I think there's an opening for a political narrative that's right of center on some cultural issues, left of center on other cultural issues, and left of center on some economic issues and right of center on others.
Which is to say... the current duopoly is ossified into untenable positions across the spectrum. And as I've been saying for 5-6 years, whomever get's there first, wins.
I wrote a piece on American Solidarity party last cycle... that would be one example of how a realignment party mixes/matches policies that confound the simple narratives.
But if your question is whether one has to resurrect Reagan or chase libertarians or rage with the Trumpian ID? Then I say none of the above.
Vanity Fair has dropped the investigative reporting on the matter:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
"As officials at the meeting discussed what they could share with the public, they were advised by Christopher Park, the director of the State Department’s Biological Policy Staff in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, not to say anything that would point to the U.S. government’s own role in gain-of-function research, according to documentation of the meeting obtained by Vanity Fair."
...
"Park, who in 2017 had been involved in lifting a U.S. government moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research, was not the only official to warn the State Department investigators against digging in sensitive places."
Oh, and 528 contributes with these weighty thoughts from science journal editors:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-it-matter-if-there-was-a-lab-leak/
"You know, I think it is important, and I’m, like, super interested in this stuff. But I don’t know if knowing the source of this emerging pandemic is going to stop us from preventing the next one, because they seem to come from different animals for different reasons. "
~Amy Maxem, Sr. Reporter for Nature
Eh... I don't subscribe to that... there are plenty of options, just that there are too many path dependent choices driving options and too few mechanisms to unstick the previous paths. It's a 'simple' people/process/path problem that's the bigger reality in politics than 'ideas'
Yeah... on the one hand, Glenn Youngkin (recently) CEO of Carlyle Group is probably friends with lots of NOVA voters... on the other hand, what exactly is the ex-CEO of the Carlyle Group going to do to connect with the rest of the voters?
Will he go the way of ex-Bain Capital CEO's Tribune to the people or forge a new ex-Carlyle Group CEO to the rabble? Either way, I don't think there's any Republican realignment in the offing that's led by Bain/Carlyle folks.
I mean, I know a lot of VA Republican operators and a couple of Pols... they are all pre-Trump figures... they have no idea what Trump is, was, or will be. They are the reason there's a Trump at all. So... hard for me to see these folks navigating their way out of this mess.
Personally I don't think the Republican apparatus knows what 'good candidates' or 'good policy objectives' would be to win a realignment... but I suppose we can see what Glenn Youngkin comes up with as a trial balloon.
At the moment his website doesn't have any info other than the obligatory picture of him and his family... and how to give them money. But eventually we'll see what VA Republican party thinks is a winning message from their curated pick.
Right, as the great Philosopher @Steak-umm points out, we have an epistemology problem.
"science itself isn't "true" it's a constantly refining process used to uncover truths based in material reality and that process is still full of misteaks. neil just posts ridiculous sound bites like this for clout and he has no respect for epistemology"
There are bi-lateral leverage points... Chinese research benefits from American Grant $$, scientists need and want access to Western networks of Scholarship, Education, IP, and funding. It isn't a matter of imposing US will upon China, but recognizing that the international standards and protocols that enable them to claim to have a BSL4 facility so that they can have access to all the support you need to run a BSL4 lab requires that you participate in the protocols.
Else, the funding, the IP, the exchanges, the networks, etc. etc. can be sanctioned.
That wouldn't necessarily stop China dead in their tracks if they wanted to go solo... but there's leverage... and reasonable leverage at that.
But that's also partly what Michael means, I think, by Biden blowing it... they aren't going to collaborate with Team Spy. So we've effectively closed the door on the Science Community sorting this out themselves.
Intelligence reports will always include all the possible options with discussions about weighted probabilities that decision makers can use to make decisions. It will be vague by design and I'm willing to bet that the 'answer' will be, we can't say for sure what happened, but it is in everyone's interest to make sure that all BSL4 labs have more funding.
Alternately, using NIH, CDC, WHO and others would hopefully provide a collaborative analysis... and, if healthy, would point out failures (if any) for the good of the praxis.
However, there's strong temptation to NIH, CDC, WHO, and other players who are possibly complicit in 'unleashing the worst natural disaster in the modern era' (by accident, mind you) to make sure that the institutions are protected first. Not to mention institutional capture by not only the practitioners, but the government(s) themselves. I mean, it's hard to imagine WHO as having any credibility in any investigation ever again.
Journalists might be a counter-balance to this, but a big part of what's being discussed (or not discussed) above is that the journalists aren't providing a counter-balance to this. Some of what 'indie' reporters have pointed out is that the Lancet article supporting the WIV (and originally 'debunking' the Engineered Virus) was sponsored by Dr. Daszak, who is part of EcoHealth Alliance, which funds WIV with grants from NIH - possibly even GOF Engineering. Which is to say, it is possible that Lancet/EcoHealth/NIH may have banal corporate/funding interests in not acknowledging certain things (if they need acknowledging). Again, the paper-trails are there to keep these possible conflicts above the board... but only if our journalism isn't in the business of deciding who the "good guys" and "bad guys" and making sure the good guys win... no matter the science.
So Intelligence is the perfect way to de-fuse the situation by providing a report that comes from 'secret spy soruces' that provides a vague answer that ultimately results in more institutional funding.
Much of the initial science reporting *wasn't* conspiracy theories though... it required a sort of distortion to associate/obfuscate initial reporting with less credible conspiracies. But that's a different audit.
Wuhan Flu is the same distraction if it came from a wet-market vs. a lab leak in Wuhan/China.
I don't think that particular distraction is relevant to this matter...
I acknowledge that Trump's initial bungling of the matter (compared to his middle and late bungling) was hoping to deflect attention away from his bungling.
That isn't an excuse to ignore another institution's bungling, even if Trump's deflection was in bad faith.
Yeah... I suspect an Ox or two may be gored along the way... and I'm not really competent to say who's. BUT, the crew that jumped in to action to suppress any discussion/investigation seem to be the owners of many Oxen.
I still think that's a second order phenomenon as surely the scientific consensus once the fire is out is to have a full investigation, right?
As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I'm not sure I'm on-board with your point.
In May 2020, it wasn't in fact that important to identify the source as it was to coordinate a good response. in May 2021 auditing sources is now an appropriate project.
Some folks talking about sources in May 2020 were failing in their duty to prioritize coordinating a good response.
Some folks who wanted to shut down discussion in May 2020 possibly did so in bad-faith on one and maybe two counts... unless they are totally vindicated by scenario #1.
All of these things actually happened and it doesn't change the fact that you do the arson review after you control the fire.
I think it's important to segment the matter as one of scientific prudence and auditing rather than political side taking.
The highlevel survey of possible origins looks like this:
1. Zoological
2. Zoological related to work at Wuhan institute (i.e. bat guano thesis)
3. Natural Virus Lab Leak via negligence/accident
4. Natural Virus Lab Leak via gross-negligence/protocol failure
5. Engineered Virus Lab Leak (Gain of Function via various techniques)... Negligence/Gross-Negligence
6. "Bio-Engineered" weapon with malicious intent.
Personally, I think #6 was never really on the table... and I'm fine excluding it (absent some 'smoking gun' evidence) from polite conversation.
But #1 - #5? All plausible. And our position should be that it is important to understand whether 'mistakes were made' (scenarios 2 thru 5) by entities we trust with important research and funding such that those entities (and people) might be sanctioned from future funding and/or leadership roles in research and/or Lab management.
If we find that #5 played a role, there absolutely should be a review of the risks associated with Gain of Function research and weather it needs to be restricted to Labs with better safety protocols... or whether the benefits even out weigh the risks.
But the primary takeaway before it gets politicized (more than already) is that proclaiming that #1 was the and ONLY possible cause *without* access to all the data ... and with the data suppressed at the source. Well, that's a failure that may prohibit us from definitively making a conclusion about this event... but it is also a failure that should change our Funding and Research sharing processes - which are global and standards based.
This should be the baseline... it's an Audit, and if you're the Wuhan Instutite studying a virus that's also the source of a Global Pandemic... then yes, all your data and records and personnel records *have* to be reviewed without redaction. That's part of the Scientific Method. If this is prohibited, then it's an epistemic failure that must result in scientific sanctions.
10-yrs I've been coming to this site trying to inspire Chip out of his torpor to lead us to our distributist future, only to have victory snatched away at the last moment.
Having marched through the institutions the next phase of the revolution is to defend them against all possible attempts to improve them. Thus completing our mission.
~ Antonio Gramsci
Interesting point about Musk... but I'm not sure how that translates? Are we thinking a passive reality show that mechanically inclined Americans would watch to subsidize the making of the Moon shot? Plausible.
Or are we thinking bigger about crowdsourcing the Moon Shot! Become a legend and a b/millionaire if you can solve the radiation exposure problem with common household goods other than duct tape.
But more seriously, are we really getting at what "highbrow" is? It isn't A+ vs. B- I don't think. I'd suggest that Highbrow is 'gated content' or Esoteric in its purist form. It isn't that it's better, its that you don't get it if you don't have the requisite pre-requisites.
Greek and Latin don't make you better people, they make you better able to understand the jokes that allow you to sit with better people. Or it used to.
We see this in music all the time, especially classical music: usually it is the concerti written for the virtuoso artist of a particular instrument. These concerti are not particularly 'good' qua music, they are only good if you know how improbable they are to play at all. There are a tiny handful of pieces created that are both... but those are treated as transcendent genius precisely for being 'accessible'
So really, as far as I can tell, we're awash in Middlebrow... there's almost no Highbrow culture... just the brute force of $$. None of us have any notion that the Rich folks are highbrow, do we? Does Gates have taste? (Heh, well, that's fun these days). Bezos? Buffet? Thiel? Anyone? OMG, Zuckerberg? Or just the brute force of exclusivity by $$.
Other than being nervous that someone was going to serve you with a bill for the 'free champagne and heavy hors d'ouevres' you were scarfing at a party with our upper classes, none of us would feel particularly out of place... the topics would still be Game of Thrones or Bridgerton or football/baseball/basketball (depending on the mogul)... sure, you'd have to admit your car doors open side-to-side and not up-and-down and your boat is only cleared for lakes/rivers, but that's still just the middlebrow tyranny of $$.
A+ food is often middle brow; as a 'foodie' the closest I'd come to pointing out the 'highbrow' enclave (that isn't simply $$) is that some foods require an understanding of how difficult it is to prepare and/or pair flavors that make the achievement esoteric even when it's not accessible. Middlebrow is just mixing Asparagus and Jalapeno as an Ice Cream because it's 'wild'. A+ BBQ? Pisses rings around some of the technically brilliant foods I've had... but BBQ is pretty darn accessible... and strangely, some of the foodiest of food places are super accessible from a $$ point of view.
So my question would be where are the esoteric gates that aren't simply $$ gates? That's the enclave of the highbrow. Maybe fashion? Maybe certain forms of Art? But honestly, none of those are cultural signifiers and 'engagement' wouldn't be maintaining our intellectual curiosity about fashion. But they at least exhibit the esoteric requirements for 'Highbrow.'
Last weekend was our Covid Liberation weekend, so we had a weekend getaway with fancy meals... so now I guess it's back to mowing the lawn and pastures. Oh wait, this weekend is a friend's 50th which was going to be outdoors at their new party barn... and now that the Mask Mandate is gone will still be outdoors at her party barn. Will see some folks I haven't seen in over a year.
"They would defuse the bombs that could actually destroy their state in the long term: demographics and apartheid."
Freddie is attempting to navigate a domestic 'Thucydides Trap.' Basically he's arguing that Israeli Hegemony today is the reason why they should 'devolve' power *now* in a sharing agreement that brings along the upcoming power and aligns them with a peaceful transition to a Palestinian 'Secular' State with a Jewish Minority that's integral and integrated.
If they don't do it (now), then either that demographic has to be more forcibly removed/expelled or the upcoming power will eventually go to war themselves against the decaying hegemon -- and defeat the old regime with usually catastrophic results.
It's possible to navigate this, but, usually ends in war... I'm less sanguine than Freddie about the powers of Secular Liberalism to act as a magic balm. I see his logical steps of why it might, but they are laden with assumptions and, honestly, counterfactuals to lived experience in the region.
Which is to say, I thought his diagnosis of the interior dynamics of his faction forthright and honest... the obvious parallels and cross-parallels to US political dynamics is probably the better use of this article... But like most of us, the diagnosis is easier than the cure.
On “Linky Friday: Lies, Slander, and Calumny Edition”
I'm nodding along to: "the performative displays of respect for laws and norms and objective truth…all that could safely be dropped"
and then I get to: "the raw authoritarian id of white grievance be exposed and naked and the base would go wild."
And I just see 4 more years.
On “Republicans Are Not Helpless Against Trump”
I think there's an opening for a political narrative that's right of center on some cultural issues, left of center on other cultural issues, and left of center on some economic issues and right of center on others.
Which is to say... the current duopoly is ossified into untenable positions across the spectrum. And as I've been saying for 5-6 years, whomever get's there first, wins.
I wrote a piece on American Solidarity party last cycle... that would be one example of how a realignment party mixes/matches policies that confound the simple narratives.
But if your question is whether one has to resurrect Reagan or chase libertarians or rage with the Trumpian ID? Then I say none of the above.
On “From Buzzfeed News: Anthony Fauci’s Emails Reveal The Pressure That Fell On One Man”
comment in mod for double link.
"
Vanity Fair has dropped the investigative reporting on the matter:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
"As officials at the meeting discussed what they could share with the public, they were advised by Christopher Park, the director of the State Department’s Biological Policy Staff in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, not to say anything that would point to the U.S. government’s own role in gain-of-function research, according to documentation of the meeting obtained by Vanity Fair."
...
"Park, who in 2017 had been involved in lifting a U.S. government moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research, was not the only official to warn the State Department investigators against digging in sensitive places."
Oh, and 528 contributes with these weighty thoughts from science journal editors:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-it-matter-if-there-was-a-lab-leak/
"You know, I think it is important, and I’m, like, super interested in this stuff. But I don’t know if knowing the source of this emerging pandemic is going to stop us from preventing the next one, because they seem to come from different animals for different reasons. "
~Amy Maxem, Sr. Reporter for Nature
On “Republicans Are Not Helpless Against Trump”
Eh... I don't subscribe to that... there are plenty of options, just that there are too many path dependent choices driving options and too few mechanisms to unstick the previous paths. It's a 'simple' people/process/path problem that's the bigger reality in politics than 'ideas'
"
Yeah... on the one hand, Glenn Youngkin (recently) CEO of Carlyle Group is probably friends with lots of NOVA voters... on the other hand, what exactly is the ex-CEO of the Carlyle Group going to do to connect with the rest of the voters?
Will he go the way of ex-Bain Capital CEO's Tribune to the people or forge a new ex-Carlyle Group CEO to the rabble? Either way, I don't think there's any Republican realignment in the offing that's led by Bain/Carlyle folks.
I mean, I know a lot of VA Republican operators and a couple of Pols... they are all pre-Trump figures... they have no idea what Trump is, was, or will be. They are the reason there's a Trump at all. So... hard for me to see these folks navigating their way out of this mess.
"
Personally I don't think the Republican apparatus knows what 'good candidates' or 'good policy objectives' would be to win a realignment... but I suppose we can see what Glenn Youngkin comes up with as a trial balloon.
At the moment his website doesn't have any info other than the obligatory picture of him and his family... and how to give them money. But eventually we'll see what VA Republican party thinks is a winning message from their curated pick.
On “Wuhan Lab-leak Theory Timeline”
Right, as the great Philosopher @Steak-umm points out, we have an epistemology problem.
"science itself isn't "true" it's a constantly refining process used to uncover truths based in material reality and that process is still full of misteaks. neil just posts ridiculous sound bites like this for clout and he has no respect for epistemology"
https://twitter.com/steak_umm/status/1381800742286209027
"
There are bi-lateral leverage points... Chinese research benefits from American Grant $$, scientists need and want access to Western networks of Scholarship, Education, IP, and funding. It isn't a matter of imposing US will upon China, but recognizing that the international standards and protocols that enable them to claim to have a BSL4 facility so that they can have access to all the support you need to run a BSL4 lab requires that you participate in the protocols.
Else, the funding, the IP, the exchanges, the networks, etc. etc. can be sanctioned.
That wouldn't necessarily stop China dead in their tracks if they wanted to go solo... but there's leverage... and reasonable leverage at that.
But that's also partly what Michael means, I think, by Biden blowing it... they aren't going to collaborate with Team Spy. So we've effectively closed the door on the Science Community sorting this out themselves.
"
Yeah, I think that's by design.
Intelligence reports will always include all the possible options with discussions about weighted probabilities that decision makers can use to make decisions. It will be vague by design and I'm willing to bet that the 'answer' will be, we can't say for sure what happened, but it is in everyone's interest to make sure that all BSL4 labs have more funding.
Alternately, using NIH, CDC, WHO and others would hopefully provide a collaborative analysis... and, if healthy, would point out failures (if any) for the good of the praxis.
However, there's strong temptation to NIH, CDC, WHO, and other players who are possibly complicit in 'unleashing the worst natural disaster in the modern era' (by accident, mind you) to make sure that the institutions are protected first. Not to mention institutional capture by not only the practitioners, but the government(s) themselves. I mean, it's hard to imagine WHO as having any credibility in any investigation ever again.
Journalists might be a counter-balance to this, but a big part of what's being discussed (or not discussed) above is that the journalists aren't providing a counter-balance to this. Some of what 'indie' reporters have pointed out is that the Lancet article supporting the WIV (and originally 'debunking' the Engineered Virus) was sponsored by Dr. Daszak, who is part of EcoHealth Alliance, which funds WIV with grants from NIH - possibly even GOF Engineering. Which is to say, it is possible that Lancet/EcoHealth/NIH may have banal corporate/funding interests in not acknowledging certain things (if they need acknowledging). Again, the paper-trails are there to keep these possible conflicts above the board... but only if our journalism isn't in the business of deciding who the "good guys" and "bad guys" and making sure the good guys win... no matter the science.
So Intelligence is the perfect way to de-fuse the situation by providing a report that comes from 'secret spy soruces' that provides a vague answer that ultimately results in more institutional funding.
"
Much of the initial science reporting *wasn't* conspiracy theories though... it required a sort of distortion to associate/obfuscate initial reporting with less credible conspiracies. But that's a different audit.
"
Wuhan Flu is the same distraction if it came from a wet-market vs. a lab leak in Wuhan/China.
I don't think that particular distraction is relevant to this matter...
I acknowledge that Trump's initial bungling of the matter (compared to his middle and late bungling) was hoping to deflect attention away from his bungling.
That isn't an excuse to ignore another institution's bungling, even if Trump's deflection was in bad faith.
"
Yeah... I suspect an Ox or two may be gored along the way... and I'm not really competent to say who's. BUT, the crew that jumped in to action to suppress any discussion/investigation seem to be the owners of many Oxen.
I still think that's a second order phenomenon as surely the scientific consensus once the fire is out is to have a full investigation, right?
I mean, why would you not?
"
As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I'm not sure I'm on-board with your point.
In May 2020, it wasn't in fact that important to identify the source as it was to coordinate a good response. in May 2021 auditing sources is now an appropriate project.
Some folks talking about sources in May 2020 were failing in their duty to prioritize coordinating a good response.
Some folks who wanted to shut down discussion in May 2020 possibly did so in bad-faith on one and maybe two counts... unless they are totally vindicated by scenario #1.
All of these things actually happened and it doesn't change the fact that you do the arson review after you control the fire.
"
I think it's important to segment the matter as one of scientific prudence and auditing rather than political side taking.
The highlevel survey of possible origins looks like this:
1. Zoological
2. Zoological related to work at Wuhan institute (i.e. bat guano thesis)
3. Natural Virus Lab Leak via negligence/accident
4. Natural Virus Lab Leak via gross-negligence/protocol failure
5. Engineered Virus Lab Leak (Gain of Function via various techniques)... Negligence/Gross-Negligence
6. "Bio-Engineered" weapon with malicious intent.
Personally, I think #6 was never really on the table... and I'm fine excluding it (absent some 'smoking gun' evidence) from polite conversation.
But #1 - #5? All plausible. And our position should be that it is important to understand whether 'mistakes were made' (scenarios 2 thru 5) by entities we trust with important research and funding such that those entities (and people) might be sanctioned from future funding and/or leadership roles in research and/or Lab management.
If we find that #5 played a role, there absolutely should be a review of the risks associated with Gain of Function research and weather it needs to be restricted to Labs with better safety protocols... or whether the benefits even out weigh the risks.
But the primary takeaway before it gets politicized (more than already) is that proclaiming that #1 was the and ONLY possible cause *without* access to all the data ... and with the data suppressed at the source. Well, that's a failure that may prohibit us from definitively making a conclusion about this event... but it is also a failure that should change our Funding and Research sharing processes - which are global and standards based.
This should be the baseline... it's an Audit, and if you're the Wuhan Instutite studying a virus that's also the source of a Global Pandemic... then yes, all your data and records and personnel records *have* to be reviewed without redaction. That's part of the Scientific Method. If this is prohibited, then it's an epistemic failure that must result in scientific sanctions.
On “For All Mankind: A Peek Into What Could Have Been”
10-yrs I've been coming to this site trying to inspire Chip out of his torpor to lead us to our distributist future, only to have victory snatched away at the last moment.
"
In chapter one I...
"
Having marched through the institutions the next phase of the revolution is to defend them against all possible attempts to improve them. Thus completing our mission.
~ Antonio Gramsci
"
You forgot: FLAMETHROWERS.
Interesting point about Musk... but I'm not sure how that translates? Are we thinking a passive reality show that mechanically inclined Americans would watch to subsidize the making of the Moon shot? Plausible.
Or are we thinking bigger about crowdsourcing the Moon Shot! Become a legend and a b/millionaire if you can solve the radiation exposure problem with common household goods other than duct tape.
On “In Defense of the Middlebrow”
That's a getting closer to my point... what's 'highbrow' if the 'elite' can't segment it out by $$?
I'm suggesting Highbrow isn't a qualitative aesthetic, but a signifier.
What things do the people who go to Harvard use to signify that the Walton's couldn't get.
I think there are things, but they aren't 'high-culture' things.
"
"Crustpunk/Electroswing fusion"
Wait, is this an option?
But more seriously, are we really getting at what "highbrow" is? It isn't A+ vs. B- I don't think. I'd suggest that Highbrow is 'gated content' or Esoteric in its purist form. It isn't that it's better, its that you don't get it if you don't have the requisite pre-requisites.
Greek and Latin don't make you better people, they make you better able to understand the jokes that allow you to sit with better people. Or it used to.
We see this in music all the time, especially classical music: usually it is the concerti written for the virtuoso artist of a particular instrument. These concerti are not particularly 'good' qua music, they are only good if you know how improbable they are to play at all. There are a tiny handful of pieces created that are both... but those are treated as transcendent genius precisely for being 'accessible'
So really, as far as I can tell, we're awash in Middlebrow... there's almost no Highbrow culture... just the brute force of $$. None of us have any notion that the Rich folks are highbrow, do we? Does Gates have taste? (Heh, well, that's fun these days). Bezos? Buffet? Thiel? Anyone? OMG, Zuckerberg? Or just the brute force of exclusivity by $$.
Other than being nervous that someone was going to serve you with a bill for the 'free champagne and heavy hors d'ouevres' you were scarfing at a party with our upper classes, none of us would feel particularly out of place... the topics would still be Game of Thrones or Bridgerton or football/baseball/basketball (depending on the mogul)... sure, you'd have to admit your car doors open side-to-side and not up-and-down and your boat is only cleared for lakes/rivers, but that's still just the middlebrow tyranny of $$.
A+ food is often middle brow; as a 'foodie' the closest I'd come to pointing out the 'highbrow' enclave (that isn't simply $$) is that some foods require an understanding of how difficult it is to prepare and/or pair flavors that make the achievement esoteric even when it's not accessible. Middlebrow is just mixing Asparagus and Jalapeno as an Ice Cream because it's 'wild'. A+ BBQ? Pisses rings around some of the technically brilliant foods I've had... but BBQ is pretty darn accessible... and strangely, some of the foodiest of food places are super accessible from a $$ point of view.
So my question would be where are the esoteric gates that aren't simply $$ gates? That's the enclave of the highbrow. Maybe fashion? Maybe certain forms of Art? But honestly, none of those are cultural signifiers and 'engagement' wouldn't be maintaining our intellectual curiosity about fashion. But they at least exhibit the esoteric requirements for 'Highbrow.'
On “Linky Friday: People, or Lies, Slander, and Calumny Edition”
[LF2] I feel like Flannery O'Connor was just gunned down in a drive-by by Freddie "the Boar" deBoer.
Of all the dames in all the places, it had to be you?
On “Weekend Plans Post: Not Dreaming, Right?”
Last weekend was our Covid Liberation weekend, so we had a weekend getaway with fancy meals... so now I guess it's back to mowing the lawn and pastures. Oh wait, this weekend is a friend's 50th which was going to be outdoors at their new party barn... and now that the Mask Mandate is gone will still be outdoors at her party barn. Will see some folks I haven't seen in over a year.
On “IDF tweets footage of Iron Dome intercepting rockets”
"They would defuse the bombs that could actually destroy their state in the long term: demographics and apartheid."
Freddie is attempting to navigate a domestic 'Thucydides Trap.' Basically he's arguing that Israeli Hegemony today is the reason why they should 'devolve' power *now* in a sharing agreement that brings along the upcoming power and aligns them with a peaceful transition to a Palestinian 'Secular' State with a Jewish Minority that's integral and integrated.
If they don't do it (now), then either that demographic has to be more forcibly removed/expelled or the upcoming power will eventually go to war themselves against the decaying hegemon -- and defeat the old regime with usually catastrophic results.
It's possible to navigate this, but, usually ends in war... I'm less sanguine than Freddie about the powers of Secular Liberalism to act as a magic balm. I see his logical steps of why it might, but they are laden with assumptions and, honestly, counterfactuals to lived experience in the region.
Which is to say, I thought his diagnosis of the interior dynamics of his faction forthright and honest... the obvious parallels and cross-parallels to US political dynamics is probably the better use of this article... But like most of us, the diagnosis is easier than the cure.
On “Letter to a Young Conservative”
Re: Aristotle... cuttlefish biology is hard, tho