The Dumbest Political Junk Mail I’ve Ever Received

So I checked the mail the other day and found this “Notice of Inclusion In a Scientific Study.”  My first instinct was maybe this was one of those medical studies where you get paid to be a lab rat and test out some experimental nasal spray or something. I started thinking of all the vintage 90s apparel I could buy from PacSun with the money.

Nope. It turns out this was just a cheesy political advertisement (and a retarded one at that) from a group called Arizona Wins.” The flier goes on to say that they’re “conducting an experiment to understand which voters participate in the November 6 election.” However, this is ultimately nothing more than a lame political ad. Thoughtfully, it also provides “information you need to be a successful voter.” This information consists of basic polling location information and a comically partisan summary of the candidates’ positions which only someone with the brain of Mr. Potato Head would find persuasive.

In fact, there is nothing “scientific” about the way this information is presented. Even though it is somewhat tongue in cheek, this annoying bit of junk mail is revealing in the sense that it demonstrates how the notion of science has come to be associated with political activism and propaganda rather than a cold, objective pursuit of knowledge. It also reveals just how infantile our democracy has become, to the point where politicians and their minions openly insult the intelligence of the voters they intend to appeal to. The disturbing part is that they’re rewarded for doing so, because at the end of the day most people really are that stupid. Having worked retail for many years, I found that the vast majority of people could not even interpret a coupon correctly. A discount sign would say something like “$50 off a second pair of jeans when you buy a pair at full price.” and nearly every day customers would look at it and I’d overhear them say things such as “Oh look honey everything in the store’s 50% off!” These are the kinds of people whom society trusts to analyze and determine the fate of politicians’ policy proposals on complex issues which collectively affect our lives.

This particular political advertisement appears to have been created (or at least approved) by a local tumblrista and airhead high IQ activist. EDIT: Apparently people have received these in other states too, so it must be a nationwide thing. In any event, it is the dumbest piece of political junk mail I have ever received. It’s irrelevant who created it though, because it isn’t all that unique. It’s just the same sort of sleazy marketing tactics we’re bombarded with every day, the kind promoted by greedy companies which politicians (such as those lauded by this flier) emptily promise to keep in check. Electoral politics is retarded. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a person who can’t figure out how to use the self checkout at Target dictating what’s “best” for the country.

Happy election day!

Advertisements

The Harmless Psychopaths

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?

For Sinematic Effect

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.

Educational Formality and Its Abundance

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.

The Good Guys and the Bad Guys

Renowned Wikifeet model and male tear bathhouse patron, Jessica Valenti posted a brief but lucid defense of NYTimes tech writer Sarah Jeong’s extensive history of anti-white tweets:

“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.

Discussing “Fast Food Fascism” on The Lost Eurasians

We discuss “fast food fascism” (a term coined by Pilleater,) and how people’s spiritual connection with corporate icons will lay the foundation for a new era of neo-paganism. We also talk about the AltRight and its identification with brands and how people have come to associate their beliefs with heroic corporate symbols. Mythologized fictional characters from video games and commercials have replaced Perseus and Jason and the Argonauts.

Hosted by Angry Shark, this episode of The Lost Eurasians also features Al Stankard, Pilleater and myself as guests. The broadcast runs for about 2 hours.