I am a materialist. I don’t believe in demons that come from outside. Demons come from within, a part of oneself that hates life, hates the living, and, most of all, hates oneself. Sometimes people indulge such a part of themselves, and it takes them over, possesses them. This happens a lot to leftists. It happens one hell of a lot to transexuals, hence the high suicide rate.
Spandrel recent wrote of one such, McCloskey The voice of evil
So I attempted to look at a McCloskey video – then very quickly shut it down in horror and revulsion, because I could not bear to look at it.
Donald McCloskey, now “Deidre” McCloskey, is a trannie leftist. Which does not necessarily prove he is demon possessed, but should make one suspicious.
When I look at a still of “Deidre”, carefully posed and made up, I think of her as “she” with only a slight queasy feeling. She passes. She looks like a somewhat masculine woman, but not in uncanny valley. My guts register her as a faintly odd looking human female, and show no inclination to chuck up. From the still photographs, looks like a quite successful male to female transition.
When, however it is is in motion, that is not what I see. What I see is neither male nor female, but “it”, a monster that has devoured a human from the inside and is now wearing its skin like a muppet in an entirely unsuccessful effort to pass as human. My guts not only want to throw up, but are screaming at me that I need to run like hell or kill it with fire and steel.
Intellectually I believe that what is happening is that masculine bone and muscles are animating skin and fat sculpted by surgery and hormones to female form, with the result that when the form is in motion, there is something wrong about its movements, placing it well and truly in uncanny valley. But my guts are screaming. “Monster. Kill it with fire!”
And then I hear its voice. Intellectually, I believe that the voice is emanating from those lips. But it is not a human voice. My guts don’t believe that voice is coming from the lips, but from the vocal apparatus of an unhuman monster that is wearing the McCloskey skin like a muppet suit, and moving those lips with its unhuman fingers to ventriloquize. That is what I see. That is what I hear.
Am I being irrational? Should I apply modern sophistication to overcome my fear and hatred of difference? Or is there wisdom in ancient instincts?
Is “Deidre” McCloskey dangerous?
Links are broken.
Links appear to be broken.
Fixed links
Test.
Jim that new “please enter code here” a new thing?
Have a spam filter that evidently mistook you for a spammer. It should go away. If it does not, will tinker with it.
Would it terribly surprise you that the disgust and horror I feel at this spectacle is exactly the same as what I feel when I’m in the states and see waddling meatsacks in uniform screeching commands at passengers going through TSA checkpoints, or watching typical American television programming? For that matter, life in a modern Western society is full of these moments.
The Talmud tells us that G-d tolerates the world because the gentiles keep three basic commandments-not marrying men to each other, not selling human flesh in the markets, respect for the Torah. The US and the rest of the West are one strike away from…something. It’s a pretty Boschian tableau right now, and I fear that the future holds monstrosities. The West has managed to make it through the 20th century without inflicting overt atrocities upon its own residents, keeping its violence confined to prisons, abortariums and senior citizens’ homes, but I suspect this will not last-when the whole movement of society is built upon progressive transgression, it can’t end well.
McCloskey is not a leftist but a libertarian/classical liberal.
He thinks Pinker is a right winger.
I think Pinker is pretty far left.
McCloskey is OK on capitalism, but not that OK. He is taking the Randian thesis, that great entrepreneurs make everyone richer, and watering it down to the theory that the middle class make everyone richer. In the course of which he proceeds to demonize colonialism, denounce the white race, and so on and so forth.
It is now pretty obvious that capitalism makes everyone richer. Hong Kong, China, India Singapore. Dubai. Even Nigeria sucks a lot less than is normal for a post colonial subsaharan black country.
OK. Good for McCloskey to acknowledge that.
One and half cheers.
Now about the other 999 points of leftism …
No that isn’t true. McCloskey is a virtue ethicists whose main valorization is the Bourgosisie not the entrepreneurial class.
We have always had a bourgeoisie. We did not have economic development until the joint stock corporation and double entry accounting enabled rich people to put their money in the hands of smart people.
his book on the Industrial Revolution is quite good, and if anything attacks the Marxist/Hobsbawm case that colonialism led to it. heck, he destroys most alternative explanations (though he fails miserably in attacking Clark’s eugenicist thesis). And his theory, of the revaluation of values in the 17th century in Holland and England (and parts of N Italy/Germany) seems pretty sound, though we’ll have to wait till next book in Bourgeois series to make sure.
It seems to me Clark’s book (AFTA) is best for where IR was possible (i.e. sufficient genes/culture necessary but not sufficient for IR), and McCloskey’s as to why specifically it happened in specific parts of NW Europe rather than say Japan or China or rest of Europe.
He soundly rebuts the left’s condemnation of capitalism, but …
What did cause the Netherlands, England, then the West and then Hong Kong, Singapore China Dubai India and now even Nigeria, to develop?
Entrepeneurial Capitalism, the capitalism of the joint stock company and double entry accounting, entrepreneurs who are CEOs of joint stock companies and report to shareholders through double entry accounting – Rand’s heroic entrepeneurs, caused these places to develop, not the $@#$%^&* middle class.
Pinker was right very early on, then turned left.
Academia does that to a jew, as does politics.
Hurting feelings is now a sin.
OK, out of morbid curiosity I watched a bit of the video that Spandrell linked to. Mr. McCloskey has some significantly disordered speech and language. The first thing I noticed (I’m a speech-language pathologist) was that he obviously has a stutter; he doesn’t repeat sounds, which is actually the sign of mild stuttering, but rather he has blocks where his vocal folds close and his air flow “freezes”. He often has a little facial twitch that he does in order to “unstick” his stuttering block, which is a telltale sign of moderate to severe stuttering.
He’s also got some kind of very significant voice disorder; it sounds like he has quite a lot of damage to his vocal folds. I don’t specialize in voice, so I can’t really say with any confidence what its due to, but if I were his SLP, I’d be ordering a Laryngoscopy and a Videostroboscopy to see what’s going on in there. If I had to guess, I’d say he has nodules on his vocal folds, which are like little callouses that form from misuse/abuse of one’s voice; this makes sense if he has been trying to speak in an unnaturally high-pitched voice.
Most “transgender” patients who are transitioning have a medial SLP as part of their team. I’m surprised that Mr. McCloskey’s voice and stutter are so bad, given that he surely must have a speech therapist.
Fascinating. You should look at more videos and tell us what you see. I also noticed the strange stutter.
Your diagnosis is that’s all the effect of forcing a high pitched voice?
Probably has had surgery, very likely on the vocal cords to raise the pitch.
Or it could be there actually is a demon wearing a skin suit, but I would guess vocal cord surgery – which does not really remake them into female vocal cords, but merely into unnatural vocal cords.
He had the (severe) stutter and the odd speech as an attempt to correct for it when he was Donald.
I found it impossible to watch the video for more than a second or two.
Me too but only because I kept thinking of “Big Talk”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bfmq7leZdk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbjpwyesk0
I watched a few minutes of his university lecture (after penis amputation). In the beginning of the lecture he is apologizing for a speech disorder which causes him to stutter. I guess that stuttering is a different disorder, probably not connected to his Lord of Darkness voice.
Anyway, he is one of those cases where gut feelings are right and reason is superfluous or even damaging for a good judgement. A healthy man’s eye can spot a criminal just by looking at his eyes for one second. Our brains are most likely evolved to recognize criminals and psychopaths and deal with them in the right way. We might not be aware what it is precisely that tells us they are criminals and why – just as any ordinary Joe knows that a hot chick is hot, although he is not familiar with laws of human aesthetics or evolutionary explanations for it.
McCloskey is “Monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo.” That NYT article confirms what guts say.
A significant proportion of male to female transitions result in death by medical complications. That he has medical complications as a result of trying to change his voice is unsurprising. Chances are his voice went weird scary and evil sounding as a result of Medical Speech and Language Therapy, not in spite of it.
Everyone knows that men who try to bulk up using testosterone injections run all sorts of risks. Intuitively, you would expect that men trying to go in the other direction run bigger risks. Chances are he had his vocal cords shaved and shortened to raise his pitch. He is lucky he can still breath, let alone talk.
I am not defending transsexualism here – merely wish to note that SSM is correct about McCloskey’s speech issues, but that those (at least in very large part) preceded the sex change.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-01-15/business/9601150040_1_american-economic-association-present-day-economics-professor
He would be a lot better off if he still stuttered.
Hi Sunshine… (the real chah? i.e. a chick brah?)
Accurate in observation, wrong in conclusion.
[…] Source: Jim […]
“McCloskey is not a leftist but a libertarian/classical liberal.”
So, in other words, a leftist.
It’s remarkable how many ideas that sound very reasonable, such as libertarianism, are in fact unstable isotopes that decay into leftism.
Libertarianism, in actual practice, is “let us go left on everything except capitalism”. Which includes going left on the regulatory state and going left against freedom of association, which does not leave a whole lot of capitalism standing. Plus going left on open borders is going to wipe out what little capitalism remains.
Some libertarians, not many, are willing to address the role of the regulatory revolving door in the recent financial crisis, but refuse to acknowledge the effect of disparate impact laws in the recent financial crisis, because that would bring them perilously close to crimethink. McCloskey will not acknowledge the regulatory revolving door, which is today the chief obstacle to capitalism, turning it into crony capitalism.
So, endorses China’s turn to capitalism, but will not acknowledge America’s turn away from capitalism.
“Some libertarians, not many, are willing to address the role of the regulatory revolving door in the recent financial crisis, but refuse to acknowledge the effect of disparate impact laws in the recent financial crisis, because that would bring them perilously close to crimethink.”
Basic microeconomics which is sort of libertarianism 101 leads in one simple step to crimethink – a step so simple that almost everyone who knows any microecon has taken it.
Irrational employment discrimination will be weeded out of any mildly competitive market. Employment discrimination (in the disparate impact sense) exists. Therefore …
If you take intro micro this should occur to you.
These days, if you take that step you end up at Steve Sailer’s blog and from there you eventually wind up not calling yourself a libertarian – so libertarians are selected among people who either have strong crimestop modules in their brains or who are thick enough that the crimethink doesn’t occur to them.
Another thing that leads to crimethink and has to be stopped is subjective theory of value.
If one prefers Samsung over iPhone, he should have the right to invest his money in it and not be forced to fund Apple, regardless of the reasons for his preference.
If one likes to live among white high IQ people, prefers his street to be safer than full of MS13 and his kids not to be taught by a monstrosity such as McCloskey…. there’s always a good libertarian to explain him that that’s against progress or a violation of the non aggression principle and therefor not libertarian.
“Another thing that leads to crimethink and has to be stopped is subjective theory of value.”
I don’t think that’s as much of a gateway – basically that boils down (in the minds of people who have progressive infected brains) to “what if someone doesn’t want to interact with black people – should businesses be allows to cater to him?”. That’s something that libertarians actually will address (and come down on the progressive side – because of externalities and such).
They won’t address that you can prove racial differences in IQ with intro micro and income statistics. That is simply blanked out.
“McCloskey will not acknowledge the regulatory revolving door, which is today the chief obstacle to capitalism, turning it into crony capitalism.”
Are you fucking kidding me? This is false and demonstrably so.
So what does McCloskey say about our recent financial crisis?
Libertarianism used to be “let’s go right on everything except sex and drugs”, but a free society cannot function without sobriety and family values, so Libertarianism devolves into a high-tax welfare-prison state to cope with all the human wreckage caused by excessive liberty.
Libertarianism these days is not right on mass immigration of colored people to white countries, nor on freedom of association.
You say “right on everything except sex and drugs” – what is is it right on other than seriously neutered capitalism?
As the Overton window moved ever leftwards, libertarians yielded on issue after issue, till almost nothing remains
Nah!
Preface it with the media version of libertarian, then I’d agree with you!
Zach, that is the only version of libertarian that matters. The Cathedral controls politics, ergo the Cathedral controls libertarians. Disagree as much as you’d like, but then I am forced to conclude that you do not understand how the political paradigm works and I see why you are a libertarian.
Full-on nutbar progressivism is just the very same classical liberal conception of “liberty” except they believe in systemic (cultural) oppression in addition to institutional oppression. Seeing church and state as oppressors is the first step on this tragicomedy road to self-destruction; being outraged by gendered pronouns is an obvious next step. It follows from a conception of society as individuals pitted against one another and a conception of morality as a juridicial framework rationally devised to help people live together. Classical liberals want to restrict the oppressive state and church, progressives want to restrict your oppressive hate thoughts. Both want you to be “free” (by which they mean something like “feral”). Realising they’re so similar is the first step to a full recovery.
In better days, with better people – we didn’t talk about queers, trannies and other degenerates and perverts in polite company. That was for trained psychologists and scientists to deal with – who, at the time, had 150 years of classical science and study to fall back on when dealing with stuff like this.
In the 1970’s the liberals started mainstreaming homosexuality and the sexually disturbed using the same kind of ‘science’ that drove Global Warming. None of it was repeatable, quantifiable or consistent – but all the Hollywood rock stars and celebs were behind it so “it jutht had to be twue!!!!”
I don’t care how many stupid people line up in a row to sing the praises of the LBGT rainbow crowd. I don’t care how offended they get. They and their ‘victims’ are not healthy, rational people and they will not be telling me what to think or tolerate.
It has to do with the time preferences that are created from rule by the mob instead of hereditary families.
A.J.P.
As I said a while back, no sane discussion of politics should have to mention a woman putting a raw chicken in her vagina… and yet, that’s precisely what a sane discussion of politics needs to mention these days.
In her defense, it is not inconceivable that she had mistaken it for a duck.
Materialism is leftism.
The first great school of materialists, the Epicureans, were distinct dangers to social unity and universally hated for good reason.
Darwinism is leftism? I don’t think so.
They’re changing the titles of his books too.
SHALL NOT INCLUDE RACE!
Transformers!
They’re more than meets the eye…
That’s hilarious. That’s a dude, dude. Jack Lemmon in “Some Like It Hot”. That is a really daring and hilarious Halloween costume, and if I see that guy at a Halloween party, he’s getting a high five.
Unfortunately it’s not a Halloween party, it’s a sober discussion of economic policy on the BBC. But it’s still freaking hilarious. These people are ridiculous and weak, evil yes but still ridiculous and weak.
Despite what anyone thinks life is stronger than death, always has been and always will be. You can believe that even if you’re a materialist.
“I am a materialist. I don’t believe in demons that come from outside.”
Attend a few exorcisms. Fixed.
What would it take for you to abandon materialism?
God shows up and speaks. Notice that the prophecies of Jesus were a bit vague, slippery, and impossible to falsify. When he was prophesying the fall of the temple why did he not just say “In a generation the pharisees will provoke the Romans to destroying the Jerusalem, the temple, and to send the Jews into exile again.”
Seems to me the servants of the high priest in Mathew 26:68 have a point.
What would happen to God if he showed up, as a man, and spoke, in a world where free will is real?
“So I attempted to look at a McCloskey video – then very quickly shut it down in horror and revulsion, because I could not bear to look at it.”
A little dramatic. lol
Imagine 5000 Jims meet 5000 “chicks with dicks” on the battlefield somehow. All Jims drop their guns, and run away in unfathomable fear.
Chicks with dicks win!
Jim, no probs about the spam filter…
I understand either way.
Possessed 1
Brahs 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWrG0hUbJFI
If McCloskey is a leftist then “leftist” is not a very useful label as it probably applies to anyone to the left of James.
McCloskey thinks that Republicans are horrible people, utterly beyond the pale, and that efforts to prevent massive Democrat falsification of the vote are an unthinkable evil. Her rhetoric borders on exterminationist. A civilized society would have no republicans.
Where did you read that?
I did not hear it in the interview. Nor did the quick search for “McCloskey on Republicans” turn up anything of that sort.
http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/IndiaPaperMcCloskey.pdf
So what he is calling capitalism, does not sound much like capitalism, but rather leftism, and Republicans are its enemy. Indeed, he says capitalism is the wrong word, and wants to use another (lengthy) phrase, that sounds suspiciously like “social justice”
.
Am I wrong to suspect that “social justice” involves neither?
That is not the biggest criticism of Republicans in this paper as it applies only to a subset of Republicans. In the same paper he criticizes Republicans in general for siding with greenies on carbon tax.
In any case, I find his criticism of Republicans milder than yours, so by that measure you must be more of a leftie than McCloskey.
He criticizes Republicans from the left – that they resist ballot box stuffing. I criticize them because they only lag the Democrats a year or two in the endless movement left.
On carbon tax McCloskey criticizes Republicans from the right.
On voting it is not clear.
there is a popular meme out there that some Southern Republicans don’t want poor people to vote, even if they vote legally. I have no reason to believe it is true but wouldn’t be surprised if there is truth to it.
The fact that McCloskey believes it or is concerned with it is a strong evidence that he is not a neo-reactionary. But it is not a strong evidence that he is a leftist, especially considering that his other criticism of Republicans is from the right.
There is also a popular meme out there that the dead vote Democratic, and that the vote in black majority areas in Democrat majority states is not as ridiculously monolithic as the official results show, nor is turnout in black areas as ridiculously high as the official results show. The meme to which you refer is a left wing meme.
McCloskey theoretically supports capitalism and free markets, while accepting all of the rest of the left wing program.
But does he in fact support capitalism and free markets?
The biggest attack on capitalism is Sarbanes Oxley, and the application of disparate impact laws to mortgages. In the Bay area, it appeared to me during the financial crisis, more than 99% of the dud mortgages underlying the crisis were from NAMs, the result of disparate impact laws, though there is also evidence that the disparity in America as a whole was less extreme than in the Bay area – but still quite one sided, maybe several to one rather than several hundred to one.
He is only standing up for PC capitalism, not Ayn Rand’s capitalism.
“Zach, that is the only version of libertarian that matters. The Cathedral controls politics, ergo the Cathedral controls libertarians. Disagree as much as you’d like, but then I am forced to conclude that you do not understand how the political paradigm works and I see why you are a libertarian.”
I will not blame you for replying to me in such a manner.
A fair reply, given what you had to reply to.
Just as you ghostfully blame me for not disagreeing with something (not clearly stated) I am no Libertarian.
I am mostly (and loosely) an Anarcho Capitialist, but I deem the current evidence as insufficient.
However, all current arguments, in my opinion, are won, but ACs.
That’s what matters to me.