Monday, December 10, 2018

Unz umbrella

I'll now be blogging at The Unz Review. Please bookmark and update feeds accordingly. A few reasons:

- At some point Google, which runs Blogger/Blogspot, is likely to scuttle the blog

- The comment system is better

- I don't think it hyperbolic to assert there is nowhere else on the internet as accepting of the full spectrum of ideas outside the Overton Window than The Unz Review

- Ron has let me know he will exert no content control whatsoever. The subject matter and content will be just as it has always been

- Greater visibility. Dissidents are easier to ignore when they're occupying solitary outposts way off the beaten trail

Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Kamala polishing progressive credentials

Broadly speaking, there are three wings of the contemporary Democrat party--the POC ascendancy, corporate globalists, and socialist progressives. Securing the Democrat presidential nomination will be contingent upon garnering each wing's support, in respective order of importance. Obama won the 2008 nomination by dominating the POC ascendancy vote. Hillary similarly won it in 2016 by doing the same. That she had no purchase among socialist progressives didn't matter.

In 2020, the POC ascendancy will belong to Kamala Harris. She will, as the only non-white female running, have unquestioned moral authority in any dispute with any other candidate. She is aware of the power this affords her and trades on it constantly.

Deval Patrick, the only potential POC candidate who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and who had the potential to see Obama retconned from the first black president to the first mixed race president to make room for Patrick to claim the first black spot, appears to be definitively out. That leaves Questionable Cory as Kinky Kamala's only real competition.

The corporate globalists like Kamala because she's ambitious and unprincipled so can be corralled and controlled but also disciplined enough to stay on message without significant risk of deviation.

Her toughest sell will be to the socialist progressive wing. She's keenly aware of this and has been working it relentlessly:



Expect more of that in the coming months and years. Cowardly Bernie Sanders needs enough cover to save face with the base he will betray again when he throws his support behind Kamala. She's going to be sure to provide him with plenty of that cover.

But, but she's polling substantially behind the putative frontrunner, Joe Biden!


What did polling look like at this point in the 2008 campaign? Taken December 5, 2006, exactly as far out from the 2008 election as we currently are from 2020:


Precedence, folks.

Biden's previous presidential campaigns, when the Democrat electorate was far more amenable to his demographic profile than it is now, were total non-starters. All he has going for him is his association with Obama. If it means denying a POC like Kamala or Cory Booker, Obama will not betray the ascendancy by endorsing his former lieutenant. The nomination is not going to one of the old white dinosaurs.

And Beta O'Rourke is too late. The Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron moments have passed. Kamala is coming.

My modest suggestion to help ensure the 2020 election is as clarifying as possible: Insinuate that anyone who expresses support for a white Democrat nominee is lame and maybe racist. "Really? Another old white man (or woman in the unlikely cases of Elizabeth Warren of Kirsten Gillibrand)? I think it's time we put our values into practice. I'm really excited about Kamala Harris." Do your part!

Monday, December 03, 2018

Gun-grabbing geezers redux

More evidence gun grabbers are disproportionately geriatric (or in the case of David Hogg, have the bone density of the average geezer) from Reuters-Ipsos:


Age ranges per generational cohort are 18-26 for Zurs, 27-38 for Millennials, 39-53 for Xers, and 54-71 for Boomers. For the purpose of obtaining adequate sample sizes, Zurs thus also include the youngest Millennials according to the conventional cutoffs. 

The total respondent pool isn't large enough to break down by both age and race, but non-whites are less supportive of gun rights than whites. Once race is taken into account, the generational gun-grabbing gap becomes larger still. No demographic is more pro-gun than young white men are. Molon Labe!

Friday, November 30, 2018

Fidelity is a straight thing

Not just behaviorally, but morally as well. From Reuters-Ipsos, the percentages who do not say it is important "for your friends and family to be faithful to their spouses":


Respondents are not just talking about themselves, they're describing their broader social circles. Same-sex marriage was from the beginning about tearing down the pair-bonded nuclear family structure that, among other things like maximizing the number of men with genes in the game, allowed for social trust to accumulate to levels unlike anything the world had ever seen before or will likely ever see again.

The otherkin are even worse. With buggers, it's pathogens and neoteny. With the 141-genders crowd, it's full-blown mental illness as cause celebre.

Since we're talking about civilizational sappers, the percentages who say marital fidelity is not important, this time by race:


"Natural conservatives", ha!

Heritage America, why didn't you fight for yourself?

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Designer babies will be communism's great comeback?

By the time the scales fell from my eyes in the mid-2000s, veterans of the Steveosphere were regularly referencing a BBC article from 1998 reporting on how 91% of Chinese scientists supported genetic engineering for eugenic purposes. The Han Menace won't be held back by all the egalitarian make believe that is retarding the West, we said! Here I am mentioning the article, by way of an undergraduate philosophy paper, in 2005.

The future has arrived. Assuming it isn't a hoax, the first CRISPR babies have been born. Razib Khan has a good discussion of the details that is accessible to lay people, so there is little point in an inferior second-hand rehashing here. This is probably the biggest story of the year, possibly the decade, conceivably even the millennium! As this post will serve as a personal time capsule, indulge me as I make a record of my reactions.

As a father of three children under five, I wonder if I've screwed them over by bringing them into the world a few years too soon. Have kids now, the breeders said, because you'll always be able to come up with a reason as to why now isn't the right time! That's the glass half-empty reaction.

The glass half-full take is that because genetically engineering the unborn is at this juncture controversial even in China, it was done by way of gene deletion--which is easier than addition--and to a gene that is well-known. The intention in the approach was to avoid pleiotropic effects and limit ethical concerns as much possible given current technology and understanding. Mendellian diseases are the lowest hanging fruit. We're still presumably several years or decades away from more genetically complex traits like height, intelligence, and personality become reliably customizable. It means my grandchildren could conceivably be among the world's first super humans. Half-full? That cup is overflowing!

That's if anything more than simple edits are viable. Maybe pleiotropy really will make it an unworkable mess that exacts an unacceptably high toll in terms of human suffering for an unreliable or even unrealizable desired outcome. I feel like a Luddite positing as much, but I'm just a curious observer so what do I know?

Parenthetically, Western tsk-tsking isn't going to stop this. The Chinese are going balls-to-the-wall on this stuff. The government is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into it.

What are the ideological implications of customizable humans? That blank slatist egalitarianism--and it's associated economic systems such as communism and socialism--may actually correspond to reality in a way that it has up to this point never been the case in all of human history. The general consensus on the HBD-realist right is that the left will never accept biological realities about genetic differences. I disagree. When they realize it serves their ideological interests to do so, they'll turn on a dime. Everything they said yesterday won't mean a thing to them tomorrow.

We'll advance from Final Fantasy IV, where each character was genuinely unique in their traits and attributes, to Final Fantasy VI, where the differences are predominately aesthetic and each meat stick is interchangeable with any other.

One of the least convincing parts of Brave New World is Huxley's rigid class system. It's inefficient and inherently unstable. Huxley presumed control would be centralized. It was a reasonable assumption in the 1950s, but is outmoded in The Current Year. CRISPR is already cheap and it's going to get a lot cheaper. The idea that a national government is going to be able to clamp down on the distribution of certain software and its associated programming code seems risible to me.

As Richard Spencer is fond of saying, we live in interesting times.