Quote note (#114)

Scott Alexander makes a striking observation:

… take creationists. According to Gallup polls, about 46% of Americans are creationists. Not just in the sense of believing God helped guide evolution. I mean they think evolution is a vile atheist lie and God created humans exactly as they exist right now. That’s half the country.

And I don’t have a single one of those people in my social circle. It’s not because I’m deliberately avoiding them; I’m pretty live-and-let-live politically, I wouldn’t ostracize someone just for some weird beliefs. And yet, even though I probably know about a hundred fifty people, I am pretty confident that not one of them is creationist. Odds of this happening by chance? 1/2^150 = 1/10^45 = approximately the chance of picking a particular atom if you are randomly selecting among all the atoms on Earth.

(The entire — long — post is fascinating. One of SA’s all-time greats.)

This point (from the same post) cannot ever be emphasized enough:

Around the time the Ferguson riots were first starting, there were a host of articles with titles like Why White People Don’t Seem To Understand Ferguson, Why It’s So Hard For Whites To Understand Ferguson, and White Folks Listen Up And Let Me Tell You What Ferguson Is All About … […]

And on a hunch I checked the author photos, and every single one of these articles was written by a white person.

White People Are Ruining America? White. White People Are Still A Disgrace? White. White Guys: We Suck And We’re Sorry? White. Bye Bye, Whiny White Dudes? White. Dear Entitled Straight White Dudes, I’m Evicting You From My Life? White. White Dudes Need To Stop Whitesplaining? White. Reasons Why Americans Suck #1: White People? White.

October 1, 2014admin 34 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations


34 Responses to this entry

  • ReactionaryFerret Says:

    An interesting conformation that like attracts like, intentionally or otherwise. Of course, he makes the bizarre assumption at the end that, somehow, the attitude toward the outgroup is intrinsically wrong and that he should practice some sort of in-group self-flagellation for whatever good that’s supposed to do. I suppose it is to make him feel more morally superior than he knows himself to be. I don’t know. I don’t get it. Oh well, his insights come in spurts.


    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 7:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Jatli Says:

    Scott Alexander reminds me of some too-nice beta (nominally played by Joseph Gordon Leavitt or a JGL-alike) from some rom-com who’s trying to find his way and get the girl, while painfully oblivious to the fact that he just needs to stop being a too-nice beta and rip out somebody’s jugular.

    Ostracize someone for their beliefs? Me? Never. Golly gee.

    The red pill eludes him.


    Thales Reply:

    Not too far off…


    John Reply:

    Except that in the film Don John (the JGL played lead) is an accomplished womanizer, rather than a hapless beta. Excellent red pill film though.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Oh please, Lay off. He is widely known for rebuking most things that would characterize him as such. Let’s keep the good people around.


    Erebus Reply:


    I wouldn’t say that the “red pill eludes him”, either. If you follow his writing, you’ll notice that he appears to be “getting it” — slowly and partially, perhaps, but he’s not totally and utterly unsympathetic. Most importantly, he acknowledges that something like Gnon exists; he realizes that there is something lurking behind this world which twists fate and has shaped history. This grim view of existence is very far from commonplace.


    Izak Reply:

    I see him as like a guy from the 1950s who got time-warped and air-dropped into now, and he kind of goes around looking at the world’s advancements since then with wide-eyed incredulity. And he’s very innocent; he wants to take people at their word. So the blog is him slowly figuring out that the world, and especially the media, is filled with liars and duplicitous scoundrels, so much of what he’ll do is go, “Wait a minute! That guy doesn’t seem to be behaving according to what he says we all ought to do! I might be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think that’s entirely honest!”

    It’s actually great reading, and he’s an awesome writer.

    I’ll have no more of this Alexander-bashing.


    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 9:56 am Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#114) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 11:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    Should I preen myself on knowing a bunch of creationists and other actual outgroupers? Sure, why not. They’re my relatives. Sticking by your kin is a virtue.


    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 1:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” — Pauline Kael


    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 1:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    SA: “And I’m a psychiatrist, which is about the most stereotypically Jewish profession short of maybe stand-up comedian or rabbi.”

    Huh, I would never have guessed that those were discreet professions for a Jew.

    Damn, this SA cat is a goldmine for straight lines…


    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 1:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Not a few conservatives are probably hiding right in front of liberals faces. The key point on his list is the education component. Pretty much all the conservatives I know are very highly educated, and at least one highly educated evangelical I know is a creationist. Of all of them, there is also this general tendency. The ones who do not like confrontation are closeted. Scott may as well be writing in 1920 that of all his 150 friends, he doesn’t know a single homosexual. The ones who like confrontation enjoy antagonizing liberals with comments about how Obama is a muslim born in Kenya.


    Thales Reply:



    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 2:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    Best comment, from “Sacred Cow”:

    Human social psychology is torn between inter- and intra-group competition. Members of the Red Tribe are specialists at inter-group competition, with an emphasis on order, loyalty, and authority. Members of the Blue Tribe are specialists at intra-group competition, with an emphasis on anarchy, rebellion, and revolution. The Red Tribe builds social capital, but it has a tendency to fossilise norms and institutions. The Blue Tribe dismantles norms and institutions, but it has a tendency to destroy social capital. A healthy civilisation preserves a balance between inter- and intra-group competition, but this requires that members of the Red and Blue tribe actually tolerate and compromise with each other.

    Members of the Blue Tribe are mostly concerned with intra-group competition, so they celebrate Thatcher’s death. The Red Tribe is mostly concerned with inter-group competition, so they celebrate Bin Laden’s death. Indeed, the Blues used Bin Laden’s death to score virtue points against the Red Tribe, while the Red Tribe used Thatcher’s death to affirm loyalty and authority (note the emphasis on the Falklands War).


    scientism Reply:

    Very good comment. What Scott needs to recognise is that one of these “groups” identifies with an actually existing social order, complete with traditions, institutions, etc, whereas the other “group” identifies with an ideology that exists (parasitically) within that social order and seeks to overturn it. The two groups are not equal. One is a set of political affiliations, the other is a civilisation. A country is a really existing social order, whereas, say, the “global community” is at best a hope. As Jim points out, identifying with the “global community” over your local community is typically just a way of signalling antagonism for your local community.

    Even if you think a global community is possible, you shouldn’t value it over a real community. Here’s an analogy: Let’s say you’re a firm believer in alternative energy. Does that mean you should seek to destroy existing power plants? Destroying existing power plants is condemning people to death. Presumably your goal of replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy should involve the gradual replacement of one by the other at a rate that wouldn’t severely disrupt people’s lives. Yet in the political realm, we find that people, usually on the Left, want to overturn the existing order based on only a vague notion of it being wrong and no idea of how things would work afterwards (as Scott found with Marx). This doesn’t just apply to revolutionary politics, but to the majority of Lefitst politics, including social justice.


    ||||| Reply:

    Social Trichotomies are a matter of strategic resource management.

    Pioneers: “I have this resource because I was here first”

    Usurpers: “I have this resource because I’m cleverer”

    Merchants: youtube.com/watch?v=TVBPN4qOxaU


    I – Pioneers want to maximize surplus as they have direct access to a resource (social, technical, material or any other form of capital). They employ a strategy of selection in order to maintain control of the resource.

    II – Revolutionaries want to maximize redistribution because they only have indirect access to resources. They’re predicated on Pioneers. II ( I ). They employ a strategy of mutation in order to try and induce enough noise into the system so that resources change hands.

    III – Merchants want to maximize exchange between all groups because they know they can rely on their ability to get a cut of the transactions. They’re predicated on both others. III ( II ( I )). They need a big picture view of things in order to understand the flow of resources (and externally formalize customs in order to remain unattached to I and II as strategies).

    IIII – IIII ( III ( II ( I ) ) ), NRx, if it manages to gather enough strength. All of this finds its nexus in the confused essences of learning, intelligence, evolution, optimization, variation, selection, computability.

    I’d expect Merchants to be allied to Pioneers in growing, healthy societies and for them to be allied to Revolutionaries in decaying ones. Why? Because growing societies have unexplored capital niches, so the conflict between I and II impedes optimal allocation of manpower. But in decaying ones most capital niches are occupied so in order to maximize exchange scuttling of social structure is encouraged, up to collapse, then it is discarded. Symbiotic Up and Out, Predatory Down and In.


    ||||| Reply:

    Also consider what would be the implicit assumptions of each behavior under this classification and what would the confusion matrix look like.

    What do Pioneers assume? That their system is correct. What happens when they’re wrong? They inadvertently weaken the group, and pay the price in unrest or conquest.

    What do Revolutionaries assume? That Pioneers are incorrect enough that they can get some resources from them but correct enough that they’re safe from external violence. What happens when they’re wrong? Well, should be obvious by now.

    What do Merchants assume? That there is always some other civilization to fuck off to before Sol Invictus comes and judges some particular sorry band of dire apes. What happens when they’re wrong? By their very activity civilizations blur enough with the consequence of synchronizing their doomsday clocks. If groups lose at different times, just stay mobile and survive. But by doing that, well, the people who generally survive tend to be the ones who stay mobile and then the civilizations aren’t different enough to end at different times and everyone loses at the same time.

    What does NRx assume and what happens when it’s wrong? Who the fuck knows, maybe the universe explodes or people live happily ever after, but I’d guess it’s that kind of all-or-nothing situation.

    ||||| Reply:

    Think of life and civilization as searches in program space for maximally complex ones which do not halt.

    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 2:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • j. ont. Says:

    I live in one of the most left-wing cities in North America, I have a relatively small group of people I would call “friends” (maybe 30 or 40), and I went to art school for four years; nevertheless, I know probably 4 or 5 people who think evolution is bullshit. How did it happen? I dated/slept with/became very close friends with them. Orthodox is right—even in the most liberal environments there are closeted conservatives.


    vexationofspirit Reply:

    @j. ont. I think he doesn’t realize how many conservatives he might know. I also live in a very left-wing city, and most people just assumed I am progressive unless I tell them otherwise, which I usually don’t.


    Wen Shuang Reply:

    Yup. I’m assumed to be progressive, mostly because of which degrees I have and that I don’t sound like what they imagine reactionaries sound like.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    He underestimates our taqiyya. If it is true that Red Tribe is better at inter-group conflict, imagine how good upper-echelon red-tribers are at it. The trick is always to never lie (then you never feel the prick of conscience messing up your deceptions) – every Nrx should read Baltasar Gracian’s classic, ‘The Art of Worldly Wisdom’ – it’s not that SA doesn’t know any creationists, he just doesn’t know how to get them to admit they are creationists.

    For instance, there is a whole swath of creationists that have absorbed and reconfigured evolutionary science. Are these people ‘not creationists’? He may be, being basically non-religious, confused as to what constitutes ‘a belief in creation’ (some people I know thought that Young Earth Creationism was the only option other than what they believed) and this belief itself is used by the upper echelon ‘red tribers’ such as myself to perpetuate our camoflauge.

    But if you came down to it and asked me, “did God create the heavens and the earth and all of the laws that govern it?” I would say, “of course. Absolutely. As it says “In The Beginning””

    We of course also read every thing we can on the confusion of non-creationists and make note of opportunities for honest deception. That is how war works.

    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 2:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    Gay Marriage
    Conservatives in the closet

    Thank you PROG-CHAN!


    John Reply:



    ||||| Reply:

    Scott recoils at homophily like conservatives recoil at homosexuality and upon finding unacceptably same-mind thoughts and feelings ends with a touching note of repentance and hopes of praying the gay away.


    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 5:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    “I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon” was supposed to be a teachable moment. That was 40 years ago. Now it’s just the default assumption.


    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Ah, I see Thales beat me to the punch.


    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 5:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    Scott has identified the mechanismt of the lefitist singularity. Leftists must look within their own tribe and condemn for insufficient leftness in order to accrue additional holiness points. It’s a degree of difficulty thing.


    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 6:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    We are a strange people to our elites.

    And we’ve just noticed they are a strange people to us.

    A girl with a good head on her shoulders remarked to me at a wedding 10 years ago “Who are these people?” meaning Americans. She worked in the NYC DA office. Very hot BTW.

    But west of the Hudson/Potomac line is a strange nation to our rulers. And those are the nice ones who don’t know what they want besides a decent affluent niche in the elites.

    The ones who do know what they want see plunder, and Aborigines standing in their way.

    For that is the Rhyme of the History of the New World. The lands and resources are coveted, but the people are despised.


    Posted on October 1st, 2014 at 11:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:

    “But west of the Hudson/Potomac line is a strange nation to our rulers. And those are the nice ones who don’t know what they want besides a decent affluent niche in the elites.”


    I’m solidly blue-grey tribe. My family? Democrats, all of them. I’m in professional employment. I’m in an interracial marriage (White-Asian). I listen to classical music, hang out in hipster bars, play board games and Magic: The Gathering, do tai chi and yoga, occasionally go vegetarian, drive a Japanese sportscar, read philosophy, science-fiction and classic literature, have an apartment in a big Asian city that I visit occasionally, enjoy the company of gay men, and can hardly go a day without a visit to a coffeehouse.

    I’m also a Republican whose politics put him to the right of William the Conquerer at times. Which makes me a “Metrocon”, in John Derbyshire’s parliance.

    Where do you think I live? Where do you think I’m from? San Francisco? New York? Seattle? DC? Boston?

    Try Sioux Falls, SD. Born and raised. I’ve lived elsewhere, but that’s where I live now, and have lived for more than two thirds of my life.

    I have no interest in sports. Or hunting. Or fishing. I’m an agnostic; I attend no church. I have no interest in NASCAR, wrestling, or Country Music. I have next to no “Republican” friends, or anything in common with them, other than the way I vote.

    There are strong “blue tribe” enclaves everywhere, and it’s possible to be completely “blue” while living in the reddest of states.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Red tribe hardly comes in a single socioeconomic flavor. Rightwing libertarians are a thing. Vegan diets vs. meat heavy paleo diets. The counterpart to country isn’t classical (which I think signals general elitism rather than political bent) but jazz, electronic and raggae, Pandora found some interesting contrasts between right wing and left wing music tastes (new age is also popular with the right). Blue tribe = elitism is certainly a meme but if this was entirely true there wouldn’t have been a purge in the first place. For example in the military (Moldbug never mentioned the Kshatriyas), the higher you go in rank the higher the probability of being right wing, but they are currently purging the officer corps as we speak, I can attest to that personally.


    vxxc2014 Reply:


    “For that is the Rhyme of the History of the New World. The lands and resources are coveted, but the people are despised.” What I said, didn’t mention Red or Blue.
    Your points don’t seem to intersect with mine, other than identifying west of the two rivers I mentioned. If you thought I was saying it’s all Red, No. I’m saying ceteris paribus it’s all Dead.

    Sioux Falls SD – Well they’re still toast if their west of Hudson/Potomac line. The ACELA corridor. That is where Power is, they certainly know this. It’s not in Sioux Falls, SD or where I grew up.

    Unless their fortunes are somehow discrete of those and that around them. Perhaps South Dakota isn’t on the chapter 7 liquidation list. Rather nice natural resources there though I’m told.

    Red and Blue, Democratic/GOP [no difference in policy], terms like socialism are 20th century and obsolete.

    Our politics is returning to the ancient ways of Oligarchy, money, power, and no rules for the elites that have title [but perhaps not a firm grasp] of it. We elect 0.002% of our government, and their the weakest part of it in many ways. We are $1000 Trillion leveraged.

    “For that is the Rhyme of the History of the New World. The lands and resources are coveted, but the people are despised.” That means ceteris paribus you too. I’m saying History is repeating itself, same crime, same motive [you’re standing on it], same perps [Finance, Washington, new york, London even] ….just different victims.

    Coffee and enjoyable company are irrelevant. The Incas made good coffee too, Sir. Good luck.

    PS – you may have no interest in hunting, but hunting is interested in you.

    Because you see we’re the Indians now.


    Posted on October 2nd, 2014 at 3:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    Odds of this happening by chance? 1/2^150 = 1/10^45 = approximately the chance of picking a particular atom if you are randomly selecting among all the atoms on Earth.

    So we can infer that chance occurrences are not merely chance… this kind of insight should make us careful not to too hastily discount whatever (and whoever) the hands of fate offer to us…


    Posted on October 3rd, 2014 at 1:21 am Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    You neoreactionary-types and your silly “dark Enlightenment.”

    You clearly need White Enlightenment: http://platonicnoir.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=2


    Posted on October 3rd, 2014 at 4:46 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment