The enduring appeal of destructive utopianism

I know, let’s take from some folks and give the loot to others, turning the most deserving into — millionaires!

This variety of political reasoning is so popular that, instead of being laughed out of the public arena, add in a dollop of “race” and it’s a headline.

At least in California.

“San Francisco’s reparations committee has proposed paying each Black longtime resident $5 million and granting total debt forgiveness,” explains the Fox News Digital story. 

But why just “Black” residents? 

Oppression. Racism. The Usual Suspects of the woke: “due to the decades of ‘systematic repression’ faced by the local Black community.”

What happened to “systemic”? Why “systematic”? Maybe the inconvenient fact that there was no long tradition of chattel slavery in California requires that extra syllable. 

The San Francisco African American Reparations Advisory Committee’s notion is, we’re told, “to address the public policies explicitly created to subjugate Black people in San Francisco by upholding and expanding the intent and legacy of chattel slavery.”

So Blacks in former slave states should get ten million each? 

Or fifty. 

Do I hear $100 million?

Fortunately, the report will likely be shelved, as feared by its supporters.

Unfortunately, sufferers of commonsense deficit syndrome don’t realize how their all-too-familiar program negatively affects the actual people they say they serve. When you look at San Francisco’s mass lootings, which group of people do you see stealing garbage bag loads off Walmart shelves? 

The looters are mostly racial minorities who’ve been encouraged to believe they “are owed.” 

So they steal.

But any person — man or woman, black or white — who resorts to open theft throws a monkey wrench into his or her future. It’s no way to get ahead.

Which increases the wealth and income gap.

The utopians themselves make sure the cycle of dysfunction never ends.

twv

With Martin Luther King’s birthday having just passed, my interest turns to the next month’s holiday. Here’s something from Office Holidays dot com:

Washington’s Birthday is a federal holiday celebrated on the third Monday of February. At a state level, it may be called President’s Day, with an apostrophe that moves about from state to state.

Though it may be technically incorrect, the federal holiday is often colloquially referred to as Presidents’ Day. The Associated Press Stylebook, most newspapers and some magazines use the form “President’s Day” as an alternate rendering of “Washington’s Birthday.” The name Presidents’ Day is also the more common version of the name when used internationally.

This confusion as to the name is that despite its status as a federal holiday, states are free to name this holiday as they wish or even whether or not it is observed as a public holiday in that state.

I live in Washington State, named after George Washington. I checked the state’s website. The celebration is called “Presidents’ Day.” I kid you not.

The politicians and government functionaries in my state are not to be honored. They cannot even muster the quantum of intelligence (or courage) to formally honor the man the state is named for.


From The Daily Wire we learn that Chelsea Handler once believed — or, at least, she said she once believed — that the Sun and Moon were the same object. “I didn’t know until I was 40 years old that the sun and the moon were not the same thing.” Her belief was that, “Honestly, I just assumed when the sun went down, it popped back up as the moon.”

What an odd belief. I guess she was trans before it was cool, and for her the Moon was just the trans-Sun, and vice versa.

What I don’t really understand is how, as a child, she was not inquisitive enough to research astronomical issues by herself. But this apparently never crossed her mind. She appears to believe that encyclopedias and other books are not relevant to childish inquiry: “at a certain age when you don’t know, you know, the answers to questions, it’s too embarrassing to ask questions. You know, you just have to pretend, you know.”

I find the incurious nature of most folks utterly off-putting.

But then, for my part, I never gathered around with friends for group masturbate-o-thons, like she famously did in her youth. So I guess she would think my modesty utterly puzzling and off-putting.


In honor, it is said, of Martin Luther and Coretta Scott King: a new statute in Boston . . . so ugly that I hazard it must reference the preacher’s rapes.

Headless in Boston.

The woke, once again, send me into the cadre of anti-postmodernists.

If you are going to make a celebratory statue, make it classical, where the artist salutes and the art exemplifies achievement, nobility, justice, courage, and the like, not … whatever this … does.

But there is an “explanation”:

If a statue needs unfamiliar outside material to be understood what it represents, it is terrible public art.

This is a horrifically bad sculpture.

twv

I’ve lost track of two of the novels I’m halfway through reading, one by William Dean Howells and the other by Poul Anderson. Both are likely in my office, which I guess I’ll have to tidy up soon. So here I am well into the night and approaching morning, still wide awake, but tired, looking at a Poe collection, an elegant miniature hardcover from Könemann. I’m thinking of embarking on a formal essay on Nabokov’s Lolita, so Poe not surprisingly came to mind. There is a mystery behind Lolita, one uncovered a decade or so ago, and most of what has been written about it has been pishposh. And here it is, half after the beginning of the new day’s fifth hour, and I cannot remember having read Poe’s longest detective story. I know I read “The Gold Bug” in my teen years. But the others? I forsook Poe’s crime and horror fiction for his comedies, “The Imp of the Perverse” and “Never Bet the Devil Your Head.” Now it is time, perhaps, to return to my reading roots. 

Or finish this whiskey. I am not awake because of missing books, but because of pain. There is no position of recumbency that evades pain, tonight, so every position prevents sleep. So how to sleep? The whiskey may help. 

Or maybe Poe’s prose’ll do it.

twv

“Died suddenly” would not possess memetic traction were excess deaths not running way above ten percent, and those deaths not attributable to COVID.

It’s the context of high profile on-air collapses and demises within the post-pandemic statistical reality that provides teeth to the speculation about the Pfizer and Moderna products’ adverse effects.

If there were stats but no anecdotes, or anecdotes but no stats, then there’d be reason for corrosive skepticism about either. But we find them together, and must deal with them as bolstering each other; skepticism means you should apply some of your cultivated dubiety against the medical protocols rushed through by Trump and foisted upon the world.

twv

That’s “the Historical Jesus” To You.

In my third online discussion with Ralph Ellis, we focus in on the name of “Jesus” — where did it come from? What was it exactly, prior to all the translations?

Leading up to this chat, I had directed Mr. Ellis to the YouTube channel Religion for Breakfast, where host Andrew Henry discusses the current academic consensus on the name of Jesus, in two videos.

Andrew Henry, host of Religion for Breakfast on YouTube.

Mr. Elllis, who has written three books with “Jesus” in the title, offers his rather different take.

Also prior to our chat, I had asked Mr. Ellis about what he thought of the name of “Joseph” — the Gospel Jesus’ father. Or “worldly father,” as we might have called him in church, when I was a kid. Since Ellis believes that the historical Jesus’ natural and quite real father was King Abgarus Monobazus of Edessa, where did the name “Joseph” come from? I had suggested it was just impishly inserted into the gospel story. But Ellis thinks it may very well have been Abgarus’s adoptive, “Jewish” name. Why? It turns out he has an interesting theory about this, and it is completely plausible. Indeed, it is congruent with the rest of the story as he’s explored it in his many books:

As always with Mr. Ellis, our conversation runs wide, and deep into the history. In the video version of the podcast I have tried to make it easier to follow, with a few visual aids:

My dog only interrupted once.

As always, I now have more questions. Perhaps I will invite Mr. Ellis back onto the program — I am very curious about Judas, for instance, and it was Judas of Gamala who really started the movement that became the Jewish Revolt. The more I read Josephus — and his four works (The Jewish War, The Antiquities of the Jews, The Life and Against Apion) provide quite the kick — the more impressive Mr. Ellis’s interpretation seems to me.

twv

N.B. The YouTube version is now up.

Ah, word choice: “been with.”

And “trans canine” is indeed a gruesomely hilarious result of the gender movement, and the left’s desperate anti-natalism which I see lurking behind its insane forms of trendy identitarianism.

Shakespeare’s Polonius advised: “To thine own self be true.” But few seek this kind of individualistic humanism any longer, and the cultural path led us to a place where fewer and fewer bother cultivating their own selves with any degree of success. So, as if to turn poor Polonius on his head, they have reversed day and night to become false to all people.

“I just want friends and a crowd” — this does capture the group categorization frenzy that youngsters seem unable not to engage in. Though this statement would have been more apt had she used “pack” instead of “crowd.”

Bestiality farded up as “trans caninism” is at least funny.

I haven’t been reading many satires recently since the artless satires of our reality appear daily for our amusement.


The cult of freak-flag sexuality seems to be approaching stefnal bizarrerie. And I confess: I am not in the least interested in coercing her not to fuck her dogs. I assume that if a male dog will eagerly go at it with her, it is consensual enough for me. But it remains absolutely vital for the main run of society to mock this bitch and laugh at her antics, and warn children from becoming as horrific as she is eager to become.

Of course, this could all be a joke: a sick, twisted joke. A parody of leftist transgenderist identitarianism. Or some come-on for an OnlyFans account. Hers is the first naked pussy I have seen on Twitter, so the chance that this is some form of put-on is quite high.

If so, congratulations? Made us look:

But the best part of all may be “her” claim to be a scientist, and thus smarter than the rest of us:

Would a practicing scientist say such a thing?

Not likely. Though Fauci came close. But that merely proved he was a trans scientist. Not a real one.

twv

Tulsi Gabbard 10h  · 

On this New Year’s Day, I send you my deepest aloha—respect, love, and best wishes—in the new year. May you be blessed with a joyful, purposeful 2023. Aloha

I’ve been annoyed with Tulsi Gabbard’s past and repeated use of “aloha” massaging, but maybe I should judge it apt for a Hawaiian, and acknowledge that by her use of it she is reviving the traditional American principle of federalism, asserting a substantive localism into America’s pernicious nationalist culture that afflicts both left and right.

So, ‘Aloha’ all around. Except I am from the Evergreen State, the Chinook State, and our motto is Al-Ki — ‘by and by.’ Which means, I think: ‘maybe some day.’

Now that’s a motto, up there with ‘festina lente’!


I am a conspiracy theorist. I theorize about conspiracies. I construct and appraise conjectures about conspiracies. I am interested in the data that might falsify conspiracy conjectures. But I am also interested in the data and arguments that falsify (or at least undermine the applicability of) invisible hand theories.

Indeed, I generally oppose the meta-theories about conspiracies that are frequently promoted by invisible hand theorists. I am underwhelmed by them. I also consider them as possible expressions of an adaptive strategy to the conscious stigmatization of conspiracy theories, which have been promoted by bureaus of our federal government’s intel agencies. Which we know exist and which we know engage in stigmatization as a means of social control.

I consider this all so obvious that my usual reaction to quick-react anti-conspiracy “skepticism” is eye rolls.

Something I used to engage in as an invisible hand theorist.

One reason I changed my mind is that I noticed my own prejudices, and who was most served by them.

This all being said, I recognize that much of stigmatization on these matters is an invisible hand process. Spontaneous, you might say.


This is a good beginning for the New Year, a serious discussion of UFOs and parapsychology. Eric Weinstein makes epistemic points that I’ve been making for six years, but most of my friends simply ignore. I share Weinstein not because I like him — I don’t know him, and he often borders on pomposity — but because maybe my friends will listen to him since they won’t confront my points. Weinstein’s basic attitudes are close to mine.

Clarke’s Third Law is in play here:

It has been really helpful, in my case, to have always existed in a political-cultural minority. I can easily believe that governments do some things well but not others, while generally opposing governments, and therefore contemplate competence in the keeping of secrets.

What I find odd are all my fellow individualists falling for fairly obvious psy-ops, and for continuing a long legacy of government-managed stigma to protect government secrets. This latter I judge to be spooky.

My late friend Noel used to say that the real division in society was between those who thought “we should pay and pay and pay for sex” — by which he meant sexual intercourse — and those who thought that “sex should be ‘free.’”

The first time I heard him say this, I minimized its profundity. I immediately translated this maxim as being about sexual responsibility, and I did not see why one couldn’t be free and responsible.

Of course, I was thinking as an individualist, and most people are not individualists. The “right,” by and large, thinks responsibility can only be inculcated in society by limiting sexual freedom, while the “left” seeks to reduce the burden of sexual responsibility in the pursuit of freedom. Individualists, on the other hand, tend to find both attitudes a bit hard to take.

The sexual revolution was launched as a liberatory enterprise, but chiefly succeeded in reducing the bite of responsibility with a handful of innovations:

1. improved contraception and prophylactics, decreasing the pinch of natural consequences for multiple-partner sexual activity;
2. increased frequency of abortions, through legalization, which made it easier for sexually active members of both sexes to avoid the burden of taking care of the natural by product of heterosexual unions; and
3. extensive “welfare” benefits given to women without spouses but with children.

These three things allowed the sexual revolution to really take off. But the political elements of these three developments — and the second and third are largely political in nature — were not demanded by the masses. They were pushed by the elites, who themselves, historically, tend to lean left on cultural and sexual matters. 

But driving this idea was not merely that perennial and quite ancient temptation, freedom-without-responsibility. Deep in the heart of modern life another idea lurked, hidden just barely: over-population worries. 

The sexual revolution has been pushed by elites as part of an anti-natalist agenda, a frank and sometimes cruel demand for general population reduction. Pushing the ideology of hedonism and the legal policies that helped help thrive served to curb population growth. Especially among whites, which allowed post WWII eugenicists to feel less Nazilike and more racially altruistic. Many elite thinkers and politicians frankly pushed an anti-Caucasian agenda as part of their neo-eugenics.

The arc of the implementation of this agenda has been breathtaking to watch, but I do have two predictions.

1. I think that now, with trans, we’ve arrived at the penultimate absurdity — the ultimate having been described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, but which I don’t think we can advance towards at present, because of limitations of current biotech. And trans will seal the end of the sexual revolution. It is too ridiculously absurd as well as manipulative of decadence: it too frankly defies the basic habits that maintain the civilization that encourages it. In ten years it’ll be worse than a deep embarrassment. There will be a crisis of consequences, yes (I predict suicides and mass revenge murders), which will lead to no longer being promoted. And the politico-cultural left will have suffered its second major comeuppance, after the fall of the Soviet Union (which itself echoed the post-socialism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries — see David Ramsay Steele’s book on Orwell).

2. But the elites will not give up. Their commitment to population reduction is classist and a matter of “identity.” So they will continue to support their agenda in the revolution that is now following the sexual revolution: the death revolution. Canada has already taken it up in a big way: the promotion of medically assisted suicide in a big, bureaucratized way.

We’ll see a lot more on encouraging suicide. Time to read Gore Vidal’s Messiah again, or watch, for the umpteenth time, Soylent Green.

Decadence is not just a matter of sex. It is food and death, too. Cannibalism and entomopophagy, and a whole lot more, too, will likely feature large in the near future. Our civilization seems to sport a death wish. And it is going to get ugly before it turns around.

twv

One theory of democracy is that it’s a stunt — a way to suck people into accepting more government than they would otherwise accept. Voting in elections is seen by these conspiracy theorists as fake, as a con job.

This is distinct from the idea that many elections are faked. Communists had an obviously fake form of democracy, where the outcome was nearly always known going in. It helps to have only one candidate, for example.

To discover that one or two or an alarmingly high number of elections are controlled not by voters but by hidden forces does not prove the conspiracy view of democracy, but it does suggest it. Which is why the Democratic sector of legacy media — most networks and news programs — is not reporting on the ongoing Twitter revelations much at all. Because Elon Musk has shown that social media interference in the dissemination of opinion and news during the 2020 presidential election was destabilized the integrity of that election, this is a topic too hot for propagandists to handle. It’s blankout time.

The Twitter Files, as subcontracted out by Mr. Musk to a handful of independent journalists, has been very instructive. Recently, we’ve learned that the FBI had a huge presence in Twitter’s employee ranks, with hundreds of former federal law enforcement and intel agency personnel swelling the ranks of the company. They even had their own employee server and new former-fed employee welcoming parties. And it turns out that the government paid Twitter to censor in partisan ways.

And Elon Musk has point-blank stated that the same sort of things were going on in other social media outfits.

This is not “regulatory capture,” where corporations imperialize bureaus by swapping personnel. This is partisan government-worker capture of business, not much different than how Nazi Germany worked: one party planting operatives in every major business.

Meanwhile, Mr. Musk has continued his goofy online polls. Earlier he had let Trump and “all” banned users back onto Twitter because of polling results. On the 18th he polled his audience about whether he should continue as CEO, saying he would “abide by the results of this poll.” A greater-than 14 point spread favored his resignation. 

And then someone suggested that only paid blue-checkmark people should vote in such polls, and he accepted the idea.

The latest tweet of @elonmusk’s that I have read stated, “I will resign as CEO as soon as I find someone foolish enough to take the job!”

Stunt!

twv

The Deal: I get ads for Jordan Peterson all the time on YouTube these days, for his new Daily Wire show.

The Good: Great violin theme; love it.

The Bad: But it means I hear the same JP soundbites over and over, and though I’ve generally been a fan of the man, his presence has become increasingly annoying. Maybe he’s just so resolutely serioso now. And increasingly conservative. He’s starting to really bug me, especially on soundbite repeat.

The Indifferent: Does he know that his bilateral color-asymmetric suit of the last few weeks is reminiscent of an old Fool costume?

The Worst: I know that subscribing to The Daily Wire would not stop the ads. Only paying Google would. And I Won‘t Do That.