This is indeed horrifying. What is left unsaid is how these fascist messages have been amplified. Some of the most popular social media accounts trumpeting these messages of hate originate from the West's enemies. Given what we know about social media, bots, and both China and Russia's efforts to sow division in the West, is the decline of liberal democracy really just an inexpensive and covert attack on America and its allies? It's not drone warfare that we should be fearful of, it is the psychological capture of younger people through the corrosive and divisive amplification of these hateful messages by our enemies.
Thanks for this analysis. It’s a clear reminder that no party is a monolith. I appreciate having a better understanding of what underlies the headline numbers, and how the headline numbers are chosen.
I also appreciate your conclusion on what makes up Western Civilization, on what is at risk.
However, one disagreement: From what I've read by people who actually work in the field, the lab leak hypothesis is at this point very unlikely; SARS-COV-2 almost certainly jumped from animals in the wet market. "Lab leak" is a conspiracy theory to the extent that it requires a pretty big cover-up, a lot of people lying, and is used by Trumpists to promote anti-Chinese sentiment (not that there aren't plenty of other reasons to dislike the Chinese government).
I think that there were two COVID origin theories linked to the Wuhan lab. One thought it an accidental leak and often threw in the idea that it was because of gain of function research funded by Fauci and the NIH. Thus, while there has been a legitimate discussion as to whether the virus spread to humans from animals or from a leak, the latter element has nefarious, conspiracy elements tied to it. And then linked to that was a second take (Sen. Tom Coton I believe) that the Chinese manufactured the COVID virus in the Wuhan lab and deliberately released it. This take had considerable uptake on elements of social media but has lessened in popularity since. But at the time, some arguing against the Wuhan lab as the origin were contending with two strands of conspiracy theory in 2020.
Yeah, exactly. It's a really muddled situation. There's no question that many people did promote beliefs that qualified as conspiracy theories. But there are other arguments that are not nearly so unambiguous. And I don't think it's reasonable to lump it all into one bucket. That question doesn't untangle any of that so I would never have included it in the survey if I had designed it.
What Democrats and Republicans both have in common today is a two standard deviation drop in native intelligence. Instead of fudging the Bell Curve, if you simply do an absolute comparison, the average IQ in the U.S. is 94, which used to be the clinical definition of a legal cretin.
This same range in IQ used to be consideration for institutionalization. Lawyers got their clients off charges back in the fifties by arguing they had IQs of 94 and were therefore impaired in their ability to know right from wrong. An average IQ of 94 puts half the U.S. population within shouting distance of Koko the Sign Language Gorilla, who was scored at 91 by clinical psychologists.
Of course it's "changing."
The assumption that it is "changing" instead of just sinking into cringeworthy idiocy is an error in understanding the problem. It is adapting a test score to fit an assumption ... namely that America can survive in any form at those levels of average intelligence.
Superb breakdown of the Manhattan Institute data. The distinction between core and new-entrant Republicans you highlight is critcal but the survey's framing actually obscures how alarming this is. When you realzie that grouping "we can get their votes" with the rejection categories makes the tolerance for extremism seem lower than it actually is, the true picture emerges: nearly half the party is comfortable adjacnet to racists and antisemites. Thats not a fringe problem anymore, its a coalition management challenge for GOP leadership.
I see a contradiction here Dan. In a previous post you praised Spaak to accept the necessary compromises to create the EEU (and in exchange for that he can’t even get an alleyway named after hi because he was a “white man”, so much thanks for that). However, you now suggest that to win elections no Republican can compromise even an inch thus losing elections for the next 100 years. So what are the limits of compromise?, some people can and should while others cannot even an inch?. Seems a bit hypocritical to me…
I am sorry if I was not clear, what I was trying to say is asking why wrong in trying to get the votes of far right people when at the end of the day the purpose of a political party is to gain power?. Where I live the moderate left is always trying to get the votes of the hard core communists, what’s wrong with that?. Wasn’t it Churchill who said that if Hitler had invaded Hell he would have said a kind word about the Devil?.
Churchill said that about the devil in the context of a war for the existence of civilization. Outside such extreme circumstances, democratic politics should never take such an approach (and Churchill did not) but should instead accept and agree that there are boundaries denoting what is legitimate politics in a pluralistic democracy -- and what is not.
This is indeed horrifying. What is left unsaid is how these fascist messages have been amplified. Some of the most popular social media accounts trumpeting these messages of hate originate from the West's enemies. Given what we know about social media, bots, and both China and Russia's efforts to sow division in the West, is the decline of liberal democracy really just an inexpensive and covert attack on America and its allies? It's not drone warfare that we should be fearful of, it is the psychological capture of younger people through the corrosive and divisive amplification of these hateful messages by our enemies.
Thanks for this analysis. It’s a clear reminder that no party is a monolith. I appreciate having a better understanding of what underlies the headline numbers, and how the headline numbers are chosen.
I also appreciate your conclusion on what makes up Western Civilization, on what is at risk.
Excellent (if frightening) essay.
However, one disagreement: From what I've read by people who actually work in the field, the lab leak hypothesis is at this point very unlikely; SARS-COV-2 almost certainly jumped from animals in the wet market. "Lab leak" is a conspiracy theory to the extent that it requires a pretty big cover-up, a lot of people lying, and is used by Trumpists to promote anti-Chinese sentiment (not that there aren't plenty of other reasons to dislike the Chinese government).
I think that there were two COVID origin theories linked to the Wuhan lab. One thought it an accidental leak and often threw in the idea that it was because of gain of function research funded by Fauci and the NIH. Thus, while there has been a legitimate discussion as to whether the virus spread to humans from animals or from a leak, the latter element has nefarious, conspiracy elements tied to it. And then linked to that was a second take (Sen. Tom Coton I believe) that the Chinese manufactured the COVID virus in the Wuhan lab and deliberately released it. This take had considerable uptake on elements of social media but has lessened in popularity since. But at the time, some arguing against the Wuhan lab as the origin were contending with two strands of conspiracy theory in 2020.
Yeah, exactly. It's a really muddled situation. There's no question that many people did promote beliefs that qualified as conspiracy theories. But there are other arguments that are not nearly so unambiguous. And I don't think it's reasonable to lump it all into one bucket. That question doesn't untangle any of that so I would never have included it in the survey if I had designed it.
Thanks, I'd forgotten the "Created and released it deliberately" idea, which *is* a paradigmatic conspiracy theory.
Thank you. Well researched.
I'm wondering what happens as highly educated people get pushed out of IT and other engineering jobs due to GenAI? It's already beginning. They (ahem, we) could do serious damage via monkeywrenching. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-ecodefense-a-field-guide-to-monkeywrenching. No ineffective assassinations, more like Bastard Operator from Hell stuff. https://bofh.bjash.com/ Also, excerpts from a WWII era sabotage manual are running on the Mastodon instance I use. https://mastodon.social/home
The fact that this is all coinciding with AI ... Seldom has the curse "may you live in interesting times" been more apt.
I am sitting down to read again “Stones from the River “ by Ursula Hegi over the weekend
What Democrats and Republicans both have in common today is a two standard deviation drop in native intelligence. Instead of fudging the Bell Curve, if you simply do an absolute comparison, the average IQ in the U.S. is 94, which used to be the clinical definition of a legal cretin.
This same range in IQ used to be consideration for institutionalization. Lawyers got their clients off charges back in the fifties by arguing they had IQs of 94 and were therefore impaired in their ability to know right from wrong. An average IQ of 94 puts half the U.S. population within shouting distance of Koko the Sign Language Gorilla, who was scored at 91 by clinical psychologists.
Of course it's "changing."
The assumption that it is "changing" instead of just sinking into cringeworthy idiocy is an error in understanding the problem. It is adapting a test score to fit an assumption ... namely that America can survive in any form at those levels of average intelligence.
It cannot.
Superb breakdown of the Manhattan Institute data. The distinction between core and new-entrant Republicans you highlight is critcal but the survey's framing actually obscures how alarming this is. When you realzie that grouping "we can get their votes" with the rejection categories makes the tolerance for extremism seem lower than it actually is, the true picture emerges: nearly half the party is comfortable adjacnet to racists and antisemites. Thats not a fringe problem anymore, its a coalition management challenge for GOP leadership.
I see a contradiction here Dan. In a previous post you praised Spaak to accept the necessary compromises to create the EEU (and in exchange for that he can’t even get an alleyway named after hi because he was a “white man”, so much thanks for that). However, you now suggest that to win elections no Republican can compromise even an inch thus losing elections for the next 100 years. So what are the limits of compromise?, some people can and should while others cannot even an inch?. Seems a bit hypocritical to me…
I have no idea where you are getting the part that follows your "however." Or what it means.
I am sorry if I was not clear, what I was trying to say is asking why wrong in trying to get the votes of far right people when at the end of the day the purpose of a political party is to gain power?. Where I live the moderate left is always trying to get the votes of the hard core communists, what’s wrong with that?. Wasn’t it Churchill who said that if Hitler had invaded Hell he would have said a kind word about the Devil?.
Churchill said that about the devil in the context of a war for the existence of civilization. Outside such extreme circumstances, democratic politics should never take such an approach (and Churchill did not) but should instead accept and agree that there are boundaries denoting what is legitimate politics in a pluralistic democracy -- and what is not.