Instructions for Comment Registration

We are happy to announce Pragmatically Distributed is open for comment registration.

The primary objective of the comment registration system is to give regular commenters the liberty to, without moderation, interact with the site; smooth the flow of conversation; minimize the amount of time dedicated to moderation; and wave through one time comments from lurkers, or those who are new to the blog but who need to build up enough trust to be granted real-time commenting privileges.

What type of commenters will be given permission to post in real-time? Commenters whom we already know will initially be given preference. We expect the overwhelming number of those commenters with whom we are familiar to be granted un-moderated commenting privileges after their first comment.

As new readers inevitably appear, new commenters will follow. For newcomers, the odds of being granted un-moderated privileges increases as your comments increase in quality. A very strong first attempt might lead to you being given live comment permissions immediately. A good attempt may also be rewarded with real-time permissions. Regular commenters who do well but not spectacularly may be granted it if they build up a certain amount of confidence over time.

But there is no hard rule.

The ultimate decision of whether to allow a commenter to write without moderation depends on the judgement of the blog owners, therefore the quality of the discussion threads will be as much a statement about the quality of the owners as it will be of the commenters. We welcome this as we are confident in the soundness of our judgement and we anticipate our articles to be accompanied by excellent discussion threads. Anyone who today expects otherwise is invited to judge the result for themselves in the future.

The instructions to register your profile for commenting, either real-time or moderated, are as follows:

Comment on any thread where comments have not been closed and enter a screen name and email address (Until regular blogging begins on September 2nd, commenters may use this post to register themselves since this will be the only entry before then which is open to comments).

Your email address may be real or fake.

All first time comments, even those immediately given live comment permissions, will be sent to a moderation queue.

If the commenter is granted real-time privileges, they may comment without moderation on their next post as long as the same username and email is used.

The system is not case sensitive. It will recognize the username and email of an existing commenter as long as the characters and spacing are the same as before.

Please keep your original username and email written down somewhere in case you forget it. If you do have to enter a new username and/or email address, the system will treat you as a new commenter and you will have to wait for your comment to be approved in the moderation queue.

For moderated commenters, you should expect your comments will be approved in 1 day, though you may have to wait longer depending on how busy the moderators are.

Please be patient.

Moderated comments deemed inappropriate for whatever reason will not be published.

For commenters with real time privileges but who make inappropriate comments, they will usually be told to cease their behavior. If they continue on their way, the blog owners reserve the right to put the commentator’s future remarks under moderation or to ban them completely. The approach to remedy inappropriate behavior is entirely at the discretion of the owners.

General Commenting Rules:

So commenters know who they are responding to, please do not use ‘anonymous’ as a screen name. Unless the comment is exceptionally insightful, if you do so it is very likely your comment will be rejected completely. In the unlikely event that the quality of the comment is good enough to deserve approval, the commenter who made it will not be granted real-time commenting privileges, at least until they choose a different username.

It is unlikely any username similar to ‘anonymous’ (e.g.; ‘Anon’) will be approved, unless we are already familiar with someone who uses a similar screen name.

Rules Regarding Antisemitism

Antisemitism is defined by this blog as anyone obsessed with the idea Jews are an unassimilated minority which has significantly different ethnic, religious, or cultural objectives and political motives from those of other elite whites.

The position of this blog is that Jews are a highly assimilated white ethnic group that does not significantly differ in its positions or motivations from other elite whites, and that the nature of the points where there are differences are largely cosmetic.

This definition is in our view quite fair. It will cover real antisemites without covering individuals who are not do no meet this standard. Richard Nixon, for example, would not qualify under this definition because he had a negative opinion of almost everyone.

Moderated comments which meet this definition will be deleted.

Commenters with live commenting privileges will usually be given a warning to desist, with revocation of real time posting privileges or bannings retained as options usable at the discretion of the blog owners.

We are forced to take this position against antisemitism because the rationale for it is overwhelmingly derived from evidence that may been, according to researchers, falsified by Kevin MacDonald in his various works. Given the evidence MacDonald has been acting fraudulently is already rather substantial, we will not allow comments that are based on his arguments.

So that the reasoning behind our policy on antisemitism is justified as strongly as possible to newcomers who may not be convinced of the necessity of this approach, and so that we do not waste time constantly refuting points made by apologists for antisemites and the potentially bogus work of MacDonald, we outline various articles by researchers who have accumulated evidence of deception in MacDonald’s work.

Professor David Lieberman accuses MacDonald of ‘deliberate fraud’ when presenting a study MacDonald claimed showed Jews were highly authoritarian.

Lieberman points out that the study concluded Jews were tied with Anglicans and Unitarians as the least authoritarian of any measured religious group, no matter how the survey sample was filtered by the study’s authors.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

Kevin MacDonald:

Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups

(Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.59

Lieberman’s anlaysis of the study:

[A]re “very accepting” subjects equally authoritarian in all religions? Or do different denominations (as argued earlier) produce different levels of authoritarianism even among the strongly committed? If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3) among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between. 61

So not only are Jews among the least authoritarian of religious groups, according to Altemeyer highly religious Jews are among the least authoritarian of the highly religious.

Yet in an awe-inspiring display of sheer gall (dare I say, ‘chutzpah’?), MacDonald takes information Altemeyer has collected from studies of subjects explicitly identified as “White North Americans” and applies it willy-nilly to the Jews whom Altemeyer, working from actual data rather than his own ‘suppositions,’ largely exempts from the discussion. The point is worth emphasizing: these highly ethnocentric, highly authoritarian, highly self-deceptive “people who are highly attracted to cohesive groups,” as MacDonald so guardedly puts it, whom MacDonald adduces as evidence for the self-deceptive tendencies of Jewish “hyper-collectivism,” were in fact members of MacDonald’s own ethnic group. I can think of no other way to describe this conduct than as an act of deliberate fraud.

Professor Barry Mehler accuses MacDonald of misrepresenting the history of Jews and immigration, while Lieberman accuses MacDonald of misquoting a work written by Holocaust revisionist David Irving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_reception

For example, Dr. Barry Mehler, an educator at Ferris State University, noted that MacDonald had claimed that “…Jewish opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation (to limit immigration) was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals with northern and western European ancestry.” MacDonald based this on a dissertation entitled “American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953” by Sheldon Morris Neuringer.[who?] Nueringer’s thesis posited that Jewish opposition in 1921 and 1924 to the anti-immigration legislation at the time was due more to it having the “taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism” as opposed to how it would limit Jewish immigration. Mehler stated “It seems to me Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this case and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the literature might have a judgment on MacDonald’s use of the historical data.” [35]

[…]

In 2001, David Lieberman, a Holocaust researcher at Brandeis University, wrote a paper entitled Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy: A Case Study of Kevin MacDonald’s Research Techniques, where he noted how one of MacDonald’s sources, author Jaff Schatz, objected to how MacDonald used his writings to further his premise that Jewish self-identity validates anti-Semitic sentiments and actions. “At issue, however, is not the quality of Schatz’s research, but MacDonald’s use of it, a discussion that relies less on topical expertise than on a willingness to conduct close comparative readings”, Lieberman wrote. Lieberman accused MacDonald of dishonestly made up lines from the work of British Holocaust denier David Irving. Citing Irving’s Uprising, which was published in 1981 for the twenty-fifth anniversary of Hungary’s failed anti-Communist revolution in 1956, MacDonald asserted in the Culture of Critique:

“The domination of the Hungarian communist Jewish bureaucracy thus appears to have had overtones of sexual and reproductive domination of gentiles in which Jewish males were able to have disproportionate sexual access to gentile females.”

Lieberman, who noted that MacDonald is not a historian, debunked those assertions, concluding, “(T)he passage offers not a shred of evidence that, as MacDonald would have it, “Jewish males enjoyed disproportionate sexual access to gentile females.”[38]

On page 199 of MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, MacDonald seems to insinuate the Frankfurt School influenced the theories of French existentialist and leftist radical professor Michel Foucault. In the actual interview, which seemingly contradicts MacDonald, Foucault states he and other French intellectuals were not aware even of the existence of the Frankfurt School until later and that Foucault himself had developed a ‘very similar’ mode of thinking before knowing of them:

http://stunlaw.blogspot.com/2013/07/foucault-and-frankfurt-school.html

Now, the striking thing is that France knew absolutely nothing – or only vaguely, only very indirectly – about the current of Weberian thought. Critical Theory was hardly known in France and the Frankfurt School was practically unheard of. This, by the way, raises a minor historical problem which fascinates me and which I have not been able to resolve at all. It is common knowledge that many representatives of the Frankfurt School came to Paris in 1935, seeking refuge, and left very hastily, sickened presumably – some even said as much – but saddened anyhow not to have found more of an echo. Then came 1940, but they had already left for England and the U.S., where they were actually much better received. The understanding that might have been established between the Frankfurt School and French philosophical thought – by way of the history of science and therefore the question of the history of rationality – never occurred. And when I was a student, I can assure you that I never once heard the name of the Frankfurt School mentioned by any of my professors.

FOUCAULT: Now, obviously, if I had been familiar with the Frankfurt School, if I had been aware of it at the time, I would not have said a number of stupid things that I did say and I would have avoided many of the detours which I made while trying to pursue my own humble path – when, meanwhile, avenues had been opened up by the Frankfurt School. It is a strange case of non-penetration between two very similar types of thinking which is explained, perhaps, by that very similarity. Nothing hides the fact of a problem in common better than two similar ways of approaching it.

Anthropologist Peter Frost (who does not mention MacDonald’s work in his entry on Franz Boas) describes Franz Boas as a moderate environmentalist, this analysis contradicts how extreme was Boas’ environmentalism as has often been portrayed by MacDonald (whom, as mentioned before, is not mentioned by Frost in Frost’s article).

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-franz-boas-you-never-knew.html

Advertisements

36 thoughts on “Instructions for Comment Registration”

  1. Undiscovered because he hasn’t earned his parentheses yet…

    A naive question for the fellow landsmen among us, is there really shame in being “outed” as Jewish? Perhaps I’m privileged to have spent most of my life in circumstances where I never had the sense that Jews would have faced any genuine prejudice. Furthermore, my impression was that if it were obvious that one was Jewish he might have a little more intellectual freedom to consider some sensitive issues that might get gentiles accused of antisemitism. My perspective is that there is no people, culture or nation that is beyond criticism. I love America and I love Europe but I will often criticize these because I don’t think they’re living up to their potential and could certainly be doing better. When it comes to the Jewish culture and community, of course it is hardly an organized monolith, but one would have to be consciously unconscious to ignore some of the characteristics particular to them. Even though I grew up with a half Jewish family and in a community with a sizable Jewish plurality, I was not really raised in the culture. So my experience has been as an outsider rather than by immersion… Nevertheless it’s been impossible to ignore many of the very much admirable features of the Jewish culture and community. On the other hand I might have developed a blindness to what might be particular deficits or handicaps that are particular to the Jewish culture. They must exist and would be worth considering, in the same spirit of striving for improvement and perfection that I feel it’s fair to criticize American or European cultures. We can criticize the Black Lives Matter gang but also recognize that they’re not elected by or representative of the black community. We can also wish that the black community and leaders would call that destructive gang to heel in the spirit of self-criticism. On the other hand in the spirit of self-determination it’s fair for a people to accept whatever features that outsiders find lacking and outsiders can respect the difference as something that other people do differently but perhaps not to everyone’s personal taste or values.

    I don’t know what inspired me to consider at such length my views on Jewish culture or people, it’s not something I spend a lot of time thinking about. Certainly it seems obvious that Jews have been an asset to any culture that has hosted them… It’s not hard to notice the yawning void in European and German societies after the unpleasantness that tore them out of the fabric of European civilization. However in the introduction to his new blog Mr. Undiscovered spent more time establishing boundaries to inquiry especially highlighting a single taboo topic, antisemitism. It’s his house; his rules. I might have found a more in depth exposition of a constructive vision or mission statement of where he wants us to go, what he wants us to consider more inspiring than a very limited circumscribed area of what area might be treacherous grounds and off limits. So I took the antisemitism taboo almost as a challenge! Certainly we all have to admit that antisemitism is real and it poisons exchanges between people separated by miles and pixels. But for some reason I still have a hard time taking it seriously. In our culture we’ve done away with almost all traditional taboos, sexual perversion, religious blasphemy, etc. In their stead there are a handful of words, names and attitudes towards a few select ethnic groups whose utterance is so taboo, that their thoughtcrime is sufficient for social exile and economic ostracism. However the only ones breaking these speech rules are usually the immature and simple-minded who are just trying provoke attention because they have nothing else between their ears or on their tongue to offer. So from my perspective prosecuting or otherwise drawing attention to these jerks with nothing else to contribute only rewards them with exactly the attention they were seeking. Thus I can’t help being disappointed in what I see as an all-too-common defensiveness or thin-skinnedness among Jews for people who spout nonsense and mindless attention seeking behavior. Indeed the I fear that the frequent accusations of antisemitism are counterproductive. When will the Jewish leadership among us assume the self-confidence that they deserve for being such an integral and strong component of our society? Someday the minority has to outgrow their paranoia that persecution is immanent. Indeed the assumption of persecution and bad faith probably offends a great number of gentiles who have nothing but good will to their Jewish neighbors, colleagues and friends.

    OK enough of my overlong unorganized thoughts on antisemitism.

    ——

    Otherwise congratulations on what looks like a very worthwhile contribution to the intellectual landscape that has become the playground of so many! Welcoming a new voice and mind is something worth celebrating!

    I wish I could summon the discipline to mount such an exercise to explore various interesting questions in depth with regularity. Perhaps you’ll inspire me Mr. Undiscovered!

    I do have a couple requests for both Mr. Undiscovered. My intellectual curiosity has led me to this strange corner of our public consciousness, but I feel woefully unprepared to really make the most and contribute to the community. I feel like I’m missing many of the prerequisites… Perhaps you all could share some of the intellectual milestones, authors, thinkers and particular works that you explored on the way to your current state of mind? Also interesting would be some of the current thinkers and writers contributing right now… I think they call that a blog roll… Maybe some of our readers would also like to share their influences.

    Help us build a curriculum…

    Like

  2. Congratulations!

    A new blog is born!

    Can it replace my beloved but departed LastPsychiatrist PartialObjects or UnqualifiedReservations?

    Like

  3. Some typos above: “judgement” should be judgment; “Michelle” Foucault should be Michel. But I’m very excited for this project. I’ve mostly been quiet because the seductive appeal of Dr. MacDonald’s work has driven a wedge in the deep right between his followers and everybody else. It will be nice to try to get past that.

    Like

  4. “Antisemitism is defined by this blog as anyone obsessed with the idea Jews are an unassimilated minority which has significantly different ethnic, religious, or cultural objectives and political motives from those of other elite whites.” But lots of nice, patriotic Jews at the shuls I’ve attended are obsessed with this idea! (Different ethnic, religious, and cultural motives … well, of course. The “political motives” would be Religious Zionist ones. “Different … from” does NOT entail “incompatible with”. And, obviously, lots of non-Jewish elite whites have conflicting political motives, e.g. Cape Cod gentry vs. Silicon Valley supermen.)
    “The position of this blog is that Jews are a highly assimilated white ethnic group that does not significantly differ in its positions or motivations from other elite whites, and that the nature of the points where there are differences are largely cosmetic.” I live next to Boro Park. “Highly assimilated”? I’m guessing that you mean the Jewish lawyers and accountants and financial experts and Joey Ramone and the Beastie Boys and people like that; you don’t mean “Jews”, you mean “apparently highly assimilated Jews”; your claim (which I agree with) seems to be that the Jews who SEEM highly assimilated REALLY ARE highly assimilated.
    Why not just say, You can’t be nasty about my folks in my house, so if you’re feeling nasty go to Fulton Mall or SocialMatters or something, just don’t bring it here. This seems completely reasonable; it’s generally understood that one doesn’t make rude remarks about the host’s mom.

    Like

  5. It’s good to see that your blog is finally up! Please don’t make your posts too serious. It’s your sense of humor that makes you one of the best commenters over at LOTB.

    “His work will be remembered for centuries long after you are all forgotten.”

    Clearly, Otis the Sweaty is your co-host.

    Like

  6. Thank you everyone for greeting us with so much enthusiasm.

    And it is a good sign we have very well-read commenters so soon.

    You should all have live-comment privileges. If you encounter a problem, let me know.

    @Mike Street Station

    Is this considered registration?

    Yes

    @IHTG

    What’s up, Tudge? Can you tell us what else this blog is going to be about?

    If the gravatar icon didn’t give it away, surely the one on the upper right-hand side should have: It is the symbol of the old Federalist Party of Hamilton.

    @benkitman

    I’ve mostly been quiet because the seductive appeal of Dr. MacDonald’s work has driven a wedge in the deep right between his followers and everybody else.

    His projects have gone nowhere in the twenty years since he’s been running American antisemitism. That he’s run it into the ground (and it wasn’t exactly in great shape before he took the lead on it) to the point where his followers should now be considering whether he’s really a Mossad agent is good for the Jews.

    But his work (which seemingly involved misquoting sources that contradict his arguments, a mistake that I’m not sure most Holocaust deniers were stupid enough make) has been a distraction from the development of a coherent nationalist message.

    Judge for yourself if keeping a lid on this distraction improves, reduces, or makes no difference in the quality of comments.

    @Garr

    But lots of nice, patriotic Jews at the shuls I’ve attended are obsessed with this idea!

    Elite ethnic white Americans of all backgrounds boast of their ethnicity. Pelosi, the Cuomo family, and the Kennedy’s will talk your ear off about the old country, but their policies have largely done nothing but harm their American co-ethnics.

    Why not just say, You can’t be nasty about my folks in my house, so if you’re feeling nasty go to Fulton Mall or SocialMatters or something, just don’t bring it here.

    Give it time and you will find the policy is much more flexible than you realize. I’m willing to acknowledge (and allow comments about) moderate stylistic differences and historical mindsets between Jewish liberals and gentile liberals.

    For instance, while Stephen Breyer’s politics is impacted by the Holocaust to an extent the politics of David Souter isn’t, Breyer can’t be that ethnocentric since he married into English aristocracy. It’s also true there is no functional difference between Souter’s voting positions when he was on the Supreme Court and Breyer’s.

    On the other hand, Jews who have the strongest sense of Jewish identity tend to be among the most conservative of all white American voters.

    On balance, the liberal politics of a Breyer or a Bloomberg is the result of Jews rejecting their identity and assimilating into a liberal gentile mindset that doesn’t ultimately originate with Jews.

    Please don’t make your posts too serious.

    There are enough dimensions to the upcoming material to not leave you disappointed in that regard.

    Like

  7. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

    Furthermore, my impression was that if it were obvious that one was Jewish he might have a little more intellectual freedom to consider some sensitive issues that might get gentiles accused of antisemitism.

    I want the issue mitigated because I view the issue as exhausted and stuck in a dead-end.

    The reasons why Jews are liberal are largely the result of a rejection of traditional Jewish identity in favor of a cosmopolitan gentile mindset. Reform Judaism itself was established as a way to assimilate into German society with ‘Lutheranized’ Judaism.

    Antisemitic arguments fail when they try to overcomplicate Jewish liberalism into a mysterious force of nature that is actually a tribalistic agenda masquerading as universalism.

    The simpler explanation is that Jews are universalists because, like universalist gentiles, they truly believe in universalism.

    And if this is true what else is there to discuss about Jewish liberalism? The ideas of Jewish thinkers (which could always have been rejected by the more numerous gentile elites) largely echo the thoughts of gentile thinkers.

    “Jew Counting” is just an exercise in proving Jewish participation, but not causation, in movements also supported by gentiles. In terms of participation, a greater number of gentiles created what the Jews latter joined.

    We can criticize the Black Lives Matter gang but also recognize that they’re not elected by or representative of the black community.

    If no antisemite is obsessively counting French gentile liberals (except British newspapers which do so in the form of a jocular, friendly rivalry), English Fabian Socialists, Communist Sympathizing WASPs from the New Deal and earlier, Slavic Communist Revolutionairies, and over-interpreting their actions, then aren’t I just holding Jews to the same standard as they hold gentile liberals?

    The criticisms of Jewish participation are equally true of gentiles, but antisemites never apply the same argument to gentile elites. Or if they do acknowledge gentiles are liberal, they excuse it by suggesting they would not be liberal without Jews. They certainly aren’t obsessed with counting gentiles.

    If they won’t direct the same criticism for participation in liberalism against other white ethnicities such as, for example, the French for having provided a large portion of the leadership which founded the European Union (Monnet, Jacques Delors, Jean Claude Trichet, D’Estaing…), I don’t see why we need to keep returning to the topic of Jewish liberalism when there is nothing unusual about their political positions in the modern world, and when topics like French liberalism are either not obsessed over or glossed over.

    On the other hand in the spirit of self-determination it’s fair for a people to accept whatever features that outsiders find lacking and outsiders

    But Jews haven’t acted like minority outsiders, they’ve been acting like gentile insiders.

    What are the differences in policy between Souter and Breyer?

    However in the introduction to his new blog Mr. Undiscovered spent more time establishing boundaries to inquiry especially highlighting a single taboo topic, antisemitism.

    As I replied to Garr, this site’s definition is more flexible than you think.

    When will the Jewish leadership among us assume the self-confidence that they deserve for being such an integral and strong component of our society?

    When antisemites hold gentile leaders to the same standards as they hold Jewish leaders, and I don’t mean use Jewish participation as an excuse for elite gentiles.

    I feel like I’m missing many of the prerequisites…

    For now, Alexander Hamilton and his successors are the ideological inspiration for this site’s politics.

    On Sunday, September 4th we will give go into Hamilton’s politics.

    I will provide hints about what to expect from the first two week’s of posts.

    Perhaps you all could share some of the intellectual milestones, authors, thinkers and particular works that you explored on the way to your current state of mind?

    My co-host will give you year’s worth of material.

    But he will not be identified until his interview is published next Friday.

    I think they call that a blog roll

    I will get to that, but I’m still adjusting some of the settings and blog layout.

    Help us build a curriculum…

    A lifetime of experience is about to fall into your hands next Friday and on September 7th.

    Like

  8. It’s surely Mencius Moldbug – the upcoming post on Protestantism gives it away. I have to say, I’m surprised he’s kept up with HS/Lion’s commenters over the years; good on you, TUJ, for snagging him.

    Like

  9. A couple areas of current interest:

    Gen-eng superbabies will be pretty 200+ IQ smart (unless the model of sum over many small genetic variants runs into some energy/cooling type constraint). Can’t we just let them figure it out?

    Garage-friendly tech allowing engineered viruses sounds scary. But maybe designing superplagues that can actually spread (or have any particular targeted effect) is harder than it sounds? Consider the class of similar advances in homebrew offensive-weaponry – is panopticon even a viable defense (let alone worth it)?

    Is the cathedral even doing a good job of mitigating risks faced by its elite, or are they on their own? Is anyone really in charge or are they as trapped by virtue signaling as any semi-elite professional is?

    Is there any counter-though-totalitarianism strategy that can preserve modest U.S. freedoms of speech long-term (if you see U.N. and Hillary forays into internet censorship as serious) beyond darknet/dissident secrecy? Naively you’d think enough people care to live free that counter-boycotts could end private-company virtue signaling, but it seems it’s being driven top-down (changes to liability law, etc) in a way that seems hard to oppose from the bottom.

    Like

  10. Very promising…

    …but why foreground MacDonald, who I think is not nearly as important as you make him out to be?

    Maybe he seems important because you think he’s easy to slay. That would remind me of ceratain people who may have glommed on to Yarvin’s “Left as Christian heretics” troll because it makes the Left seem as easily slayable as Christianity was.

    Like

  11. Is the cathedral even doing a good job of mitigating risks faced by its elite, or are they on their own?

    They have a bizarre way of becoming more powerful the more they fail. But decay must inevitably lead to their collapse. We will have quite a bit to say about liberalism in week two.

    Like

  12. …but why foreground MacDonald, who I think is not nearly as important as you make him out to be?

    He’s a joke and a failure. But I wanted to set the ground rules because his work keeps acting as a distraction. When you see the initial two weeks of posts you will understand why I did not want to get bogged down in his spam theories, which were seemingly dependent on falsified information.

    Like

  13. On Antisemitism: I suppose it is at the root pulling an Occam’s razor. People with a strong sense of ethnic identity will assume if someone is undermining their ethnics it is coming from another ethnicity with their own conflicting ethnic self-interests. After all, not most long-standing conflicts are rooted in ethnic differences, such a “Protestant” in Northern Ireland is a code word for the descendants of Scottish immigrants? So it is an Occam to assume the anti-white sentiment is coming from an ethnic conflict. It is such a natural assumption if you are a nationalist. Someone is hating my people. Who could be that? Well, another people. If you are a Serb nationalism and you find that international loans are mysteriously drying up, you will assume Croat nationalists are fscking with you. Why not? And this is where AS comes from.

    So why is it still wrong? I think largely because ethnic loyalty is largely a lower-class thing. If you want to understand the world, assume the behavior of the lower class is determined by their ethnicity, the behavior of the upper class is determined by their class. The Colombian peasant behaves Colombian, the Colombian student at Harvard behaves Harvardian. Zuckerberg behaves Harvardian, not Jewish. It is pretty shocking when you eventually meat Jewish people who don’t behave Harvardian, hint: “freier” is, apparently, Hebrew for “beta cuck”. Thus the lower class sees the upper class as determined by ethnicity, which is wrong, they are determined by class. Likely the most direct expression of that is NatSoc. The upper class sees the lower class determined by class, not ethnicity, and that is also wrong – that is why they are liberals/leftists.

    Like

  14. A question to Mencius, hoping it can be somehow integrated into the interview:

    If I understand it right, the root of your philosophy is that middling amounts of power are the most destructive. Let’s imagine civilization, fragile as it is, is like an orchard of cherry trees. Every year it produces $100K worth of cherries or if cut down the timber can be sold to a furniture factory for a one time $200K. (It is some really pretty cherry wood, suitable for luxurious tables.) What we want to optimize for is that the second does not happen. We want to optimize for the long life, the careful tending of the orchard. People with very low amounts of power cannot cut the trees down – i.e. anyone who is stopped by security guard or a fence is not going to cut it down. Similarly people with 100% perfect absolute power, i.e. an owner in a system where his property is guaranteed will not cut it down, as long-term harvesting is more profitable. It is a person of middling, have-some-but-not-secure power who is dangerous, the elected leader, the democratic mob leader, the gangster, who would cut it down, cash out and run. And it seems the issue is that in the last couple of centuries we misunderstood this and simply assumed the less power anyone has over the orchard, the lower is the chance of damaging it. Democracy, libertarianism are all fences meant to keep men with axes outside the orchard. They are all about trying to limit and disperse power. However in reality this is not possible, because sovereignty is conserved. Hence a desire for low power led to the dangerous kinds of middling, distributed, fuzzy power and much of the orchard was cut down as leaders of insecure power wanted to cash out quickly. So we have do the opposite and ensure 100% secure power, something like ownership of a state, because only a truly secure owner will be motivated to tend the trees and harvest them every year, not cut them down. Is this a correct summary?

    But how does one truly make power secure? And none of that crypto-locked geeking please, it is a human, philosophical, not a technical problem. Any design where the good king with his careful tending and harvesting of the orchard can turn into a bad mad dictator with the ax and the Swiss bank account the very second someone challenges his power is still not ideal. It is not the best way to ensure the orchards long term health.

    You wrote a king rules by right, a dictator by might. Fine, but the right of a king is a property, and you also wrote all property comes from the might to defend it. So it is the same from that angle? The difference is largely in the political formula, the monarchic political formula is basically telling it honestly to the people the way it is, that the right to own the throne comes from might, as a primary property, the dictatorial political formula is lying and pretending the dictator is a living embodiment of the will of the people. So should we just put our trust to monarchy having a more honest political formula, nothing else and hope this will make it work out? Because telling the truth works so well? And this is going to make power secure? And was it really this honesty about the source of power that made Charles II so much better than Stalin? Charles II told people straight he has a right to govern because he has a might to govern (or even what else does primary property mean?), Stalin argued from historic necessity and similar crap? Because where else is the difference? Something just does not add up for me. Something is wrong with this picture.

    My hunch is that it is foolish to rely on financial incentives. If the orchard owner has the incentive to cut down the trees and cash out the very second a lawsuit or a biker gang challenges his ownership of the property, then it is not wise to engineer a system where the long life of the orchard is ensured only by such incentives. Perhaps we should focus on finding a system where the rulers *love* the orchard, not just profit off it. So maybe some sort of altrighter ethnic nationalism? Just thinking aloud. But why not make that orchard a loved object? Or a sacred one? Every possible financial incentive speaks in favor of selling the Golden Gate Park to developers and spend 20% of the price on the reelection of the mayor or just pocket it as a bribe, but it is still protected by an ultracalvinist kind of sacredness. How about making civilization, or at least first world nations, sacred and loved?

    Perhaps the true difference between Stalin and Charles II lies in in that. Perhaps the old kings had a sense of sacredness and love for their countries?

    Best Regards

    The Dividualist

    Like

  15. why can’t i play?

    i’ll be your only commenter in the BGI study.

    Hello Volunteer,

    Genome ready. 
    Thank you for your interest in research into the genetics of intelligence. Though the project for which you’ve volunteered has been significantly delayed by obstacles to sequencing every volunteer for our study – obstacles which are not yet entirely behind us! – we’re pleased to announce that your genome is among the lucky ones, and now available for download at your convenience. 

    How is the research going? 
    Our processing of our volunteer DNA samples is taking significantly more time than expected, due in large part to unanticipated resource constraints upon our project, as BGI’s recent acquisition of Complete Genomics, sudden uncoupling from Illumina, and the subsequent shifting of all sequencing capacity into the new CG hardware platform has had a large impact on all of the BGI research projects, especially big ones like ours. This was compounded by a recent change in the local regulation of sequencing, which imposed a bottleneck on sequencing within BGI in general, though that has since been resolved. In consequence, upwards of half of our samples remain unsequenced at this time, and the delay affects all processing and resources available to us, as all samples are being shifted to the new BGI hardware platform, Complete Genomics. 

    This unanticipated hardware dispute has impacted our timeline, on the order of several years, as well as that of almost all other research projects within BGI – and we are entirely reliant upon the generosity of our benefactors. Despite this, we are not pessimistic about the ultimate sequencing outcome of our samples, or the completion of our core objectives, which include returning genome files to all of our volunteers. It will just take longer than expected, while BGI upgrades their machines to their new CG acquisition, uncoupling from Illumina. We have received unambiguous, written assurrance from the heads of our institute that we will have the sequences as promised, and at significantly higher resolution than the original study design, to make good on the delay, and to exploit the substantial hardware upgrade. In addition, we’ve also recently been authorized to perform some Target Region sequencing of samples on a smaller scale in the meantime, to confirm SNP hits from other studies upon other, independently gathered cohorts, which will also be interesting. This recently authorized, smaller-scale subproject is currently occupying most of our time, as well as some software development and Prosopagnosia Exome sequencing.

    How do I access the genome ShareRoom? 
    To access your genome ShareRoom, please visit the below link:

    Roomkey Link: https://spideroak.com/browse/share/BGI-CGL/g024927-87
    Password: 

    Please reply to this mail if you’re unable to reach this website, or your password fails. 

    I can log in, but I can’t see my file yet? 
    This is what is supposed to happen. Please don’t panic. This mail is to notify you that your data is generated and uploading to the hive cloud, which will take up to three weeks.  

    If your file is still not visible on the above SpiderOak RoomKey link twentyone days after this email, please notify us at that point.

    How is the data being distributed? 
    The carrier for distributing your genome to you is named SpiderOak, which we believe is the most secure way to deliver your data. Your data are not visible to 3rd parties, not visible to SpiderOak themselves, and only you and the BGI CGL know the de-encyption key. SpiderOak is Edward Snowden approved, and has an ethical track record.

    Please take care to ensure the security of this email, as it contains the information needed to access your genome. Once you’ve downloaded the file, you may ask us to remove the data from the SpiderOak cloud, as a safety precaution against compromise of your email, and thereby your genome data.   

    What is a 23andme file? 
    23andme is a common genome file format, which can be read by third party tools, converted to other formats, and used as input by PLINK. 
    https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink2/input

    Sincerely,
    BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab
    Building No.11│Beishan Industrial Zone│Yantian District│Shenzhen 518083│China  
    认知基因组学 │ http://www.cog-genomics.org │contact@cog-genomics.org 
    ST-RM, BGI

    Reply, Reply All or Forward | More

    — —

    To
    BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab

    Mar 21

    thanks, but

    the password fails.

    Reply, Reply All or Forward | More

    BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab

    To
    — —

    Mar 21

    Hello —,

    All right, we’ve reloaded your account, please try again?

    Sincerely,
    BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab
    Building No.11│Beishan Industrial Zone│Yantian District│Shenzhen 518083│China  
    认知基因组学 │ www.cog-genomics.org │contact@cog-genomics.org 
    ST-RM, BGI

    Like

Comments are closed.