2024

MORALITY IS THE CONTROL OF EMOTION:

Rock, Paper, Scissors, and Race (ARNOLD KLING, FEB 23, 2024, In My Tribe)

In thinking about The End of Race Politics, a new book by Coleman Hughes, I came up with a description of the race debate using the metaphor of the game Rock, Paper, Scissors. I assign a stance to each of the three symbols.

Rock is individualism. Treat people as individuals, not as members of a race.

Paper is equalitarianism. Treat differences in average outcomes by race as evidence of unfairness.

Scissors is realism. Explain differences in average outcomes by race by appealing to heredity and culture.

In the game, paper covers rock, scissors cuts paper, and rock breaks scissors. Translating from the metaphor, the most compelling argument against individualism is equalitarianism. The most compelling argument against equalitarianism is realism. And the most compelling argument against realism is individualism. […]

The problem with individualism (Rock) is that people intuitively find inequality offensive. If we treat people as individuals, and the resulting outcomes are unequal by race, this will not be acceptable. The unequal outcomes will be viewed as a sign that something is wrong with our society.

The problem with equalitarianism (Paper) is that it requires people to deny, implicitly or explicitly, that average differences by race in inherited or cultural characteristics can be significant. The realists want to confront the equalitarians over this.

The problem with realism (Scissors) is that it uncages the demon of racial stereotyping and prejudice. The individualists will insist that we should pay attention to differences across individuals, not differences across races.

THANKS, DARPA:

Progress Deferred: Lessons From mRNA Vaccine Development (Tim Hwang, 2/20/24, IFP)

One institutional reform that may have alleviated this issue would be to use mechanisms that encourage funders to make higher variance, heterodox bets against this kind of scientific consensus. This might include “golden ticket” mechanisms that allow reviewers that feel strongly about a research proposal to fund a project even against the consensus of their peers.52 Similarly, funding programs might be launched to deliberately offer “last shot” funding for potentially high-impact areas that see a period of declining funding and researcher activity.53 These might counter a natural risk-aversion that leads researchers to abandon problems too early in the face of high-profile failures, as they arguably did in the mRNA case. These mechanisms might have particular applicability in cases parallel to mRNA, where expert judgments are based more on analogies to similar problems and where the technology in question would have a major social impact if viable.

The merit of such an approach is bolstered by examining the funders that unusually did choose to fund mRNA research, even during the period in which it faced major skepticism. These organizations did so in part because they were free to prioritize more speculative, high-risk exploration. The specific reasons for this vary. Dan Wattendorf – who led the DARPA ADEPT program that funded mRNA work in the 2010s – attributes the agency’s willingness to support mRNA work to an organizational norm of providing managers like himself free rein to direct their programs.54

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was also an early supporter of mRNA vaccines, providing a $20M grant to Moderna in 201655 and later $55M to BioNTech in 2019.56 These investments were based in part on the personal interest of Gates in advancing vaccine technologies, and since the foundation prioritized finding promising but overlooked methods in related fields. BioNTech had begun working on mRNA therapeutics to address cancer, but was supported by the “[Gates] Foundation [because it] often looked at ‘adjacent’ scientific disciplines whose innovations might help fight infectious diseases…‘We were doing a lot of horizon-scanning to see what the trends were, what was changing, and who were the cutting-edge people,’ Stuart [a director at the Gates Foundation] says, ‘and BioNTech clearly surfaced.’”57

Intervention 2: Address market failures in the “scientific marketplace”


Established pharmaceutical companies were well-positioned to accelerate the development and deployment of mRNA vaccines. These companies possessed the necessary research talent, financial resources, and practical mass production know-how to transform the technology into a workable product.

Despite being well-positioned to lead the way, pharmaceutical companies did not.

The government is a market force.

HOW WILSON LOST WWI:

The U.S. Must Stand by and for the Kurds (Gregg Roman, 2/21/24, Real Clear World)

The Kurds, a resilient and significant ethnic group without a recognized state of their own, have long been instrumental in the fight against terrorism and the preservation of American interests in a volatile Middle East. It is time for the U.S. to honor its promises, acknowledge the historical injustices faced by the Kurds, and stand firmly in support of their aspirations for autonomy and security.

It is an appropriate moment to step back, appreciate Kurdish history, and consider our obligations to the Kurds not only in Syria but in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran as well.

The Kurds, predominantly Sunni Muslims, are the most populous ethnic group on earth without a recognized state of their own. A diverse group of some 25 to 30 million people, about half of the Kurds inhabit lands across parts of Southeast Turkey. Most rest live in northeast Syria, northern and western Iran, southwestern Armenia, and northern Iraq.

The most prominent feature of the Kurdish landscape is the rugged mountains of the eastern Taurus-Zagros Mountain range. Because of the mountains’ imposing nature, armies have had trouble conquering the area, which has allowed the Kurdish people to survive in their fastnesses throughout the centuries. Indeed, a famous Kurdish proverb says, “The Kurds have no friends but the mountains.”

The proverb has proven, sadly, to be true.

The Kurds were promised a state in the wake of the First World War – that is, after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire – in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Nevertheless, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne reneged on this promise.

Both Bushes deserrve blame too, for not recognizing the nation of Kurdistan after the Iraq wars.

CAN’T HAVE A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS WHEN THERE IS ONLY ONE:

China’s ‘Bad Debt’ Problem: Why Its Not Learning From Japan (Grant Newsham, 2/21/24, Japan Forward)


I had a front-row seat to the cleanup effort. There are lessons, but I doubt Xi Jinping is interested.

The first lesson the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) might learn from Japan is the need for an honest, impartial legal system that’s free of official influence.

Then there’s the simple ability to enforce a contract.

Next, you need guaranteed property rights.

And all of these flow from a system of consensual government.

Japan had all of these. The People’s Republic of China does not – and appears intent on keeping things that way. Otherwise, Party control is threatened.

There is only one hand guiding the Chinese economy and it is the hand of the CCP.

There is no viable alternative to the End of History.

WHEN YOU STARE INTO THE ABYSS, DONALD LOOKS BACK:

The Mass Psychology of Trumpism (Dan P. McAdams, 2/20/24, New/Lines)

Trump’s enduring appeal stems from the perception — his own and others’ — that he is not a person. In the minds of millions, Trump is more than a person. And he is less than a person, too.

In 1962, a prominent Harvard psychologist published a scholarly paper titled “The Personality and Career of Satan.” Henry A. Murray examined how, for over 2,000 years, Western theologians and other writers have depicted the mythical figure of Satan, projecting onto him human traits perennially designated as evil.

It is worth noting that Murray’s characterization of Satan bears an uncanny resemblance to the psychological portrait of Trump painted by many psychologists today. A malignant narcissism rages at the core of Satan’s personality. Cast out of heaven for his overmastering pride, Satan wants to be God, resents the fact that he is not God and insists that his supreme worth entitles him to privileges that nobody else should enjoy while undergirding his reign as sovereign of the mortal world below. Wholly self-centered, cruel, vindictive and devoid of compassion and empathy, Satan nonetheless possesses substantial charisma and charm. Completely contractual in his approach to interpersonal relationships, he has perfected the art of the deal, as when, in the Gospel of Luke, Satan tempts Jesus with earthly powers and riches in return for his adulation: “If thou will therefore worship me, all shall be thine.”

Situated in a middle ground between God and human beings, Satan is a liminal figure. He is like a person but not quite a person. For one, he is gifted with superhuman powers of the sort, Murray writes, that children have always imagined they might possess in the furthest reaches of their wish-fulfilling fantasies. But he does not possess certain qualities that adults especially value and recognize as part of the human condition. He lacks wisdom, for example, and love. He is not troubled by a complex inner life, by the doubts, ambivalences and moral quandaries that routinely run through the consciousness of mature humans. He is instead like the modern conception of a superhero. Satan is one-dimensional and mythic, an idealized personification, rather than a fully articulated person.

Donald Trump sees himself in the same way. While Trump insists that he is a force for good rather than evil, he truly perceives himself to be qualitatively different from the rest of humankind. He has often compared himself to a superhero. He has famously described himself as a “stable genius” who has never made a mistake. He is not lying when he makes these outrageous claims, for Trump truly believes them to be true, just as he believes he won the 2020 election.

At the same time, Trump is incapable of describing an inner psychological life or of identifying traces of reflection, emotional nuance, doubt or fallibility. Even though he talks about himself all the time, Trump has never been able to explain his inner world or to narrate stories about how he has come to be the person he is, as frustrated interviewers and biographers have repeatedly noted.

In my book “The Strange Case of Donald J. Trump: A Psychological Reckoning” (2020), I argue that Trump lacks a narrative understanding of himself in time. A well-established line of psychological research shows that human personhood is tied up with narrative and storytelling. People understand their lives as narratives evolving over time. But Trump is the curious exception, in that there seems to be very little by way of a story in his head about who he is and how he came to be. He is instead what I call “the episodic man,” living outside of time in the eternal moment, fighting in the here and now to win the battle at hand, episode by episode, day by day. At the center of Trump’s personality lies a narrative vacuum, the space where the self-defining life story should be but never was. As such, Trump is rarely introspective, retrospective or prospective. There is no depth, no past and no future.

Currently reading Ian Kershaw’s Hitler bio and the parallels are truly striking, especially the core hollowness of both men, which they fill up with hate.

THANKS, MR. STEELE:

Man accused of lying to FBI about Hunter Biden claimed he got fake information from Russian intelligence (Robert Legare, February 20, 2024, CBS News)

The man accused last week of delivering false allegations to federal investigators about Hunter Biden and President Biden’s business dealings told officials after his arrest that individuals “associated with Russian intelligence” were tied to apparent efforts to peddle a story about the first son, federal prosecutors revealed in a court filing Tuesday.

ALWAYS BET ON THE dEEP sTATE:

Donald Trump’s Cash Crunch Just Got Much, Much Worse (Roger Sollenberger, Feb. 20, 2024, Daily Beast)

On Tuesday, Trump’s “Save America” leadership political action committee reported raising just $8,508 from donors in the entire month of January, while spending about $3.9 million, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission.


Nearly $3 million of that overall spending total was used for one purpose: to pay lawyers.

At the same time, the Trump campaign itself reported a net loss of more than $2.6 million for the month of January. It raised about $8.8 million while spending around $11.5 million, according to a separate filing made public on Tuesday.

The filings reveal that Trump is continuing to burn through his donors’ funds as he struggles to feed two massive cash drains—astronomical legal bills stemming from numerous civil cases and four criminal indictments, plus the costs of a national presidential campaign.

THE BETTER PATH:

The life and martyrdom of Malcolm X (Omar Ahmed, 2/21/24, ME Monitor)

Malcolm’s approach stood in stark contrast to the non-violent civil rights movement led by Dr Martin Luther King, who he once said was spearheading “the only revolution in which the goal is loving your enemy.” For Malcolm X, all revolutions — real revolutions — involved “bloodshed”. It goes without saying that, between the two civil rights leaders, the mainstream establishment favoured King over Malcolm. The former was perceived as more acceptable, whereas the latter was viewed as a formidable threat; someone to be feared. Nevertheless, irrespective of their methods, both were assassinated, with credible suspicions pointing towards state involvement.

In 1964, Malcolm announced his split from the NOI, after some internal disputes and scandals involving Elijah Muhammad, before undertaking a tour of the Middle East, Africa and Europe, visiting many Muslim countries in the process. He performed the Islamic pilgrimage, the Hajj, to the holy city of Makkah. Thereafter he was called El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz.

The unifying experience of the Hajj saw his beliefs change yet again upon joining the mainstream of the Islamic faith. He witnessed “pilgrims of all colours from all parts of this earth displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood like I’ve never seen before.” His departure from the NOI also split the organisation, with many following El-Shabazz into mainstream Islam, including none other than Elijah Muhammad’s son, Warith Deen Mohammed. The most famous African-American Muslim, if not one of the most famous people of the modern age, legendary boxer Muhammad Ali, severed ties with El-Shabazz while still a member of the NOI, a decision Ali later came to regret when he too entered mainstream Islam, without the opportunity for reconciliation.

While on his travels it also became clear that Malcolm moderated some of his views and beliefs, including the segregation of blacks and whites in the US and Black Nationalism. Instead, he embraced internationalism.

HAKUNA MUTILATA:

His Best Friend Was a 250-Pound Warthog. One Day, It Decided to Kill Him. (Peter Holley, February 7, 2024, Texas Monthly)


By the age of thirty, a time when most people are just beginning to think about their mortality, Austin Riley had already conquered his fear of death. He’d come exceedingly close to dying on multiple occasions, including a few months before his first birthday, when doctors discovered a golf ball–sized tumor growing inside his infant skull. He would go on to spend much of his childhood in and out of hospitals, enduring high-risk brain surgeries and grueling recoveries. Then in his mid-twenties, he was nearly killed by a brain hemorrhage that arrived one night without warning, unleashing the worst pain he’d ever felt. He emerged from that experience reborn, feeling lucky to be alive and convinced that his life had been spared by God.

So as he sat in a pool of his own blood on a beautiful October evening in 2022, he couldn’t help but acknowledge the morbid absurdity of his current predicament. He’d spent decades conquering brain injuries only to be killed while doing mundane chores on his family’s 130-acre Hill Country ranch in Boerne. “After all I’d been through,” he said, “I just couldn’t believe that this was how it was going to end.”

As he slumped against a fence and his mangled body began to shut down, Austin’s mind went into overdrive. He thought about his girlfriend, Kennedy, whom he’d never get a chance to marry, and the children he’d never be able to raise. He thought about how much he loved his parents and how badly he wished he could thank them for the life they’d provided. He thought about the land before him, a valley accentuated by crimson and amber foliage that seemed to glitter in the evening light, and realized it had never seemed more beautiful than it did in that moment.


But mostly, he thought about the animal that had just used its razor-sharp, seven-inch tusks to stab him at least fifteen times. The attack had shredded his lower body and filled his boots with blood, and then left gaping holes in his torso and neck. Had any other animal been responsible, Austin would’ve considered it a random attack. But this was a pet he’d trusted more than any other: his lovable, five-year-old warthog, Waylon.

It wasn’t just an attack, as far as Austin was concerned, but a murderous act of betrayal, one that shattered everything he thought he knew about the deep bond between man and pig. “For years, that animal trusted me everyday and I trusted him,” Austin said. “I put blood, sweat, and tears into his life and he decided to kill me.”

THE ANGLOSPERIC DIFFERENCE:

Ursula Le Guin and the Persistence of Tragedy: We ought to read The Dispossessed to appreciate complexity—and the imperfection of our theories in the face of life’s messy reality. (brian a. smith, 3/13/20, Law & Liberty)

The Dispossessed provides us no resolutions. For most of the story, Shevek is a man trying to find his way home, uncertain of what tomorrow will bring. That along with the way Le Guin refuses to let the reader see either of her settings with rose-colored glasses suggests one of the novel’s great values today. Reading the book can help readers clarify what their deepest aspirations and longings will really cost.

Those on the Left should ask how much they’re willing to give up in pursuit of equality. Modern socialists often try to harmonize their opposing desires: they think we can have the tremendous wealth of a modern economy alongside deep equality; they want radical, autonomous choice and also the opportunity to enjoy familial and communal solidarity; they want political and religious conformity without a diminution of cultural and artistic ingenuity; and they desire ongoing technological innovation without the dramatic inequality that entrepreneurs and inventors so naturally generate.

Far from being a platform for family to succeed, socialist intervention may well require the ongoing shredding of those bonds for the simple reason that families undermine the broader solidarity real socialism requires.

Socialists—especially Christian ones—now praise immigration as a great moral imperative. What does it suggest that all of the world’s most successful solidarity-driven socialist experiments are small-scale monocultures? Isn’t it telling that Le Guin’s relatively successful socialist scheme on Anarres is a hermetically-sealed unit speaking a common language and sharing a single, tightly-unified culture?

Traditionally-minded conservatives naturally look to old modes and orders for inspiration. This certainly doesn’t mean that they’re averse to creating new ones, but taking Le Guin seriously might force them to ponder some little-considered questions. What does reestablishing moral order really mean, particularly in the context of a national economy? There’s the obvious (banning porn) but what about the not-so-obvious elements of this, like the moral status of the goods and services we buy and sell?

If the new conservative goal is limited to a worker-friendly industrial policy, that’s one thing, but conservatives ought to keep an eye on where the aspiration to live with the right sort of virtuous economy can lead. The barely-concealed aristocratic longings enjoyed among some traditionalists risk making them into the caricatures of conservatism that Corey Robin imagines who simply long to “keep the lower orders down.” It is good to be clear about what we really mean when we ask for a new economy. Just as a growth oriented economy leads us down disruptive paths, we shouldn’t forget that a stable, virtuous pattern for economic activity might necessitate a return to older patters of life.

Insulating us from Utopian thought is one of Western Messianism’s greatest gifts.