Paleo Retiree writes:
- Roger Scruton’s list of what conservatives believe wouldn’t go over well with many American Republicans, I suspect. More.
- Fred Reed recalls a less-regulated America. I grew up under not-very-different circumstances.
- Scott Chaffin submits to a brain MRI.
- Russia: Awesomest country on earth. Will S. shares a great photo from Kiev.
- If race isn’t real then why do mixed-race patients have trouble finding donors?
- Monetary reformer Ellen Brown is running for California Treasurer — finally, someone I’d be happy to vote for.
- Some more mainstream acknowledgement of the Dark Enlightenment.
- Slumlord sifts and sorts through some of what’s going on in the world of the Dark Enlightenment.
- Another work fad bites the dust: it turns out that open offices suck, and in many ways.
- Agnostic is delighted by the classic camerawork-and-cutting in an old TV show.
- Cameron Diaz wants women to celebrate the bush.
- The latest treat to be turned into something “artisanal” is toast. Yes, toast.
- Walter Benjamin, jerk.
- Paramount becomes the first major studio to stop distributing films on celluloid.
- A humorous guide for the ladies: how to look your best while hugging third-world children. That’s a refreshingly funny and irreverent by-and-about-women humor site generally, by the way.
- We’re about to pass a major demographic milestone: Latinos are set to surpass whites in California in March.
- The Manolo finds just the shoes to brighten up an otherwise cheerless winter.
Thanks for the linklove, Paleo Retiree! I try to find at least one shot per day that strikes me as interesting and/or beautiful, and share it at Will S.’ Miscellany. Glad you enjoyed that one. I found another one from the Kiev, Ukraine riots that I found surreal, funny and tragic: a guy playing a sax while around him, Kiev burns.
(Sometimes I cheat and use my own, like this morning’s.)
re the Dark Enlightenment:
HBD Chick picked up on the kerfuffles about the recent spate of articles. Worth reading, especially the many comments. My takeway: DE deals with two things, only loosely connected: 1) biodiversity and 2) skepticism about democracy. These are not one and the same and one does not necessarily follow from the other–unless you feel that anti-democratic political theory is self-evident given the science. But science is science and political theory is political theory, and no political theory can ever be said to be truly self-evident, whatever science may say about this or that. Seems to me that the political theory part has its own arguments (frankly less persuasive to me than the HBD arguments) that stand and fall on their own.
There’s a bit of a tussle in the comments at HBD over what trumps what. Is DE a political theory, thanks for science for supporting the cause? Or is is mostly about biodiversity, and does not necessarily entail neocameralism or whatever? There’s no question for the moment that biodiversity and political theory are sort of bedfellows . . . but what kind?
The more attention DE gets, the more pressure that relationship will be under. My guess is that lots of folks comfortable with challenging orthodoxy on genetic issues aren’t prepared to go whole Moldbug.
R.I.P. Scott Chaffin.