The Voice of Evil

So World War T is raging on, and what seemed like a mere blitzkrieg where the anointed elite just sent the a panzer rampage to force everyone to make a transsexual friend or be fired from their jobs immediately; it seems that the blitzkrieg preparations have stumbled ostensibly because of internal wreckers, which of course calls for massive purges.

Steve Sailer gave this iconic quite:

The members of the board of the New York Abortion Access Fund, an all-volunteer group that helps to pay for abortions for those who can’t afford them, are mostly young women; Alison Turkos, the group’s co-chair, is twenty-six. In May, they voted unanimously to stop using the word “women” when talking about people who get pregnant, so as not to exclude trans men.

You can't make this stuff up. You certainly shouldn't make this stuff up. What a sick mind would make up something like this? Anyway I wondered what sort of person was this Ms. Turkos, and Google provided.

スクリーンショット 2014-07-30 18.09.58

Cthulhu's gaze

I'm starting to think that the reason that Christianity and pretty much all religions don't allow for women priests is for our own good. Men can be brutal, but women can be nasty, evil things. Theocracy was bad enough as it was historically; but letting women into the inquisitorial system would leed to too much cruelty for even the official torturers to handle. It's a commonly known fact that communist parties and leftist terrorist groups have much more female members than most other male dominated groups. Names like Jiang Qing or Rosa Luxemburg come to mind. Hell, there are stories everywhere of female shamans and witches and what not. We also know that the ancients were more violent and up to a third of all bones found had died of violent deaths. Join the dots and it seems plausible that the patriarchy brought piece and calm to humanity.

So related to World War T, what goes through the mind of a man who transforms himself into a woman? Does he become nice and nurturing? Or an evil bitch? I make a short study with n=1. But it's a very big n.

I'm usually a serene, mildly mannered, quite cynical man, and there is little that can shock me or disturb me. But sometimes you see such big and naked examples of evil that you can't help feeling some cold sweat, the disturbing feeling of helplessness when one sees evil and knows one can't do anything about it. I felt like that when I read Tyler Cowen subtly poison the well of David Brat's house and exhorted him to refer to Donald McCloskey as a woman. Damn, that was the smoothest leftist signaling I've ever seen. And it felt deeply unsettling. Steve Sailer wrote recently about how World War T is just about elite posturing, where does who can make a transsexual friend faster than the others win; if that's true Cowen won decades ago. In fact one gets the impression that Cowen kinda engineered World War T in order to be able to harness his old relationship with McCloskey.

In fact I gotta admit I didn't know about McCloskey until Adam Gurri, from Umlaut, and also a Cowen minion (when you think about it Tyler Cowen has built or enabled a pretty impressive internet media apparatus) mentioned it as his intellectual mentor. I checked the title of the book in Amazon and didn't give it much further thought, until Sailer started writing about McCloskey the Harvard Rugby player and his crusade against honest research on autogynephilia. So I looked on youtube, and damn this is the most scary shit I've seen in years.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTnbED4u\_4\]

What's the deal with that voice? Isn't this the voice of evil? Listen to that ghostly aftersound that comes out after every utterance. If Cthulhu has a voice, this must be the closest thing to it. I thought it was a sound artifact of the video compression, but the BBC anchor has a normal voice, and all other videos of McCloskey have the same demon-ish voice.

I guess the rationalist thing to do would be to hate the sin, not the sinner, 對事不對人 as the Chinese say, deal with people's ideas without regard to their personalities. That's just an ad hominem fallacy. Well I'm sorry but I can't read a piece written by McCloskey ever again without playing that ghastly voice in my mind, and it creeps me out to no end. All I can think of is Cthulhu swimming left, forcing us all to swim with him or be drowned by the huge right-moving waves that the leftwards move produces.

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

[…] kraj, ako vam je do još užasa i luđaštva, preporučam izvrstan post koji mi je skrenuo pozornost na ovu goreću bitku – pročitajte i poslušajte glas […]

the sad part is McCloskey's book Bourgeois Dignity on the Industrial Revolution is excellent. It fails a little in its critique of the more darwinian explanation from Clark (though Clark's book has its own issues in distinguishing between why in UK/Holland rather than say China or Japan), but I honestly think it's the best book in the immediate factors that led to Industrial Revolution and why. sad to see someone so intelligent go completely bonkers.

Actually, his entire intellectual output was great. His writings on statistical significance make very clear a fundamental flaw in almost all of modern science, not just economics - the attempt to substitute math for judgment:

But one part of mathematical statistics has gone terribly wrong, though mostly unnoticed. The part we are worrying about here seems to have all the quantitative solidity and mathematical shine of the rest. But it also seems—unless we and some other observers of mathematical statistics such as Edgeworth, Gosset, Egon Pearson, Jeffreys, Borel, Neyman, Wald, Wolfowitz, Yule, Deming, Yates, L. J. Savage, de Finetti, Good, Lindley, Feynman, Lehmann, DeGroot, Bernardo, Chernoff, Raiffa, Arrow, Blackwell, Friedman, Mosteller, Kruskal, Mandelbrot, Wallis, Roberts, Granger, Leamer, Press, Moore, Berger, Gigerenzer, Freedman, Rothman, Zellner and a small town of others working in and around the American Statistical Association (see “Works Cited” in Ziliak and McCloskey 2008a, pp. 265-287) are quite mistaken—that reducing the scientific and commercial problems of testing, estimation and interpretation to one of “statistical significance,” as some sciences have done for a hundred years, has been an exceptionally bad idea. Statistical significance is, we argue, a diversion from the proper objects of scientific study. Significance, reduced to its narrow and statistical meaning only—as in “low” observed “standard error” or “p < .05”—has little to do with a defensible notion of scientific inference, error analysis, or rational decision making. And yet in daily use it produces unchecked a large net loss for science and society. Its arbitrary, mechanical illogic, though currently sanctioned by science and its bureaucracies of reproduction, is causing a loss of jobs, justice, profit, and even life.

Read the whole thing - it's only 15 pages long and quite well written.

Got a link for that?

Here ya go: http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/jsm.pdf

Actually I think it's pretty bad, even granting it was written for popular consumption (?) Equating and/or analogizing p-values or t-values with signal-to-noise ratio and (even worse) precision, and using terms related to each interchangeably, is not good at all, even if the basic idea — the one in the title — is very true. I find their prose style lame (trying to coin "sizeless" as a derogative? come on) and their exposition muddle-headed; the article reads more like a stream-of-consciousness blog post rather than a proper article. Also listing themselves before Gosset, Deming, Feynmann et al. is pretentious and immodest, even if one really believes one is better than any one of the oldsters. OTOH none of these are trannies or even women, gotta stamp on that patriarchy.

[…] Spandrel recent wrote of one such, McCloskey The voice of evil […]

Almost as Horrific as pre-makeover Susan Estrich.

here's a good nyt summary of when mccloskey went after science she/he/it felt uncomfortable or not appropriate. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html?\_r=1&oref=slogin

McCloskey sounds like Winnie the Pooh after smoking three packs of cigarettes every day for a hundred years.

I don't get this post at all. She's OK (sure, some additional factors need building in -- especially from Clark as noted). Basically she's on the real Right side of history. I like her voice: attractive collision of heavy smoking and cyborgian metamorphosis. It's the despicable BBC communist I'd like to see swallowed up into Left Singularity without remainder.

You are public that you aesthetically like creepy and ominous things. That you enjoy the voice of a man who has mutilated his larynx because it sounds unhuman doesn't contradict the fact that it sounds... unhuman. I'd be willing to cut him a break if he hadn't used his football player weight to try to silence the autogynephilia theory. Nobody who tries to stop truth from coming out is on the right side of history. And if there is any Nature God I don't think it's cool with automutilation. The Chinese were famously very strictly against it.

OK, I've been totally slow on getting the whole transsexualization angle. It's kind of assumed in your post -- I just had to Wiki it. Weird that I've never come across it before (I've heard of McCloskey a lot and even read some of her stuff, is it supposed to be impolite to mention?). I'll re-read your post now with some prospect of understanding it.

Oh, you didn't know? I admit didn't know either, until I read Steve Sailer. There's a lot of background on Donald McCloskey, the Harvard football player with 2 children who always felt like a woman here at Sailer's. I didn't know myself but I hadn't seen any videos. How did you think that voice had come into being? I'm curious. I have women smoker acquaintances and while they voice gets low it doesn't get this ghastly. The fact that you never came across it should tell you something of what libertarians are up to. Which is not telling the whole picture about things.

Obviously, if I had any shame I'd be melting into the carpet under the emulsification rays of my own idiocy right now. But yes, it does seem to have been kept remarkably discreet. McCloskey's a major public figure after all. (Need to do a better job keeping up with Sailer -- he's a one man reality principle.)

Whatever his politics or intellectual credentials, trannies are invariably somewhere between creepy and flesh-crawlingly loathsome. The reaction to something so disgustingly wrong is instinctive: http://i.imgur.com/5XSFIsx.gif It's bizarre. These bizarre paraphilias and delusions that these wretched, miserable deviants have that they are somehow, despite all evidence, "really" women would seem to fall neatly under the psychological definition of somatoparaphrenia. That is, there are certain individuals who have suffered a psychotic break with reality and will insist that their left arm, or right foot, or penis, is not "really" theirs, that it's someone else's arm, they're somehow "not supposed" to have a right foot. The therapist can show them that the limb is seamlessly attached to their bodies with no sign of a scar. They can demonstrate that they have sensation in it and it follows them wherever they go, yet the delusion is fixed: "that's not my leg." We don't treat these people by sawing their legs off. We give them antipsychotic medication and therapy. Unless it's the penis that they're insisting isn't theirs--that, for some reason, is different.

McCloskey had botched vocal surgery, and later round of surgery to correct it didn't help much. MtF transsexuals seem to view Deirdre's voice as example of why vocal therapy is a safer bet. I think *on its own* the voice wouldn't bother me if I knew it was a woman with a cold. It's the combination of the voice and the ghoul-like appearance that's freaky. (McCloskey wrote an entire book "Crossing" about the experience if you're interested.)

Not really.