Coleman Hughes Misfires on Tulsi Gabbard as DNI

I very much admire Coleman Hughes. He bravely stood up to the race-hucksters over the past five years and advocated for the type of color-blindness embraced by almost all classical liberals. But on CNN he naively stepped into an area in which he is not well informed: National Security. Almost everything he says in opposition to Tulsi Gabbard is incorrect and it wouldn't have taken much time to get informed before going live. Very disappointing, but this illustrates something ubiquitous. Everyone I know (even myself) who gets a lot right sometimes falls off the rails. The causes are many: tribalism, hubris, fatigue and failing to be self-critical. It happens to all of us, some of the time and free speech is the best approach we know to limit these missteps. So here is Glenn Greenwald speaking freely about Coleman's embarrassing moment on CNN:

Glenn Greenwald:

There was a panel discussion about why Tulsi Gabbard is this great evil, and the opposition to her was led by Coleman Hughes, who--I don't really understand when he became an expert on foreign policy. He became known speaking, I think, quite insightfully, about things like race and class and the intersection of them. I've been on his show before. He's been on mine.

Suddenly, though, he's now a great expert in the Middle East, he's a vehement supporter of Israel--as much as Barry Weiss or Sam Harris or people like that are. And here he is on CNN, maligning Tulsi Gabbard, who knows 10 million times more about foreign policy in her toenail than Coleman Hughes has in his entire arsenal of knowledge. But here he is expressing why she's such a terrible choice as DNI [Director of National Intelligence].

Coleman Hughes:

It's a very confounding. Look, call me crazy, but I think the Director of National Intelligence should be a person who, A) trusts US intelligence, and B) likes US intelligence. What do we know about Tulsi Gabbard? We know that when Assad gassed civilians in 2017 and our intelligence agencies determined that and Trump decided to strike those facilities, Gabbard doubted that. She doubted the findings of our own intelligence and she went to go visit Assad. And we know that she defends Julian Assange, who released classified informations that imperiled the people we were working with in Afghanistan and the Taliban went out there and were able to kill them one by one. And so, you know, this is exactly the opposite of the person you would want leading national intelligence.

Glenn Greenwald:

He's saying that the only kinds of people you want to lead the intelligence agencies are people who A) trust what they tell you and B) like how they operate. How can any sentient human being who knows anything about the last 25 years of American history, --and even if you want to go back much further--and it's the same thing. But just going back to the last 25 years since the war in Iraq and the run up to it, going all the way through things like Syria and Libya and Russiagate and the Hunter Biden laptop, and all the different ways that these intelligence agencies have interfered in our politics, improperly and based on lies--It's not disqualifying to distrust the intelligence agencies or to dislike how they operate and want to change it. What's disqualifying is to trust the intelligence agencies. How mindless must somebody be to say, "Yeah, I really trust the CIA. I think their pronouncements are all correct."

Oh, the audacity of her to question anything that the CIA was saying about the war in Syria, when the CIA was leading, one of those dirty wars that they love to fight at a billion dollars a year that Obama unleashed them to fight in order to remove Bashar Al Assad from power and replace [him with] someone else they wanted. Oh no, questioning the intelligence agencies. Tulsi Gabbard questioned what they said, doubted some of their pronouncements, and now she's somehow ineligible to lead them, because she doesn't have blind, mindless faith in them.

This is conventional wisdom in Washington. Coleman doesn't know anything about the topics of which he's opining, including what he said about WikiLeaks. And the idea that WikiLeaks is supposed to be considered some sort of nefarious group that nobody can defend when they've done more than anybody to bring transparency to our government, including the lies they told about the wars in which Tulsi Gabbard fought and the corruption of our allies, and all the lies that we've been told as the public about what our government was doing.

The idea that defending Julian Assange for bringing transparency is somehow disqualifying? I'm sure he would say the same thing about Edward Snowden, who Tulsi Gabbard also supports, is just mind-blowingly dumb. But this we showed you this because it's so reflective of how Washington thinks. Coleman Hughes--what he does when he doesn't know what he's talking about, is--he just picks up on conventional wisdom and the world in which he resides with Bari Weiss and those kind of people, he just repeats what that world thinks without an even an inch of knowledge. But it's nonetheless worth seeing, because that is the opposition to Tulsi Gabbard: "Oh, she's not a fan of the CIA. She's not a fan of the NSA. She doesn't think the intelligence agencies like Homeland Security have been doing a good job, have been honest with the American people. This is what Donald Trump ran on. He didn't run on appointing the kind of people that Coleman Hughes thinks should be appointed: people who think the intelligence communities are so trustworthy in whatever they're doing.

[Trump] ran on a campaign promise to uproot them, to fundamentally drain their swamp and to rebuild them into more ethical and trustworthy institutions, and Tulsi Gabbard represents that. The only people scared of her are the people who should be scared, the people who want to keep those institutions in place, despite all the lies they told and the corruption they've imposed, precisely because they're the ones who benefit most from it. But they don't want any one questioning, let alone changing, how Washington works.

Continue ReadingColeman Hughes Misfires on Tulsi Gabbard as DNI

Illustration: Holding Opposing Ideas in One’s Mind Simultaneously

Entertaining conversation illustrating this quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald: “[T]he test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." As Bill Maher argues, McDonalds tastes good even though it it not healthy food. BOTH of these things are true. Same thing for ice cream and many other foods. Most important these days, we can love other people even though we disagree strongly with some of their beliefs and opinions. Really.

But in modern times, many people are not admitting to things they know to be true because it is not approved by their respective tribes. We need to stop allowing emotions and social pressure to prevent us from saying things we know to be true. Only then will we be able to have meaningful conversations with each other.

As I've written repeatedly, embracing membership in a tribe reduces one's IQ by 50 points.

Additional note: I think Casey Means is courageous and brilliant. I highly recommend her new book, Good Energy.

Continue ReadingIllustration: Holding Opposing Ideas in One’s Mind Simultaneously

What it is Like to Start Seeing the Progressive Left for What it is.

Fascinating video. This woman recently started seeing the DNC and progressive left for what they are. She describes the experience of scales falling from her eyes.

I created a transcript of her 3-minute video:

I feel like I have a unique perspective with this whole election thing. Because I used to be very, very far left, like I was one of the people having a fucking mental breakdown in 2016 when he won, right? And I didn't even like him up until six months ago, when it became very obvious that they were staging a coup and tried to assassinate him. And then some shit started clicking. So I'm still very new to this whole side of things. But the thing is, when I was very far left, like, radically far left, I thought I knew what was going on. I genuinely believed I was informed. I thought I knew better than everybody else, and that's what these people think, too. And the thing is I would get so triggered and so angry when people would question me because I didn't actually know what the hell I was talking about. I thought I did, but really I didn't actually know any policies. I didn't actually know any politics. All I actually knew was what I had seen online, in mainstream media, and because everybody was saying, I just assumed it had to be right, right. And I think where a lot of this comes from is like, people just don't want to be wrong. Like, it's humbling and it's embarrassing to acknowledge that you were wrong or that you didn't know as much as you thought you did, but I would get so defensive and fly off the handle when and whenever somebody would question me, because I didn't actually have any talking points, and the talking points I did have were inaccurate.

But I didn't want to be wrong so I just kept fucking regurgitating. I just kept echoing the same shit that I was hearing over and over again, and that's what people are still doing. And I I don't blame them. I'm not mad at them, because really, I mean, if you're only exposed to that, then that's what you're gonna believe.

But it's crazy to be on the other side of it for this election and see just how misinformed people are, and they will argue with you, and I won't have a card, because they will argue with you till they're blue in the face because they are just so convinced that they're right, and I was one of those people, and the fear they're feeling is very real. I'm not invalidating the fear. I'm just it's just that the fear is not founded in anything factualbecause it's not the things that they're scared about. It's not going to happen. It didn't happen last time, it's not going to happen this time.

And it's just it's so crazy. It's like being the sober person at a party full of drunk people.

Continue ReadingWhat it is Like to Start Seeing the Progressive Left for What it is.

About Love Blindness

Biologist Steve Stewart-Williams:

When male fruit flies are courting females and close to mating, they become so fixated on the task at hand that they often fail to spot approaching predators. The phenomenon is known as love blindness.

I can think of some intriguing hypotheticals!

I subscribe to Stewart-Williams and highly recommend it. It is titled the Nature-Nurture-Nietzsche Newsletter.

Here are two more of the tidbits he offers this week:

A large, longitudinal study found no evidence that violent videogames make people more aggressive or less empathetic. Playing violent videogames is correlated with aggression. However, rather than violent videogames making people aggressive, people who are already aggressive gravitate to violent videogames. [Link.]

According to a fascinating new paper, people tend to assume they have all the information they need to reach a conclusion or make a decision. In a preregistered experiment, participants who were given only half the available information were just as confident in their decisions as those who were given all of it. The authors dubbed this the illusion of information adequacy.

Continue ReadingAbout Love Blindness

Are We Being Afflicted by the Devouring Mother?

Are we being afflicted by the "Devouring Mother"?

JULIAN ADORNEY, MARK JOHNSON, AND GEOFF LAUGHTON explain at Reality's Last Stand.  Their article is titled: "How Safetyism Is Robbing Our Children of the Hero’s Journey" Excerpt:

One key element of the devouring mother archetype is that she prevents her child from going on the hero’s journey. The great psychologist Erich Neumann tells a story to describe how this works in The Origins and History of Consciousness.

The basic theme of the work is the mother’s resistance to the growth and development of her son,” Neumann writes. “He has always lived with her, but now he threatens to go away.” The boy’s father “understands that the son is a hero, a god’s son, and, with the help of his wife’s familiar spirit, he tries to make the hero’s fate and its necessity apparent to her and the boy.” Yet he fails. His assertion that “their son is a hero” is “poisonous to her ears.” He says that the world “has need of him [the son],” but the mother rejoins, “My son is no hero, I need no hero son.

Why is the devouring mother so determined to prevent her son from becoming a hero? Because his becoming a hero means he will leave her. He will strike out on his own, beyond the orbit of her love. Neumann notes that “the mother denies him his right to a future, lest the child grow away from her.” When the son suggests that he might have a destiny and could potentially do something valuable with his life, the devouring mother “slaps his face and tells him he is to remain his mother’s son and not have an ego.”

This archetype of the devouring mother, who refuses to let her child mature and become autonomous, is starting to be reflected in the data. Perhaps due to societal overprotectiveness, members of Gen Z are slower to hit developmental milestones than previous generations. They are less likely to obtain their driver’s licenses at 16 and engage in dating during high school. They are more likely to live with their parents, even through their 20s and early 30s. While some trends might seem positive—such as the decline in alcohol consumption among youth—these are also indicative of a larger pattern: young people are not severing ties with their parental homes as early as they once did.

The devouring mother harms her own children, of course. It is difficult to avoid concluding that our societal overprotectiveness contributes significantly to Gen Z’s increasing rates of obesity, anxiety, and depression. But the damage likely extends beyond individual families, affecting society as a whole. The concern is not merely that young people are driving less and dating less; they are also becoming less entrepreneurial. Writing in the prestigious journal Work, Aging and Retirement, researchers noted a steady decline in the percentage of 12th graders aspiring to own their own businesses from the late 1980s through 2014 (the last year the study collected data for). In 1985, 46 percent of high school students said that they would like to be self-employed. By 2015 that number had fallen to just 31 percent.

Continue ReadingAre We Being Afflicted by the Devouring Mother?