Steve Sailer did a post on this hilarious story in National Journal. I say it is hilarious because of the absurd claim that racism is keeping blacks up at night. Blacks are obsessed with race, but even they take a break from the topic on occasion, like when they go to bed. But, the scolds who are forever lecturing us never take a break. They are eternal.

What caught my attention was this line:

“ON THE QUES­TION of how to ex­plain the black-white sleep gap it­self, re­search­ers have a num­ber of re­lated the­or­ies. (There is a con­sensus that in­nate bio­lo­gic­al dif­fer­ences between blacks and whites are not a factor.)”

It’s not enough to just ignore what the author clearly thinks is racist. Just ignoring it could be viewed as insufficiently enthusiastic for the One True Faith. The author puts that disclaimer in there so everyone can relax and focus on the candy the Great Pumpkin is going to bring all the good little boys and girls in the pumpkin patch. The rest of the article is just a long pat on the head for the faithful.

It’s becoming a standard feature these days in public writing. The author feels it necessary to sprinkle their work with quotes from the catechism, enthusiastic dismissal of bad-think and the celebration of good-think, even when none of these things has any place in the story. Fundamentalist Muslims do this as well. They could be sending driving directions to a relative and it will be sprinkled with praise for Allah and maybe a verse from the Koran, just so there can be no mistake.

Anyway, I added a comment to the Sailer post which got this reply from someone labeled AndrewR:

In the most recent NR issue there literally was an article about attracting more blacks to the GOP. There were paragraphs dedicated to advocating the end of policies with “disparate impact” on blacks.

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/425617/civil-rights-republicanism

As an aside, it’s juvenile and needlessly inflammatory to say things like “sodomite adoption.” You appear to have the intellect to avoid saying things like that, so please do so.

My guess is that AndrewR is a homosexual. The worship of buggery has reached a point where homosexuals now think they are a priestly class, entitled and obligated to police the thoughts of others. He follows that up with this:

“Sodomite” has an obviously derogatory connotation.

No matter what one’s feelings about gays or any related issues, there is absolutely nothing to gain by alienating gays and their friends, but there is a lot to lose. Gays are not ideologically monolithic and many of us want nothing more than to be able to discreetly live lives true to themselves in a legal and dignified manner. Personally I can’t stand most of the Gay Pride types. Most of them are basically radical feminists with dicks. Many gays abhor the degeneracy understandably associated with the gay lifestyle (pride parades, etc), and many have no need to call their relationships “marriage.” As for adoption, I think straights should take precedence but it’s very hard to argue that a child would be better off in the foster system or in an orphanage than in a stable, loving house with gay adopted parents. As for natural birth, I strongly oppose gay couples choosing to have biological children but I’m not sure it should (or could) be legislated against.

But I’m digressing here. My main point is that no person who actually cares about effecting political change can afford to alienate gays at this point in time. Certainly a couple generations ago there was very little cost to alienating a group that largely lived in the shadows and had few defenders. And no one knows what sort of fate the future holds for gays in terms of political power and visibility. But undoubtedly at this point in time no serious political movement can afford to use language that would alienate essentially all gays.

To repeat, my guess is this guy is gay and one of those strangely prudish gays that tsk-tsk any bawdy talk, as if they are living in 19th century England. The image of gay males on TV is always the flamboyant, Liberace type that is outlandishly promiscuous in his homosexuality. There’s another type that is the complete opposite of that popular image, the type that thinks gay pride parades are an embarrassment.

Even if my assumptions here are all wrong, the point is that homosexuals now have a veto over public discourse. They’ve become an axe wielding lunatic in the middle of public debate that everyone tip-toes around in order to avoid setting them off. My interlocutor in the Sailer post is walking around thinking he could be sent to the lithium mines if he upsets the local homos. No doubt he truly believes he is doing me a favor my warning me about the dangers of angering the gays.

It’s not going to stop with the homos. Every fringe weirdo is lining up to get their veto. Halloween has been canceled on the college campus because it is impossible to dress up as anything other than a block of wood without upsetting someone with a grievance. Vast swaths of knowledge about the world are now off limits because people fear upsetting one of these scolds.

This is the logical end of Utopian cults. The adherents endlessly compete with one another to be the most pious. Think of a herd of zebra where the animals are always jostling to be in the middle of the herd, away from the outer dangers. The herds eventually gets so densely packed it ceases to be a herd at all. It’s just a a jumble of snouts and hooves.

That’s what is happening with the Left. Each group of weirdos wields their veto with increasing ferocity, in pursuit of perfect purity. It’s a recursive cycle of lunacy that eventually consumes the whole thing, like a dying star collapsing in on itself. The trouble is these nuts are going to take a whole lot of normal people with them into the abyss.