In Praise of the Contrarian Blogging Movement

As we explain in the intro page, the contrarian blogging movement gained momentum following the financial crisis and the election of Obama in retaliation to the perceived incompetence and political correctness of the prevailing political and media hegemony. Contrarian blogging and journalism covers the entire political spectrum and consists of a combination of a rejection of individual malleability (biology superseding free will) and deviations from conventional party orthodoxy. Rejection of malleability can be found in the emergent HBD (human bio-diversity) movement as well as the contemporary writings of Charles Murray and Steven Pinker. From an interview with Steven Pinker by Steve Sailor to promote The Blank Slate:

Q: Aren’t we all better off if people believe that we are not constrained by our biology and so can achieve any future we choose?

A: People are surely better off with the truth. Oddly enough, everyone agrees with this when it comes to the arts. Sophisticated people sneer at feel-good comedies and saccharine romances in which everyone lives happily ever after. But when it comes to science, these same people say, “Give us schmaltz!” They expect the science of human beings to be a source of emotional uplift and inspirational sermonizing.

Vox Day, otherwise a conservative, tacitly supports HBD. Liberal and moderate bloggers like Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan have also treaded the waters of biological determinism and other risky subjects, positing that individual behavior and economic outcomes can be attributed to biology, and thus hard to remedy by government intervention alone. For example, Last year Andrew Sullivan caught fire for comparing white people to poodles and black and brown people to (presumably less intelligent) beagles. For years, alternative news sites like Salon and Slate have served as an outlet to express unconventional or controversial views on subjects pertaining to admittance tests, IQ, economics and human biology. Thomas Friedman, who otherwise identifies as liberal, has a long history of incensing his readership with his unwavering support of free markets, nation building, and infatuation with the eat-or-be-eaten meritocracy. Steve Sailor, who otherwise seems to hold traditional conservative views, is skeptical of unfettered capitalism and foreign intervention while also including themes of biological determinism in his writings.

Conventional journalists and pundits- on both the left and right- doesn’t venture into this area. National Review, with the only possible exception of Kevin Williamson, there is no implication of unmalleability. The overarching theme is that poor people of all types can rise out of poverty through pure tenacity, less government and and strong family ties – all of these being environmental factors. There is no mention of biology or IQ by any of the major conservative writers like Michelle Malkin, Charles Kruthhammer and Thomas Sowell. Mainstream liberal writers on sites like Huffington Post and NYT treat poverty and inequality as something that can be overcome through regulation with, again, no mention of the role of biology.The third possibility is that some people may be biologically incapable of attaining a middle class lifestyle or abstaining from bad behavior, but to express this on a mainstream news outlets is forbidden. Mainstream conservatives tend to be confident about the ability of the free market to replace jobs lost due to automation of globalization; many contrarian conservative bloggers express doubt. That leaves us with the contrarian blogging movement for those who want the truth, or at least a different perspective. But the best part is you get a wide variety of views on any issue. Even on this blog we challenge the prevailing view of low inflation with something we call ‘bifurcated inflation‘ that reconciles the low CPI with rising living expenses.