts to white wash the truth. This channel was gaining popularity at a very rapid rate because the general public could not access this information as a result of collusion in the mainstream media to cover it up.

“My channel documents how the media ignore, deny, condone, excuse, encourage and even lie about these kinds of crimes. I filled a vacuum, and the people responded to that.

“And all of this was based on facts and evidence. We produced videos, 9-1-1 calls, police reports, eyewitness accounts and statements from victims who all said the same thing. ‘Something very wrong is happening here, and we have to pay attention to it,’”

“My YouTube channel was getting 1 million views a month, generating about 5 to 10 million minutes of viewing. There were 25,000 to 50,000 comments a month, and 15,000 subscribers. And all of those numbers were growing 20 percent per month,” he said.

“This channel satisfied a craving for real information about black-on-white crime and black-on-white hostility that has reached epidemic levels. And I don’t apologize for pointing out the obvious: black mob violence and black-on-white crime is wildly out of proportion.”

When a white is the perpetrator of some crime the race is readily reported, but when a black is a perpetrator, the only information we get is “a man” or “youths” or “teenagers” and the public is left wondering the ethnicity of the perp. Well, not many people are dumb enough not to know implicitly. Most average people, white or otherwise, have easily figured out that when a description is intentionally vague it usually means a black is responsible (though Hispanics also will get similar treatment their crime rate  is lower than blacks).

Colin Flaherty’s work goes against the progressive narrative of the cathedral, which makes it a prime target for censorship. His work shows the reality of race relations today and calls into question both the axiom of equality and the rationalization that whites are the aggressors and thus are at fault. Such crimethink is not something progressives will tolerate, at least not for long and so now Flaherty’s work is no longer available from youtube. A platform which has a great potential for the truth to be made known. This is unfortunate for those who value truth above sentiment, but in this case the truth wants to be free and will continue becoming more widely known despite this bump in the road.

Share Button

We’re not in Kansas anymore

I have been planning to write this cladistics post which looks at the history of Kansas and its connection with the Cathedral for some time. Recently, Occam’s Razor had yet another post where he tries to say that progressivism is 100% Jewish and not Christian which convinced me it was time to add yet more evidence to the cathedral description camp. Much has been written on this which draws the link between puritanical Christianity and the modern progressive movement and I am no less convinced that this is an open and shut case. You can see my previous posts which talk about this: The missing links and the cathedral compilation.

As far as the “Jewish Question” is concerned (since Occam brings it up), I have no quibble with the idea that a select group of individual Jews have had an outsized influence on it. Much like they have an outsized number of nobel prizes. All this shows is that given a certain popular trend, progressivism being only one such trend, Jews have a tendency to produce unusually successful individuals. In my opinion, this is entirely explained by biological intelligence differentials. The Jewish intelligence distribution is to the right of most other groups so I wouldn’t expect anything else.  In addition, lets not forget that half of the Christian bible is Jewish. The two religions share part of their common core with each other. Logically, that both are capable of propping up progressivism is not surprising in the least. However, I would argue that the new testament does a better job supporting progressivism than the old. In short, individual Jews looking for success saw that progressivism was popular with the majority Christian culture around them and simply did the smart thing from a personal perspective in becoming leaders within said cultures. If reactionary culture had been dominant, they probably would have gone after that instead. Lastly, today brahmin whites and Jews are in my opinion the exact same culturally. These two groups are barely distinguishable as it is and are currently engaging in a great deal of admixture with Jews marrying non-jews at an astounding rate of 58-70% (only current marriages are addressed in link, so divorce probably makes it higher overall), so before too many generations they will be genetically the same, not just culturally the same.

Moving on to the main topic. Surprisingly given their modern conservakin demographics, the history of Kansas makes for an excellent example of a transitional period for progressivism. Kansas became a center for progressive politics in the 1800s which peaked around 1890 because so many of them moved to Kansas because of the slavery issue. New England abolitionists were invested in a pure morality status signaling way in the outcome of whether new states came into the union as free state or slave states. Based on purely moral reasoning without regard to economics or convenience, many of these New England proto-cathedralites moved to Kansas just so they could ensure Kansas would be a free state.

The most famous example is that of abolitionist John Brown. He was every bit of the same kind as the violent far-left activist/terrorist of today, but in the setting of the 1850s. Brown led raids with other activists and even murdered a number of people as he believed a peaceful end of slavery was not possible so a violent overthrow of government was the only solution. He was motivated by his religion: “He believed he was the instrument of God’s wrath in punishing men for the sin of owning slaves.” The stage was set for the civil war by conflict between free-state puritans who had moved to Kansas and Slave-state Missourians who had a number of small conflicts that happened before the civil war. These events became known as bleeding Kansas. Brown later went on a raid of an armory in Virginia in 1859 in which he and his supporters killed five men. Brown was executed for treason for this act, but its effect was to greatly increase the tensions between the North and South. The South was correct in identifying the highly aggressive posturing and support of violence by Northern abolitionists. Even if most paid lip-service to a peaceful resolution, they weren’t exactly angry that the fringe of their movement was engaging in violence and were dead set in isolating and inconveniencing the south as much as possible. This was Anarcho-tyranny at its very core. During the civil war proper, the union army even had a marching song celebrating Brown as a martyr.

After the civil war, abolition was no longer an issue, but Kansas was still full of puritans and through their activism the state became one of the main centers of progressivism during last half of the 19th century and into the early part of the 20th century.  They instituted or tried to institute child labor laws (somewhat understandable, but this had an undesirable side-effect of turning children from a economic gain into an economic cost for families), temperance/prohibition, direct election of federal senators, and labor reform among other things. They even had a populist party called “the people’s party” which engaged in outright illegal actions in the Kansas house of representatives. For example, locking the republican party out of the state congressional hall. Armed conflict almost resulted in Kansas because of these sorts of antics, which demonstrates that democracy really is just a low level civil war that always has the potential to turn violent.

inatior001p1

Though this is just a very brief synopsis of progressive Kansas, it clearly draws a link between the progressive movement and Christianity. I invite you to do more research on this historical period yourself, but even from this summary it is clear that Jews were not all that involved in significant portions of the evolution of progressivism. Puritanical Christians were the ones driving this movement from the bottom up and it is the same movement that has evolved into the modern cathedral. A few Jews which punch above their weight in terms of influence here and there does not undermine the fact that the cathedral is a christian spawned demon through and through. I am not sure how much of this was because of their particular version of Christian culture or because of the genetics they possessed from direct descent from English dissenters. I would imagine that it was a little bit of both, culture and biology have a lot of feedback with each other. Either way, the christian character of the cathedral cannot just be washed away.

Share Button

A proposal: Social Matter for the sciences.

A user on reddit posted a link in which he lamented that there is not a neoreactionary magazine devoted specifically to science and technology news. Frankly, I think this is a very good idea. I have published things related to this several times before. You can see two of these articles here and here.

My book on gender differences in intelligence, and the biological basis thereof, is actually finished and loosely qualifies for what he wants. So that is science, which is just science, coupled with neoreactionary interpretations. I am still negotiating with a potential publisher, otherwise it would already be available. I hope to have it out by the end of the year, but this process takes a long time I understand. If that doesn’t work out, I will put it out on amazon instead. As important as I feel that is, it isn’t a science magazine which has regularly published short articles. It would be quite beneficial to start such an institution.

If there was going to be a neoreactionary science magazine I think that it would mostly be the regular critiquing of various published articles and pointing out the liberal bias in them. You can see a good template in Steve McIntyres Climate Audit website. Imagine this, but with broader topics and an explicitly neoreactionary position. Academia is a left dominated institution after all and I don’t see reactionary scientists getting funding or being published anytime soon. So really that is all we could do with the occasional exception. Before I started my current blog, I considered doing just this kind of content. Specifically, I had in mind a blog which took a published article from psychology every week or two and went through it to find bad or missing interpretations of the findings. Social psychology especially provides a wealth of material to be ripped apart by critique, but plenty of other branches do as well. Basically, what I have found in reading these articles is that often the data collection and number crunching is about as decent as could be expected, but the interpretations of the findings are often just way off; or certain conclusions are conspicuously absent. We don’t necessarily have to analyze papers as a statistician would to critique these papers. In fact, we can often just assume that all the data and math was done superbly (even if that probably isn’t true) and still find major problems with the paper. By conceding that part and focusing on interpretations it should make it so many more of us could participate in writing content for this magazine. Of course, we could also include pieces which simply analyses new advances in technology as well. I believe I could make a commitment to creating content at least once every two weeks and maybe once a week when time permits. Would anyone else in the neoreactosphere be willing to start working on this sort of thing with me such that we have something similar to social matter but for science and technology specifically? Please email me at Atavisionary@gmail.com or comment on this blog so we can start to make a plan.

Also, pretty much any paper should be freely accessible if we use libgen.in and /r/scholar to get them, so no one should go out of pocket to get papers for thrashing.

Share Button

Wikipedia in Action on Race

I like to refer to Lewontin’s fallacy frequently when debating people who deny the biological basis of race. Wikipedia, while clearly not perfect, did have a reasonable article (at least for quick referral of lay-people) on the paper written by W.F. Edwards which coined “Lewontin’s fallacy.”(1) A brief overview is that in the 1970’s an academic social justice advocate published a paper(2) in which he claimed that there is more variation within individuals from one race than there is variation between different racial populations. So much that you can regularly find people of different races who are more similar to each other than they are to members of their own race. However, the first paper linked to above shows that the problem mainly stems from the fact that very few loci were studied by Lewontin. Allele frequencies differ between populations and with enough loci studied, the ability to distinguish between racial groups based purely on genetic information is quite high. Virtually 100%.

As is typical for pretty much all articles on Wikipedia, anything that isn’t politically correct can be expected to drift over time such that claims that are not PC are deleted, diluted, and placed next to a larger number of criticisms than is warranted such that it implies that the non-PC claims seem unsupported or only supported by very few outliers. Sometimes, like in this article, a paper which can be seen to support one conclusion actually supports the opposite on more careful inspection. All of this is the wikipedia version of death by 1000 cuts. I once tried editing the page on gender differences in intelligence and was basically run out and banned by marxist feminists. I assume this happens to anyone who objectively tries to include factual and balanced information into potentially politically incorrect articles. These same people got that article deleted or subsumed into gender differences in psychology for awhile, but it looks like it has been resurrected now. Honestly, the constant battle over these sorts of articles is just beyond all reason and I will never bother editing wikipedia again. Chances are your work is just going to get deleted and there are other platforms where that won’t happen.

Subjectively, it seems like this sort of thing has been happening to the Lewontin’s fallacy article, but I will let you be the judge:

Here is an old archived version of this article.

Here is an archived version of the current article.

Here is a direct link to the article. (It shouldn’t look different than the above link at the time of this post, but who knows what future changes will be made. In a year or two it could be interesting to compare these three versions)

The thing that is most obvious in my mind is that a paper discussed in an earlier version of the article which supported the concept of Lewontin’s fallacy has had any reference to it completely deleted. Here is the now deleted content:

Studies of human genetic clustering have shown that people can be accurately classified into racial groups using correlations between alleles from multiple loci. For instance, a 2001 paper by Wilson et al. reported that an analysis of 39 microsatellite loci divided their sample of 354 individuals into four natural clusters, which broadly correspond to four geographical areas (Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China, and New Guinea)

In addition, a paper which purports to undermine the concept that Lewontin’s thinking is fallacious is present at the end in both versions, but is quoted more (and very selectively) in the most recent version. In my opinion, the findings in both wikipedia versions are misrepresented.

In the old article this:

The paper claims that this masks a great deal of genetic similarity between individuals belonging to different clusters. Or in other words, two individuals from different clusters can be more similar to each other than to a member of their own cluster, while still both being more similar to the typical genotype of their own cluster than to the typical genotype of a different cluster. When differences between individual pairs of people are tested, Witherspoon et al. found that the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” is not adequately addressed by multi locus clustering analyses. They found that even for just three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian) the inclusion of many thousands of loci is required before the answer can become “never”

On the other hand, the accurate classification of the global population must include more closely related and admixed populations, which will increase this above zero, so they state “In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible”. Witherspoon et al. conclude “The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population”

expanded into this:

In the 2007 paper “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations”,[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?”. The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was “never”. However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, “Since an individual’s geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one’s population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. […] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes”,[20] and warn that, “A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.”

This paper… It had decent data and methodology actually. But as is almost always the case with these sorts of things, interpretations and framing of the results are key. It is clear that the people who wrote this are deliberately softballing their wording either to cover their ass (my guess) or to promote a more progressive narrative.

ω in the following quotes is defined as given a certain number of loci considered, the probability of individuals originating from two distinct geographical areas will be more similar to each other than to someone originating closer to them. I.E., the probability that two randomly selected individuals from different races will be more similar to each other than each is similar to a randomly selected member of their own race. Keep in mind that ω is not the same as determining what race a person is based on genetic data. Even with small numbers of loci and a high ω, there is very low probability of misclassifying the race of an individual person. From the very same paper used to undermine the Edwards’ paper:

[A relatively large ω is found with low numbers of loci] It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

With the large and diverse data sets now available, we have been able to evaluate these contrasts quantitatively. Even the pairwise relatedness measure, ω, can show clear distinctions between populations if enough polymorphic loci are used. Observations of high ω and low classification errors are the norm with intermediate numbers of loci (up to several hundred)

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, ω, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

Molecular biologists and geneticists use a little bit different definition of polymorphism than some other branches in biology. In this case, they are referring to single nucleotide differences in the genome. This is equivalent to having one letter different in spelling a word. Prog and prig mean almost the same thing, but there is one letter difference which slightly changes the meaning. This is a reasonable analogy to the differences in the genetic code.

What this paper says (and it should be said with less tip-toeing) is that if you only consider a small number of these single nucleotide polymorphisms, there is a high degree of error and you can often erroneously conclude that two people from different races are more similar to each other than they are to individuals of their own race. The key word here is erroneously. This is a statistical problem, not biological fact. If you consider thousands of SNPS at once, then you have virtually no chance of encountering this problem. The authors of this paper found that Edwards was right and Lewontin was wrong. Individuals from two different races are never more similarly related than people from the same race, and the genetics supports this when you consider enough loci. It is pretty unambiguous. The quotes in the Wikipedia article and in the paper don’t really represent what the researchers actually found. The researchers had to dress this language up the way they did because of progressive influence in academia. Chances are they wouldn’t have gotten published if they were straight forward about what they found, and even if they could have published political heresy they may have had their careers ruined by SJWs in academia. See what happens when you don’t toe the line with the progressive narrative by reading what happened to a University of Texas researcher who didn’t find the “right” conclusions with regards to gay couples raising children. Though there is a huge problem with how Wikipedia articles are written and “maintained,” they wouldn’t have been able to misconstrue these results so badly if it weren’t from the same sorts of SJWs in academia malevolently influencing researchers. Though it shouldn’t be understated that the wikipedia editors did in fact selectively quote from this already bludgeoned paper. Two layers of SJW influence changed the findings of this paper to mean the exact opposite of what it actually found. Unbelievable. It is truly amazing that this sort of shenanigans is allowed to go on.

You might object that “thousands” is a huge number and that this demonstration of statistical problems convincingly shows that races don’t differ if it takes that many to reduce error to zero. However, the human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. If you were to use 3000 base pair SNPs, which is consistent with the minimum in the paper, then you need to utilize only .0001% of the whole genome to reduce this error to zero. Or, if you want to consider SNPs only, there are about 10 million SNPs in the human genome. A sample of 3000 SNPs is only .003% of the total number of SNPs that could be used. This is a conservative estimate because their figure 2 indicates it only takes about 1000 SNPS to minimize this error. In other words, it only takes a vanishingly small fraction of the genome to relieve you of this statistical error that can find that humans from two different races are more similar to each other than either is to their own race.

Yet this paper, which so conclusively shows that human races are different from each other on the genetic level, is used to debunk the original Edwards’ paper. The author’s of the paper attempt to debunk themselves or at least pretend like they found the opposite of what they actually did. This paper is absolutely one of the worst instances of doublethink I have ever come across. It literally blows my mind. As a society, we seem to have a real hatred for truth when it comes to biological realities and the uninformed are clearly being purposefully told lies.

Sidenote: I know there was another article on cathedral entryism on Wikipedia in the alt-right in the last year or so, but for the life of me I can’t find it. If anyone can provide a link I would appreciate it. Edit: Found it.

(1) Bioessays. 2003 Aug;25(8):798-801. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy. Edwards

(2) The Apportionment of Human Diversity. R. C. Lewontin. 1972

(3) Genetics. 2007 May; 176(1): 351–359. doi:  10.1534/genetics.106.067355 PMCID: PMC1893020 Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, A. R. Rogers, E. E. Marchani, W. S. Watkins, M. A. Batzer, and L. B. Jorde

Share Button