Psychopathy probably does not exist in the way most people think of it.
Any psychological trait that varies between individuals is distributed on a continuum whose limits are defined by the trait’s fitness benefit. This is why the personality disorders are considered dubious by some: how much sense does it make to cordon off a particular quartile, decile, centile of the distribution and declare it an illness?
Antisocial personality disorder, which most people still call psychopathy or sociopathy, is characterised by a suite of “extreme” traits, and is identified through behavioural indicators. Those are the cases that go to prison and the ones that show up in the media. But if these people’s predilections were that abnormal, they would not exist – thanks to selection pressure. The heritability of APD is no lower than the general heritability of personality, suggesting that this concatenation of traits is a (mal)adaptation.
Estimates of the prevalence of APD are on the order of 1-3%. It is not the case that 1-3% of people are violent criminals, nor that everyone in prison has the diagnosis, so it is neither necessary nor sufficient for most crime. A good chunk of diagnoses must occur because of repetitious criminal behaviour. What of the rest?
It is news to no one, of course, that most psychopaths are not criminals. The question is: what separates the criminal from the law-abiding variety?
This is a moment of revelation for some, when they have their heads scanned and realise that their neurology is “consistent” with that of a Jeffrey Dahmer. But they are not Jeffrey Dahmer. So much for the notion that it is impossible to be unaware that you have this psychological profile. Thus, they turn to parenting and other things that do not matter as an explanation to assuage the headfuck.
One hypothesis, and a testable one, is that the difference is made by IQ. One begins to sounds like a broken record, but the link between IQ and crime is well established, and given that 1 US adult in 7 is unable to perform mental operations more complex than finding the expiration date on a driving licence, it is not hard to imagine what this does when combined with a temperamental disposition towards narcissism. Not only do they feel social norms “don’t apply” to them; they are too stupid to understand the consequences of violating them.
High-IQ individuals with Dark Triad traits often go undetected or are even wildly successful. You probably know a few, and it probably isn’t worth giving them a second thought. The proto-criminal types are easier to spot, but no one wants his or her child to be branded “high-risk” before any criminal wrongdoing is committed. Nor are they prepared to confront the fact that there is essentially nothing they can do to “fix” the problem, and so nothing (useful) is done. Isn’t that just too fucking bad?
I’m not generally inclined to write about electoral politics, much less local politics (boooring!) but I feel compelled to make a few passing remarks on the Arizona Senate election between Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally. I didn’t really feel strongly about either candidate, but I’m going to go ahead and endorse Kyrsten Sinema (I already voted for her once in the primary.) The ads being put out by supporters of McSally are so awful that I briefly wondered to myself whether the Sinema campaign had secretly created the ads themselves, just to make McSally look stupid! Anyway, it’s not just that the ads are negative or constitute “mudslinging” (who cares? lol.) What makes these ads so terrible is their total lack of substance and ill-chosen angles of attack, which signals a clueless misreading of the priorities of McSally’s own base of support, as well as outright contempt for the intelligence of all Arizonans.
Here is an example of the narration over an ad put out by the people who run “RadicalKyrsten.com.”
“Kyrsten Sinema has the phony politician act down. Before she went to Washington, she was a radical fringe protester. The Arizona democratic party said she was ‘too extreme.’ Kyrsten Sinema Radical. Extreme. Don’t for fall her act.”
(a similar, longer version of the ad can be found here)
They don’t ever bother to explain in what ways Sinema is supposedly “radical” and “extreme” or offer any explanation as to why being radical is inherently a bad thing. On some issues being extreme might be necessary, and many people would agree that radical changes are needed to fix the myriad of problems the US faces. The ad also makes the claim that Kyrsten was a “radical fringe protester” over 15 years ago. What sorts of things was she protesting exactly? She was protesting the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War! Two wars which were ill-conceived, totally unnecessary and a complete waste of money, life and resources. The War in Afghanistan is still going on. We haven’t even left yet, 7 years after Bin Laden was killed (in Pakistan.) This isn’t 2002 anymore. Americans want to stay out of these pointless wars in the middle east. Of all the things the GOP could make an issue of in this Senate campaign, they choose to attack Kyrsten for being anti-war. Another attack mentions that she was “a criminal defense attorney who defended murderers.” Well, so what? That is what criminal defense attorneys have to do. Everyone who is charged with a crime, no matter how awful, is entitled to an attorney. It’s a dirty job, but someone has to defend them, and Kyrsten was refreshingly straightforward about the way she described it. The ad also attacks her as a “socialist,” which just shows how out of touch these people are as younger generation republicans are becoming more and more skeptical of big tech corporations, free trade and unchecked capitalism and are moving toward populist economics which favor the working class.
In a sense these ads belong in a museum, for if they had been created as postmodern works of art as a sort of social commentary on the utter meaninglessness of contemporary political advertising…they would be masterpieces.
The irony though is that Kyrsten Sinema actually is a moderate, and in some of the best ways. She was attacked in The New Times because she had the common sense to insist that the US establish a more thorough vetting process before we consider allowing Syrian and Iraqi “refugees” to be resettled here. That alone is reason enough to vote for her.
Kyrsten Sinema is running a smart campaign. She knows that open borders and anti-white politics aren’t popular in AZ, so she’s focusing on health care and jobs. Meanwhile her GOP opponents are totally clueless and think it’s a good idea to attack Kyrsten for opposing the Iraq war. A GOP which runs on McCain’s neoconservative foreign policy and bombards the airwaves with the lamest political ads ever created deserves to lose. Even back when Kyrsten Sinema was just running for congress I remember being impressed with the aesthetics or her campaign. Her signs and fliers were some of the most artful I’ve seen associated with a political candidate. They embodied a kind of retro, 1980s NBA team style, reminiscent of old Denver Nuggets and Seattle Supersonics logos. Anyway, yeah. Vote for Kyrsten.
“The fruits of neo-imperialism may just be neo-isolationism,” Pat Buchanan once facetiously suggested in a 2003 column titled “Are Bush and Rumsfeld Closet Populists?” The crux of his argument was that the Bush administration’s neoconservative foreign policy and defiant embrace of global military interventionism was so at odds with the rest of the world that it might result in the United States being alienated from the international community altogether and forced to reluctantly adopt the kind of isolationist nationalism Buchanan prefers.
The neocons have been mostly discredited and rejected by the American people since then, yet their ideology and its zealots have wormed their way so deep into the US political and media establishment, that neoconservative influence on US foreign policy remains dominant to this day. What brought Buchanan’s obscure column to mind though is the latest ideological craze, “democratic socialism.” It’s been on the rise for quite a while now, as evident by Bernie Sanders’ near win in the 2016 presidential primary. The ascent has continued with the growing popularity of podcasts like Chapo Trap House, as well as the media’s recent gush fest over political newcomers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and (former Sex and the City actress) Cynthia Nixon. The problem with democratic socialism (in the form it’s currently being presented by enthusiasts,) is that the solutions it purports to offer can’t withstand the weight of their own contradictions. Trying to be too many things to too many people in ways which inherently conflict, may put you on the fast track for electoral success and generate a lot of fawning media coverage, but then what? Where will the people that didn’t read the fine print turn when the built-in failure mechanisms are discovered during the activation process?
How can you have a federal job guarantee *and* support practically unlimited immigration from impoverished countries? And what good does it do to implement strict emission controls if you’re going to import so many people that the result will be a net increase in pollution anyway? In contemplating questions like this, one might begin to wonder (but not really) if these DSA types are “closet neoreactionaries,” in the sense that they advocate for “socialist” policies only within contexts which would guarantee said policies’ ineffectiveness (thus subsequently driving people to reluctantly embrace neo-monarchic, corporate fiefdoms.) “Free health care and college education!” but it’s going to be available to every one of the billions of humans on the planet that can manage to simply show up here in our “borderless,” undefined country that exists in name only. Oh, and we’re not allowed to significantly limit immigration from the third world in any substantial way. No physical borders, border patrol, or substantively sovereign nation states, but presumably there will be a distinguishable collective people whom we’re assured these programs are supposed to viably and sustainably benefit.
Today’s social democracy falls apart on the contradiction between advocating nearly unlimited government largess and nearly unlimited immigration. “Abolish ICE” is a proper rallying cry for hard-core libertarians and Davos globalists, not democratic socialists or social democrats. A federal job guarantee is an intriguing idea — assuming the jobs are for some defined “us” that doesn’t include every immigrant, asylum-seeker or undocumented worker.
Trump gets this, as does the far right in Europe, which is why they attract such powerful working-class support. Want to preserve the welfare state? Build a wall — or, in Europe’s case, reinstate border controls. Want more immigrants and amnesty? Lower the minimum wage and abolish the closed shop.
But please choose. It’s one or the other.
“Socialist” ideologies which aim for the dissolution of borders and the elimination of national sovereignty in actuality weaken the federal government’s ability to administer social programs effectively. If there is no authority to differentiate between who is or isn’t a citizen (of where?) and no tangible separation of territory, just whom or what exactly is the federal government presiding over? Is it simply “residents?” One can already envision the financial insolvency and administrative nightmare of this kind of “international airport socialism,” where going to the hospital is like making a trip to a crowded, third world DMV. Such a system would be impossible to manage efficiently, due to the intrinsic lack of organization and ill-defined parameters, rendering a theoretically empowered federal government hapless and functionally impotent. Very few aspiring employees can take advantage of a $15 minimum wage if you cram so many people into a city that there are not enough jobs to go around, and the accompanying demand for housing becomes so high that skyrocketing real estate prices negate any benefits for those lucky enough to land a “living” minimum wage job. Socialists and social democrats like Bernie Sanders used to be fully aware of all this, but they are so averse to being perceived as xenophobic or anti-immigrant, that their stated positions on these issues include a lot of muddled, self-contradictory language and conflicting statements…ultimately revealing themselves to be the product of doublethink.
In such a scenario, multinational corporations become strengthened, because people will feel they have no other alternative but to sign their lives away to Yelp or Amazon or some other corporate cult, which will present as comparably functional institutions. In exchange for being granted the closest thing to stability available, they’ll be inclined to just accept shitty, high deductible health plans that can change on a whim, conditional company housing, and draconian “code of conduct” rules which dictate what employees can do, wear and say on their own time, etc.
That’s the political choice we’re essentially being presented with: overpopulated, third world international airport socialism vs. multinational corporate feudalism. It is probably already too late for any other alternatives you might have in mind. It certainly seems too late for any kind of populist nationalism or to limit mass immigration in any meaningful way at the national level, though I guess pan secessionism and balkanization are distant possibilities (perhaps even inevitabilities.)
Are “democratic socialists” closet neoreactionaries? No, of course not. Are they the useful idiots of neoreaction? That sounds a bit too harsh. One could just as easily argue that many big companies are so greedy that they are actually helping to facilitate the rise of democratic socialism. The way most multinational corporations shamelessly manipulate and exploit their employees, while simultaneously displaying outright contempt for consumers…they certainly aren’t doing themselves any PR favors. Multinational corporations are portable though, and since they have no allegiance to any particular place or country, they are highly adaptable and can remain as elusive as the Black Fortress in Krull.
Ultimately, I think democratic socialists simply represent one half in the next phase of Americans having to hold their noses and choose between systems that don’t represent their interests and which promise things they can’t deliver.
I almost didn’t post this, cause I’m mostly bored of talking about these kinds of subjects. It seems like kind of a waste of energy. I’d much rather focus on things I’m actually interested in, like building a futuristic mall city, or self-contained gated suburb on an island, with Chuck E Cheese tokens being the official currency. The most pressing issue for me right now is finishing projects I’m working on, which have nothing to do with politics.
Anyway, for those of you still ideologically invested in this other crap, the podcast can be found here:
It features a bunch of other people and I pontificating on various things that will be of great interest to a small number of people. This is Part 2 of a previous episode. I didn’t post part one, because it wasn’t very good or structured well, and a water heater was being installed in my apartment so I had to do the entire podcast from the roof of the Fashion Square Mall parking garage. It was hotter than shitballs outside (over 110 degrees) and loud as fuck. Part II was okay though.
Robert Stark, Brandon Adamson, Ashley Messinger, and Constantin von Hoffmeister continue the discussion on the political scene known as the Alt Left, Left Wing of the Alt Right, or Alt Center.
More on how the scene evolved, the implosion of the Alt-Right, and the need to create your own space
How the election of Trump caused friction between Robert Lindsay’s Alt-Left and the Left Wing of the Alt Right
How SJW’s have completely hijacked what remains of an Alt-Left scene
Fundamental differences between the Alt-Right and European Identitarianism
The pros and cons of America’s lack of European cultural identities
European Identitarian movements that are economically leftist but traditionalist on culture and aesthetics
The concept of degenerate art and the failure of the right to differentiate
If the Alt-Right got their hypothetical nation, would it be just another boring Red State suburb?
Reasons for right wing hostility to urbanism and modern architecture
How to create self contained city states
The proposed Crystal Island in Moscow and the Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid in Tokyo
The importance of having shared aesthetic and cultural values rather than complete homogeneity
The compatibility of futurism and tradition in Russia (archeofuturism)
Russia To Welcome 15,000 South African Refugees
Having people that benefit a society is more important than their political orientations
Obsession with provisioning and protecting children is a trend in the norms of WEIRD societies. In a certain type of person this often leads to an array of strange, inconsistent beliefs. Some complain non-stop about the adult abdication of grown-up responsibilities and simultaneously claim that a 16-year-old engaged in active sexual pursuit of an adult is by definition a victim of child molestation. Others bleat on about the dangers of what they call helicopter parenting while asserting that a mother’s decision to leave her child in a daycare for 8 hours of the 24 in a day is tantamount to a form of child abuse. One may see the concrescence of these stupidities in a recent New York Times article about the harassment of so-called neglectful mothers by public busybodies.
Kidnapping and child molestation are and always have been rare, so this obsession is new albeit no one knows when it began exactly. Likewise, genetics has long since set the record straight on the relevance of parenting to adult behaviour: it barely leaves a dent except in cases of extreme abuse or neglect. Dote on your children or not; they are who they are. Thus, the discourse on how to treat children ought not to focus on how it affects them, but rather what we know to be pragmatic and efficient for both parents and children.
Bryan Caplan argues that education is primarily about job-market signalling, hence the phenomenon of credential inflation and repeated efforts to pour more money into teaching even though it is well known to have weak long-term effects. This means that almost no one remembers much of what they are allegedly learning, and what they do remember is of little use to them in their work lives. Formal education is in actual fact useless to anyone but the mid-witted. Geniuses tend to be self-taught and already know a thousand times more than their classmates by the time they get to school, meanwhile the borderline intellectual functioning struggle through it all and come out at the end with very little signalling currency (i.e. grades).
Formal education before the age of 10 need not exist. It is glorified babysitting. I do not recall learning anything substantive in school for that period of my life, and I know no one who reports otherwise. Child care need not even exist unless the child is very young. Why not just let the kids run free? If this sounds alien and horrifying to you, please note that there are already places on this planet where children as young as 7 may perform most of the functions of daily life with no adult supervision and commute around gigantic megalopolises either alone or in troupes with other children. It requires an intelligent, high-social-capital society where crime is freakishly rare, which can be facilitated by homogeneity, embryonic selection for IQ (since IQ is linked to all things good), and deliciously brutal punishments for the disruption of public order and safety.
Another reason for the alleged necessity of early education is that a child must be socialised, which is to say interact with other children, and this speaks to the age-segregation trend of the First World. It hits high-IQ children the hardest: “He needs to learn to be with people his own age!” No one ever asks why, because no one actually knows why. Children who are adept at talking to adults are probably doing so out of frustration or boredom with other children, especially if they are bright, and it is not as if this “skill” is something they will carry with them for long – once they become adults, they (especially males) will be forbidden from socialising with children lest they be accused of child molestation.
In the days before institutional education was widespread, children socialised with other children, and adults, in their locale with no school, state, or bureaucracy sticking its nose in. Given the aforesaid prerequisites of high social capital, this is achievable to an even greater degree today. Smartphone addiction in children ought to be encouraged; it is the way of the True Aristocrat. Especially, encourage them to use it to get in touch with other children near them, on the same street or what have you, and then get on with their fun and games – no adult oversight needed. A nursery or daycare where I am from is often no more than a repurposed house in a residential area, much less fun than the setup I have described. This will make for less miserable childhoods and fewer put-upon and harassed parents, which, I think we should all agree, are good things.
“Sarah Jeong is good, her haters are bad (terrible, even). It’s not difficult. I support whatever women need to do – including snarky tweets – to negotiate this racist, sexist website.”
So there you have it. Sarah Jeong is one of the good guys, and her haters (aka white people who responded harshly to her openly hostile tweets about them) are the bad guys.
Nevermind the fact that Twitter is an incredibly easy website to navigate and millions of people manage to do so without constantly expressing their hatred for white men and women. Valenti sneakily attempts to make this a “women being harassed online by men” issue when it isn’t. White women are also increasingly the target of unprovoked vitriol from the likes of intersectional identitarians like Jeong.
For her part, Jeong also misrepresented the situation in that she claimed her anti-white tweets were “counter trolling” in response to harassment she was receiving. However, she conveniently left out the fact that the “harassment” itself was in response to similar inflammatory tweets she made toward the same groups. It’s not like these trolls just randomly appeared in her mentions for no reason, simply to attack her because she’s a woman of color (barf.)
I don’t really have a problem with my co-ethnic, Jessica Valenti (a fellow Italian.) She’s one of my favorite feminists, and as the intersectional community becomes increasingly dominated by hostile non-whites, she’ll eventually find herself cast out, perceived as just another Becky the way Rose McGowan was. A temporary useful ally, soon to be pushed aside. For now though, Valenti still sees herself as one of the good guys…and so do I. After all, both sides are the same.
Anyway, if I’m being totally honest, this whole article was mostly just an excuse to post the theme song from Any Which Way You Can, which struck me as oddly relevant.