Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

What’s killing the West

I wrote a long time ago that what unites the dissident right, the “glue” for lack of a better word, was opposition to feminism. The catholic reactionaries, the Moldbuggian neoreactionaries, the manosphere and all those other guys out there around 2013; we all had little in common. We thought most of the others were crazy or deluded. But we all shared a common idea that women don’t belong to political society; and that women having equal or higher status than men was what was breaking the social fabric in the civilized world. It just breaks all incentives to mate and raise children, saps all motivation to pursue excellence and be contribute to society.

Now of course this reactionary sphere was quite small. And since Trump it has been completely overshadowed by the alt-right; if fortunately it hasn’t died out. And it hasn’t because the alt-right is basically feminist nazism. Essentialist Nationalism? Check. Down-with-the-plutocrats Socialist economics? Check. Gas all the Jews? Check. But hey, Ivanka is our Aryan princess! Laura Southern is so cool and smart! The French Front National is run by a woman. The German AfD is run by a woman. Having women commanding men just shows it to those evil mud Muslims.

You’re doing it wrong. Aesthetics is important. It’s an underrated motivation for men’s actions. Yes, a 20 year old white woman with long hair can be a lovely thing, and it looks so much more worth defending than those ugly fat Muslim women in black bags. But that’s not the point. The point is that Western men aren’t actually doing anything to defend their civilization against an invasion by millions of foreign men. You might say it’s because their governments won’t allow them, and there’s a point to that. But the vast majority of white men don’t even show any will to resist. They still overwhelmingly support leftist politics.

Western men aren’t actually doing anything to defend those cute white girls from being harassed by Africans or Muslims because they don’t own them, and they have no prospect of ever owning them. So of course they don’t fight. They just go on following the latest leftist fad, hoping for some mainstream status, so they can get some money and maybe some short-term sex relationship. Those who dislike leftism overwhelmingly choose to enjoy the decline poolside. Nobody is going to risk their skin in order to protect the right of their women go to Iran to take Instagram pictures larping on what used to be a most respectable male profession.

I’ve been writing a lot about rhetoric and why it’s important. And yes, nationalism, even racism makes for better rhetoric, a better sale than The Patriarchy. But as important as rhetoric is in aiding coordination by synchronizing people’s status signaling behavior; at a more basic level there are systemic incentives without which people just won’t work. And men just won’t work to defend feminsm. They may say they will. But they won’t do it.


Trump is cool. Race is important. But sex is much, much more important.

Liu Xiaobo

Liu Xiaobo is dead. Who the hell is Liu Xiaobo?

A pyschopathic status maximizer from Northeast China. Or may I say a high-IQ status-greedy sociopath. Or a shameless self-promoter taking money from USG to undermine his own nation?

Or in one word: an activist. Liu Xiaobo was a student activist from the 1980s. The 1980s were a very delicate time in China. Mao was dead. Deng Xiaoping had opened up the country. The old order was shattered; and when a country is in disorder, the status-hunters smell weakness. They saw blood. And so they started agitating. Writing articles on how backward China was. How utterly rotten and corrupt and just smelly it was, compared to the utopia in the West. Western governments obviously encouraged the agitation. They gave money and resources. This agitation culminated in the 1989 Tiananmen protests. Liu Xiaobo was there, showing his teeth, ready to destroy the government and take their place. To gain the supreme status he knew he deserved. Everybody thought that the government would fall, and a new state would have to be built on Western standards. A new state led by themselves, of course.


But no, that didn’t happen. The little old man had a pair, and he sent the tanks. Most of the psychopathic status maximizers fled. But Liu Xiaobo didn’t. The guy isn’t just some run of the mill leftist activist. He’s a stubborn son of a bitch. He stayed, doubled down on his writing about how China is bad and corrupt and evil and nasty and everything Western is honey and spice and everything nice. He was sent to jail, again and again. And while he went abroad every now and then to pick up some Western money, he always returned to China. He just couldn’t believe that China wouldn’t bow down to his majesty and just hand him the status he deserves. Surely these evil pigs won’t send me to jail again?! Not when I have USG behind me?

To jail he went. He was given a damn Noble Peace prize. To jail he went. China doesn’t care. Well, China cares more than it should. China has signed all those bogus Human Rights Treatises. But they just wouldn’t release Liu Xiaobo. This guy is evil. This guy wasn’t just some prog activist; he was a traitor of comical proportions. The guy was just surreal. Even some Western leftists, at the Guardian no less, just couldn’t believe how big a traitor this guy was. See some things he said:

In a 1988 interview with Hong Kong‘s Liberation Monthly (now known as Open Magazine), Liu was asked what it would take for China to realize a true historical transformation. He replied:

“[It would take] 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would require 300 years as a colony for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough.”[31][33]

This comment by itself just lost him all the local support he could have enjoyed just by being propped up by Western propaganda. How could you call for the colonization of your own country? 300 years! This guy is insane. Just how much of a Western stooge was he?

Known for his pro-West stance, Liu once stated in an interview: “Modernization means whole-sale westernization, choosing a human life is choosing Western way of life. Difference between Western and Chinese governing system is humane vs in-humane, there’s no middle ground… Westernization is not a choice of a nation, but a choice for the human race” [24]

You’d have to go to Stormfront to find this kind of hyperbole even this side of the world. A Western life is a human life. Everything else is not barbaric; it’s not even human. Ok dude, you’re gonna make a lot of friends that way.

He also faulted a television documentary, He Shang, or River Elegy, for not thoroughly criticising Chinese culture and not advocating westernisation enthusiastically enough: “If I were to make this I would show just how wimpy, spineless and fucked-up [weisuo, ruanruo, caodan] the Chinese really are”. Liu considered it most unfortunate that his monolingualism bound him in a dialogue with something “very benighted [yumei] and philistine [yongsu],” the Chinese cultural sphere. Harvard researcher Lin Tongqi noted that an early 1990s book by Liu contains “pungent attacks on the Chinese national character”.

So China is wimpy and fucked-up, the West is this awesome utopia; but the guy was monolingual? What the hell? Oh wait. This isn’t about logical consistency. This isn’t about careful thought on the issues. This is a guy who just saw that the Communist Party had loosen his grip on Chinese society and wanted to crack a wedge into the system so he could come up with more status than he had. And he chose to worship the West because that was the zeitgeist: Communism was collapsing everywhere, and the West was way stronger. So odds are the West would sponsor him some time or another. And voila, USG gave him millions. For which the guy was grateful. 2,000 years of Confucianism don’t go away so easily. Chinese intellectuals know to be loyal.

in his article Lessons from the Cold War, Liu argues that “The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.” During the 2004 US presidential election, Liu warmly praised George Bush for his war effort against Iraq and condemned Democratic party candidate John Kerry for not sufficiently supporting the US’s wars:

[T]he outstanding achievement made by Bush in anti-terrorism absolutely cannot be erased by Kerry’s slandering … However much risk must be endured in striking down Saddam Hussein, know that no action would lead to a greater risk. This has been proven by the second world war and September 11! No matter what, the war against Saddam Hussein is just! The decision by President Bush is right!

Liu also published a 2004 article in support of Bush’s war on Iraq, titled “Victory to the Anglo-American Freedom Alliance”, in which he praised the U.S.-led post-Cold Warconflicts as “best examples of how war should be conducted in a modern civilization.” He wrote “regardless of the savagery of the terrorists, and regardless of the instability of Iraq’s situation, and, what’s more, regardless of how patriotic youth might despise proponents of the United States such as myself, my support for the invasion of Iraq will not waver. Just as, from the beginning, I believed that the military intervention of Britain and the United States would be victorious, I am still full of belief in the final victory of the Freedom Alliance and the democratic future of Iraq, and even if the armed forces of Britan and the United States should encounter some obstacles such as those that they are curently facing, this belief of mine will not change.” He predicted “a free, democratic and peaceful Iraq will emerge.”[29]

Unwavering support for the War on Iraq. He the Noble Peace Prize winner. Why? Convictions? Or because Bush was paying his salary?

At any rate, the guy is dead. Inside China. All the Bluegov empire (“the international community”) pressure didn’t work. Now I don’t know who coordinates this kind of operations, but guys, if you want to have influence in China. You’re doing it wrong. Finding a complete asshole like this guy just won’t get you any popularity in China. Or anywhere else, really. I mean just look at the guy and his… wife. Or something.


The US has the most advanced marketing PR apparatus in the whole world. They know how to promote stuff. Why are they so inept when it comes to political influence abroad? A hot teenage girl or a smooth homo could actually accomplish a lot of progressive agitation in China today. But nah, Bluegov keeps picking up these ugly sociopath nerds who offer themselves to them. Well, you reap what you saw.


I’m thinking of a redesign for the blog. Any suggestions for a nice theme?

Doing it wrong 

A 10% cap would be reasonable. Alas China is no stranger to wasteful signaling spirals. Here’s hoping they put a stop to the education bubble madness. 

Bluegov watch 


Chalupas Cowen interviews Ben Sasse. I had no clue who this Sasse guy was, but apparently he’s a poster child of a well-adjusted American conservative. The uber cuck. Now this is a bit unfair. The guy does seem smart. And he seems like a good person. A healthy, down to earth family man. He’s even written a book about education which isn’t half bad.

The guy just seems like a very productive person. A german-descendend guy from Nebraska, when he commits to a job he does it well. Extremely well. And now his job is to be a Republican senator. To be a cuck. So he’s a professional cuck. An extremely productive cuck. It’s not his fault really, it’s just the world we live in. If he had lived in Germany in the 1930s he would have been an extremely productive Gestapo commander. If he had been an Englishman in the 19th century he would have been an extremely efficient colonial conqueror. Alas, he’s a Nebraskan in the current year. So he went to Harvard, then was a university manager, and now he’s a proffessional Senate cuck.

By the way I wonder what it takes for a white evangelical kid from the Midwest to get into Harvard. Maybe things have changed since this guy’s time. But the few non-connected white Christians who get into Harvard must be *extremely* tightly screened.

This post isn’t about Ben Sasse himself; there’s little I can say about him. I’m not an ornitologist. But I am a linguist. So I can talk about his way of speech. Now many of you might have heard of “uptalk”. Most Americans don’t notice it, the way fish don’t know what water is. But for foreign learners of English, uptalk is just weird. They don’t teach uptalk in English classes. I should talk about language teaching some other day, it’s really broken. The only way to actually learn something is if you have the power to notice things by yourself. But that applies to most education. Anyway, I digress.

Uptalk is the relatively recent (last 25 years or so) trend of mainstream American speech, where the rising tone typical of question clauses gets applied to words in the middle of a declarative sentence.

I like traveling to foreign countries? Because I think that the culture? And the things you see? Are fascinating and fullfill me as a person?

The whole things doesn’t make a lot of sense. But as always, there’s two dimensions to language. There’s language as a set of rules, which are made clear by prescriptive analysis. And then is what people actually do with the rules, i.e. change them all the time, and that’s descriptive analysis. Uptalk started apparently with teenage girls in California. But now it’s freaking everywhere. And you have a 45 year old man, a US Senator with 3 children, using uptalk 5 times per sentence. It’s infuriating. But let’s not have value judgment stop us from doing a good analysis.

Why do people do uptalk? We can define uptalk as the transfer of question marks into non-questions. Now why would people do that? There’s a good thing that questions and non-questions are distinct in speech. But the common way of explaining questions vs. non-questions is, as tends to happen with all Western style social science, heavily restricted by a logical analysis of how language works. Questions don’t only demand information. They’re also a way of calling attention. Of showing epistemic humility. Or of being a pussy who doesn’t stand by his opinion.

A statement implies certainty. I like traveling. Yes I do. That’s my prerrogative. And now I let it known. That’s how it used to work. But not anymore. Now every statement is suspect of fascism. Being too sure of yourself is toxic masculinity. Assuming that people talk to you because they want to know something about you is mansplaining. The correct way of having a conversation is to make it everything into a question. The implication is “I’m not very sure about this, if you think I’m wrong or a fascist or I’m guilty of having a penis please forgive me, I’ll change my opinion sooner than you can say the word “cuck””.

… or that’s what Roissy would write. Well, actually that’s pretty much exactly what Roissy wrote some time ago. I wrote the above before checking that out. The thing with language though is that one shouldn’t read too much into it. At the end of the day, language is just a behavioral habit. People don’t “generate” language according to some calculated inputs. I’m quite sure Senator Sasse isn’t generating uptalk because he’s a passive-aggressive cuck who actually wants to coerce your agreement after each freaking clause. He’s just doing what everybody else in his milieu does; and him being a *very* well-adjusted religious German who does what his peers expecting him to do, he got a habit of uptalk.

Which is interesting in its own way: language is *the* window into human behavior, because it follows the same rules as every other behavior does, but it’s orders of magnitude more frequent and easy to analyze. And a good rule that language analysis gives us, is that if you want to find the cause of some behavior, you shouldn’t look at its present shape. The present shape is just a function of habit and people copying each other, especially higher status people. The best way of achieving some explanatory power is to loo at the evolutionary process by which a habit became common. In genetics I think they call that “achieve fixation”.

In evolutionary terms, Uptalk started with teenage girls, and indeed it was an effect of modern Californian teenage girl society, which is a good approximation to a Hobbesian state of nature of all against all, where you must police your every single act, lest the sisterhood comes crashing down on you and throws you and your status into some ghetto in Oakland. So that’s how teenage girls evolved passive-aggresiveness and high-frequence semi-questions as self-defence. The interesting thing is why that spread out of teenage girl life into wider society. This implies there’s something about modern society which is similar to teenage girl total status war.

Uptalk can also be seen as the fusion of the colloquial tags “like…”, “you know?” into the actual word itself. “Like” and “you know” are also a ways of holding plausible deniability about one’s statement. You aren’t just asserting something. You aren’t really like, sure, you know, so you hold plausible deniablity lest your interlocutor be short of status in that particular moment and she uses the chance to throw you under the bus. Again, one way of putting this is epistemic humility. Another way of putting this is a complete breakdown of social trust so that conversation is pretty much… impossible?

Steve Sailer often says that it’s a good thing we got this Tower of Babel thing; as different languages make the transfer of bad ideas extremely easy, and different languages act as a good barrier. Uptalk makes an excellent example of this. In a few decades it has conquered the whole US, and it’s fast making inroads into Britain; while I’ve never seen anything like it in any other language. Parochialsm has its own problems, but avoiding Uptalk and other progressive memes makes it worth it.

Do check out the whole podcast. Not that the content itself is interesting; that would be controversial and problematic. Interestingly Tyler Cowen has its own slightly milder version of uptalk, but he uses it in almost every single end of clause. This follows Cowen’s own style: he follows the mainstream, he’s a well behaved true-believer; but he does it his own way; lest the wind changes some other way, then he can claim that he was always for war against Eastasia. Of course he was.

Alt-psychopathic status maximizers

A while ago I called myself alt-right because hey, the God-Emperor got elected. Later, the elected has shown himself not to be much of a God, and certainly not an Emperor, and so I’ve lost my interest. And you would think everybody else had done so too, but then you wouldn’t understand politics.

I haven’t been following this very much, but apparently there’s the alt-right, and now something called the alt-lite. What is the alt-lite?

How to answer this question? I could go on doing some reading about their positions, what they believe in. But that would be missing the point. If that’s how you analize political movements then you haven’t been reading this blog properly.

The point here is that the “alt-lite” is at the left of the alt-right; but their naming suggests that they want to contest the alt-right space. So by definition, the alt-lite are entryists who want to eat up the political space of the alt-right. And to do so, they will take whatever position, they will do whatever is necessary. Because the difference between left and right is not one of “beliefs”. It is one of drive. The left are the psychopatic status maximizers. The right are those who are not. Relatively speaking, of course. So you can expect the alt-lite to be a psychopathic status maximizing version of the alt-right.

So what will they do? They’ll keep Trump support, because there’s a lot of money there. 60 million people voted for the man after all. They will tone down the Nazi stuff because there’s little to gain there. You’ll have a lot of women there. A lot of Jews. A lot of gays. A lot of fund-raising. A lot of media promotion. A lot of weird changing of positions according to what the media likes to hear at the moment.

There’s a clip here which shows a good example to where this is moving:


And you know what? They’ll probably win. Because they have way more drive than your average chap on frog-Twitter. In a fight, the guy without scruples always beats the guy with scruples. The common thing to people who have achieved something in life is greed, the drive to achieve something at whatever cost and no matter how many people you should trample over in your way. These sociopaths genes exist for a reason. They work.

Until everything goes to hell and there’s no more prosocial chumps to fool.

The Fall of Singapore’s Monarchy

It’s been a while since I last wrote about Singapore. Now that the old man is gone it’s seldom on anybody’s radar anymore. But that has changed recently. Singapore is in the news. First there’s this article by Nick Land on Jacobite, where he quotes my coinage of Singapore Singapore as an IQ Shredder, and notes how we don’t yet have a fix to perhaps the biggest problem we have.

But there’s a pretty big piece of news going on in Singapore. Big enough that the Prime Minister, Harry Lee’s son Lee Hsien Loong, is out on a charm offensive to defend his honor. Hear him speak.

Now, I intend no offense. But man, this guy is goofy. Compare him to his father’s speeches. Man, Lee Kuan Yew had an iron fist and a steel tongue. He could talk a crowd like he was Sulla on horseback. But then look at his firstbon son. Who by all accounts has a genius IQ, is tall, athletic and a very fine specimen. But he’s just goofy. Look at his inaugural smile, the lame bow with the head. And his English. How the hell does he speak worse English than his father? The accent is pretty standard Singaporean English, not that he’s bad at it or anything. But English is this guy’s first language. And he’s lived for years in the US. And yet look at him. This shows again my personal theory that language ability and IQ aren’t at all correlated. And that for people with low language ability, bilinguism is just too hard. And so you get people like the Second King of Singapore, Lee Hsien Long, who speaks goofy English and lousy Chinese.

Again, not dissing the guy. He’s probably 2 sigma smarter than I am. A legit math progidy. Just a pity that he was born in a royal household, where he has to do things that aren’t his strong suit. As the Chinese poem,

吾本西方一子 为何流落帝王家

But anyway, what’s going on in Singapore right now? We are witnessing a crisis of the monarchy. Lee Kuan Yew had 3 children. The eldest, now king (prime minister), a daughter, Lee Wei Ling, and a younger son, Lee Hsien Yang.

The younger son is just a lame prince, spent some time in the military, then was an executive, now is Chairman of the Aviation Authority. Take a look at him. He’s just your run of the mill , boring mediocre Chinese business cuck.


Things start to get interesting when you factor in his wife, Lee Suet Fern. As it often happens, if some big shot is just some mediocre boring cuck, odds are its his wife who wears the pants in the household. And the young daughter in law of Lee Kuan Yew is exactly what you’d think she would be.

There you go, a good looking, well dressed, heavily jeweled up lady. She also happens to be a big shot lawyer in Singapore. And she just looks like a scheming witch. As she should be; she didn’t marry that boring lame ass beta prince for nothing. She wanted power, status. And big earrings.

Why does this matter? Well this matter because there is another very prominent woman in the Lee royal household. The wife of the Lee Hsien Loong. The Queen of Singapore, Ho Ching. Now, go back to the top of the page and take another look at our goofy king. How do you expect his queen to be?


Everyone in Singapore says she looks like his mother. Which is a bit unfair. She’s 64 years old, she looks like an average 64 year old before feminism. She doesn’t need to look like a scheming witch covered with diamonds. But basically because everybody knows she’s the mother of all scheming witches. She was, before marrying into the royal household, already a high ranking bureaucrat. And she is the leader of Temasek, the Singaporean sovereign investment fund, managing over 300 billion dollars in assets. She has the money. The Queen controls the purse, the huge purse of the very small country of Singapore. Many say she’s the actual ruler of the country. She certainly looks more like it than her goofy husband.

Here’s a video of her in her professional capacity:


So well, right now you might imagine that this two households, the eldest and youngest sons of Lee Kuan Yew, just don’t get along very well. Which they don’t. But we’ll get to that later. Now it’s time to talk about the other child of LKY. His daughter. Daughter?



Let me put some more pictures of Lee Kuan Yew’s dear daughter. I’ll make them smaller as I don’t want anybody to choke.

Screenshot 2017-06-20 17.37.00

There ya go. This is Lee Wei Ling, daughter of Lee Kuan Yew, royal princess of Singapore. She’s 50 something. Unmarried, as you might have guessed. As it happens she’s a talented neurosurgeon. Yes, she broke the glass ceiling into this traditionally male occupation. You might have figured out why.

Now, some might say I’m being nasty about her. Nothing wrong about being ugly. But no, sorry. I don’t buy that. First of all because she needn’t be this ugly. Not at all. She looked fairly pleasant while young.

And while some say she got this nasty disease or whatever, it’s still no excuse. Being fat is, generally speaking, a choice. Looking bad is in the overwhelming majority of cases, a choice. She could just eat a bit more. She could let her hair grow a bit more. She could buy a decent pair of glasses. She could stop juicing on steroids to get thicker arms than 90% of Singaporean man. And more importantly, she could stop being a bitch and writing articles all over the state controlled media in Singapore saying that she’s hot stuff. She’s “eccentric“, is glad of “looking like a boy“, how she “chose” to be single, writes books about “being a woman” while doing everything she can to avoid looking like a woman. She just won’t shut up about how much of a victim she is because people think she got it easy by being the King’s daughter. Poor little thing. She’s the perfect example of Steve Sailer’s law of female journalism: everything a woman ever writes is advocating for social change so that come the revolution, the woman herself would be considered hotter. It just happens that she’s, by far, the ugliest woman in Singapore; probably the ugliest woman in all East Asia. And yet she’s the King’s sister, so the state media better publish her crap. If she were in the US she would’ve been arguing for her own pronouns 20 years ago. Might have called herself zorg.

You’d think she at least would be thankful to his brother who lets her keep being the worst example possible of behavior by a royal princess? Oh no. She’s been shitting on her brother publicly for years. And it all culminated last week when Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang, brother and sister of the Prime Minister, issued a joint letter accusing the PM of using the state apparatus to harass them, to use the inheritance of the late Lee Kuan Yew to prop up the dynastic hopes for their son; and just being so much of a corrupt asshole, he and especially his wife Ho Ching, that they will go into exile right away. Here’s the letter.

The whole thing is just some lame family dispute about the house of the late LKY, which passed to his heir, but he was nagged into selling it to his brother, who wants it demolished but the government won’t do it because they want to make a museum of it or whatever. It’s pretty lame stuff. It gets pretty complicated because apparently there were 6 wills by LKY and the last one was quite different from the previous one. But you’re probably bored out of your mind already. Who gives a crap? Well Singaporeans give a crap. This sort of mind-dumbing family disputes are the plot of 99% of SEA soap operas, including Taiwan and Hong Kong. These guys just eat up this stuff. It’s pretty similar to South American soap operas; just without the hot chicks and the sex.

So anyway, this is perhaps the biggest scandal in Singapore in decades; all just a petty dispute by the very very petty characters in the royal household. For all those monarchists out there; that’s what happened to traditional monarchies. Here we have the very son of Lee Kuan Yew playing Duke of Orleans, bringing down the monarchy out of spite. And most likely not even personal spite, but just spite between their wives.

As it also tends to happen, the people at large are quite sceptic of all the scandal, and majoritarily support the King against his evil brothers. So it may still happen that the Queen gets her way and the Lee Dynasty goes on for a 3rd generation. I gotta say the crown prince, Lee Hongyi, does look like a proper king, though he denies any interest.


Or maybe it happens like countless previous times; the elite uses this scandal to dump the king, and follow up with what formally is already a Republic. So you’d get party politics and dissolve state controls on the media, and the typical signaling spirals of all democracies. The end of Singapore.

I did say that history wouldn’t be kind to Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. But I didn’t think it would come down so fast. It is also no wonder that the old man looked so depressed in old age. What a bunch of useless brats. Especially his daughter, who lived with him until the end. He was pissed to no end at why she turned out like that. But I guess that, like so may men of action, he cared much more about his work than about his family. Reminds me of American Sniper, with Chris Kyle choosing Iraq over his family for many years. Why? Because he had a job to do. Domesticity was not for him. Well, we all reap what we sow.

Fake Science

After Donald Trump won the election, the Central Politburo of the Free Media© came up with the official interpretation of their defeat: Fake News™. People on Facebook were pasting news from shady sites saying that the Pope had endorsed Trump, and that led to Trump winning. Or something.

Now, I don’t know who came up with Fake News, but man, he struck a nerve. As a meme, Fake News is perhaps the biggest and most rapidly expanding one I’ve ever seen. It’s everywhere, the Left uses it to shit on Trump; the right uses it to shit on the Left. And not only in the West; go on any Asian internet forum and everybody is talking about Fake News this and Fake News that, translated to every language.

Now there’s a pattern to how memes expand. The same as words, really. They just serve a function. People adopt a new word usually because it fits in a mental pattern they already had, and it allows them to do something which is very useful. Some Cathedral honcho came up with Fake News for the sole reason to imply that Trump wasn’t a legitimate president; but the fact is people all over the world were already starting to understand that the news media wasn’t telling the objective truth. More often than not the media is just spinning facts in order to build a narrative for their own partisan political gain. Which is the very definition of the string “Fake News” as it is used today. CNN shits on Trump? Fake News. Fox News says something bad about the Democrats? Fake News. The NYT comes up with some corruption case about Xi Jinping’s advisors? 假新闻. Koreans come up with yet another sex slave from 1940? フェイクニュース. Somebody saw the King of Thailand fucking a dog? ข่าวปลอม.

So now that people understand what the news media is all about, and have a word to express it, it’s obvious that Fake News is here to stay. Which is a great thing; it’s quite accurate after all, even if Fake News gets thrown around to everywhere the enemy tribe says. What I don’t get is why the concept is yet to be extended to other extremely similar cases of content being sold as objective truth when it’s obviously just some story spun for political purposes. I’m talking of course of the scientific establishment. 90% of which is Fake Science. Global Warming? Fake Science. Social psychology? Fake Science. Economics? Fake Science. All of it.

Usually when some media apparatus or somebody on social media came up with some lame scientific paper and used it to justify anything, people who actually knew something about it would caution about Gell-mann amnesia. Which is a great concept to have. But it lacks the punch and ready accessibility of Fake Science. So let me propose that when any scientific article which isn’t about engineering or hasn’t been replicated n times and resulted in an actually workable and useful idea be deemed Fake Science. Just throw it around on Twitter, I think it’ll stick.




I did write a post on being cautious about extrapolating trends, but you never know.