The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Announcements
Expanding Our Science and History Coverage
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

For decades I’ve been closely reading several major newspapers every morning, and for the last few years have noticed a striking decline in the quality of their scientific coverage, as exemplified in the weekly Science Section of the New York Times. Whereas in the past, dramatic discoveries in evolutionary biology or physics might be broken in the pages of that newspaper, these days the coverage seems increasingly skewed toward phone apps and dieting and phone apps for dieting.

That witticism, which I have occasionally repeated, sometimes moves from the metaphorical to the literal. For example, the entire front page of that section in yesterday’s paper was devoted to stories on weight-loss techniques and Christmas gifts, following by huge stories on the benefits of jogging with donkeys and ideas for handling the health problems of an overactive bladder. With so much focus on consumerism, personal health, and pop-psychology, often accompanied by page-filling photos or drawings, there was almost no space left for actual science. Perhaps this was of necessity. With the growing financial difficulties at the Gray Lady and the departure a couple of years ago of Nicholas Wade, their renowned longtime science reporter who had remarkable expertise in evolutionary biology, perhaps their bench has grown so shallow they have few journalists left with any interest or expertise in the subject.

A small webzine such as ours obviously cannot fill such a yawning gap, but at least we can try. In support of this project we have now brought on board as a regular columnist Dr. James Thompson of University College London, who has spent nearly five decades focused on issues of IQ and psychometrics, stretching back to late 1960s. A few years ago, Dr. Thompson began blogging as an independent means of disseminating his own research findings and those of others, and we have now transferred and incorporated his complete archives, amounting to some 600,000 words of content material, with his latest column, focused on the recent academic testing results of Africans, running as one of today’s main features:

http://www.unz.com/author/james-thompson/

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/africa-and-the-cold-beauty-of-maths/

For similar reasons, we have also recently expanded our historical coverage, incorporating the extensive archives of Dr. Stephen Sniegoski, a scholar with decades of experience in analyzing the diplomatic history of the Twentieth Century and its major wars, similarly incorporating the hundreds of thousands of words in his own archives. This included recently republishing his outstanding 17,000 word monograph, backed by well over 100 footnotes, on the strong evidentiary case for a revisionist analysis of the Pearl Harbor attacks that launched America into the Second World War:

http://www.unz.com/author/stephen-j-sniegoski/

http://www.unz.com/article/the-case-for-pearl-harbor-revisionism/

These are the sorts of important articles that rightfully should be covered and discussed in our most important elite media outlets, which instead increasingly cater to the ignorant, the gullible, and the politically correct—not to mention aficionados of dieting and phone apps—and such nonsense is subsequently enshrined as holy writ in Wikipedia, thereby deceiving countless millions more.

From the beginning, our webzine has been envisioned primarily as a content-delivery channel and commenting-platform, and with more and more high-quality but “incorrect” writers and ideas excluded from the mainstream media, I suspect we will have a growing role to play in providing a convenient venue for such discussions.

The entire American MSM is still recovering from the egg on its face caused by their uniform prediction of Hillary Clinton’s near-certain victory, but they seem not to have grasped the crucial implications of that debacle. The obvious cause was their incestuous ideological group-think and their tendency to purge all politically-incorrect naysayers. These days, every hour spent reading the New York Times and its peers surely renders an individual more and more ignorant of the world, whether with regard to foreign policy, domestic politics, history, or science, and thereby inculcating a completely delusional misunderstanding of Reality.

And so the need for an alternative media review such as ours shall only continue to grow.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. iffen says:

    .500 is a phenomenal batting average.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1691608
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. polistra says:

    I hope you can push the authors for a bit more brevity. The Pearl Harbor article seemed worthy, but after two or three ‘pages’ I gave up. It was too much like an academic textbook.

    Read More
    • Replies: @frayedthread
    Yup. Here's what I said about it:
    http://www.unz.com/article/the-case-for-pearl-harbor-revisionism/#comment-1676714
    , @Olorin
    Or have a skilled master distiller create a shorter piece that points to the longer one. Something longer than a precis, and bearing in mind that hyperlinking can encourage readers to dig deeper into different parts of the story in the time they have available.

    This also increases the possibility of them returning later for more of the story ("optimizing for return visits" in webspeak).
    , @Anonymous
    Fantastic, especially the Sniegorski's piece.

    I admit I've read it in 3 sessions, but we, libertardians are used to academic-standard pieces, written for the intelligent layman.

    Perhaps, editing of such future material into 2 or even 3 parts would reduce the readership attrition.
    , @Miro23

    But after two or three ‘pages’ I gave up. It was too much like an academic textbook.
     
    "Too much like an academic text book".

    Dumbing Down is the US national requirement in information transfer, which is another way of saying Laziness, which is another reason why the US is heading towards the Turkey and Greece averages in the international PISA tests (Science, Math and English) which are in fact the best predictors of a country's future international comparative economic performance.

  3. res says:

    Great news. I am especially happy to see Dr. Thompson here.

    Thanks, Ron!

    Read More
  4. @polistra
    I hope you can push the authors for a bit more brevity. The Pearl Harbor article seemed worthy, but after two or three 'pages' I gave up. It was too much like an academic textbook.
    Read More
  5. jtgw says:

    Great additions! It was sad when Razib left but Dr Thompson is a very worthy replacement.

    There seems to be very little discussion of Sniegoski, based on my internet search. In particular, I can’t find anything critical of him. Is he really such a nobody that no one has bothered to respond to his controversial claims about the neocons or Pearl Harbor?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I think Sniegoski is persona non grata. They pretend he does not exist. Probably because he does not shy away from Jewish topics.
    , @Whoever
    Well, regarding his Pearl Harbor article, it was okay but didn't really say anything new. The Pacific War and its origins are a special interest of mine and I know it pretty well. What struck me was that Sniegoski did not use even one Japanese source. The Japanese appear only as a "McGuffin" to move the story along.
    But, as could be imagined, the Japanese have written reams about this subject, and quite a few of their books and articles have been translated into English. Iguchi Takeo and Asada Sadao spring immediately to mind. Fuchida Mitsuo's memoirs are available in English. Hasegawa Tsuyoshi, while better known for his writings on the ending of the war and his clashing views with those of Gar Alperovitz, I think has written about this subject. There are many others.
    That Sniegoski didn't bother to consult any Japanese sources at all strikes me as odd and leads me not to take him that seriously. Maybe others feel the same way.
  6. Randal says:

    These days, every hour spent reading the New York Times and its peers surely renders an individual more and more ignorant of the world, whether with regard to foreign policy, domestic politics, history, or science, and thereby inculcating a completely delusional misunderstanding of Reality.

    Exactly so.

    Both Thompson and Sniegoski appear to be fine additions.

    Read More
  7. beastie says:

    I believe that there has been such huge hysteria about Donald Trump’s victory derives from the fact that the voting machines were rigged in such a way that he simply COULD NOT HAVE WON. In other words, their rigging did not go far enough.

    So they are now screaming bloody blue murder because they, after their certainty that they had metaphorically murdered Killary’s opponent, find themselves on the losing side, and everything, literally everything they had staked on her victory, is now down the proverbial drain.

    I shall not be surprised at a coup d’etat, even under another rubric. But I think that the American people should be aware of the dangerous and cracking ice upon which they tread

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "the voting machines were rigged in such a way that he simply COULD NOT HAVE WON. In other words, their rigging did not go far enough." - Exactly! Comey's action on Oct. 28 was the signal to the media and DNC operatives that the election won't be stolen, so they had 10 day to change the narrative and adjust coverage including the fake polls.
  8. I’m sure Dr. Thompson will be a fine addition, and take up some of the topic-space Razib Khan occupied. One difficulty this non-science-oriented reader had was getting a start in the field: for some of your readers, Ron, college biology was a lot of years ago chronologically and several lifetimes in terms of knowledge explosion. It would be great to have a primer on the topics Thompson proposes to discuss.

    As for Dr. Sniegoski, I couldn’t be happier that his work will find a home here. It was my privilege to meet him several years ago, after another Unz commenter alerted me to his work as The Thornwalker (indeed!) in The Last Ditch website.

    Several commenters have complained that Sniegoski’s work is “too long,” “too much like a textbook,” and too detailed. That may be the natural reaction to getting what we call history in 28-minute segments or feature-length high-gross full-color emotion-drenched movie-spectacles. As historian Thomas Fleming observed almost a decade ago, the first cut of history, which can last 50 years or more, is all emotion; “fluid prejudice,” to quote Mark Twain. It takes decades to achieve sufficient emotional detachment to analyze historic documents with cool objectivity, and that can occur only after the decades it takes to unearth documents. Stephen Sniegoski may be the vanguard of the quest into genuine historical analysis of the era of the world wars.

    Congratulations to Dr. Sniegoski for his persistence in leading the way through the briar patch of a difficult historical epoch, and congratulations to Ron Unz for his courage in hosting The Thornwalker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks so much for confirming my impression. You have saved me a lot of wasted reading time.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Dr. Thompson is eminently more readable than Razib Kahn. Kahn talked the talk but was very poor at explaining the meaning of geneticist's specialized terminology in everyday language. Half of mastering any discipline is learning the vocabulary and for those of us who didn't study genetics in college, Kahn's essays were turgid. He reveled in using technical words that were not transparent to the outsider. The resulting confusion made him feel as though he were intellectually superior to his benighted readership and he was not shy about letting us know it. In reality, the superior mind can reduce complexity to relatively simple, readily understood concepts, but this requires that one set aside his ego.
  9. iffen says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    I'm sure Dr. Thompson will be a fine addition, and take up some of the topic-space Razib Khan occupied. One difficulty this non-science-oriented reader had was getting a start in the field: for some of your readers, Ron, college biology was a lot of years ago chronologically and several lifetimes in terms of knowledge explosion. It would be great to have a primer on the topics Thompson proposes to discuss.

    As for Dr. Sniegoski, I couldn't be happier that his work will find a home here. It was my privilege to meet him several years ago, after another Unz commenter alerted me to his work as The Thornwalker (indeed!) in The Last Ditch website.

    Several commenters have complained that Sniegoski's work is "too long," "too much like a textbook," and too detailed. That may be the natural reaction to getting what we call history in 28-minute segments or feature-length high-gross full-color emotion-drenched movie-spectacles. As historian Thomas Fleming observed almost a decade ago, the first cut of history, which can last 50 years or more, is all emotion; "fluid prejudice," to quote Mark Twain. It takes decades to achieve sufficient emotional detachment to analyze historic documents with cool objectivity, and that can occur only after the decades it takes to unearth documents. Stephen Sniegoski may be the vanguard of the quest into genuine historical analysis of the era of the world wars.

    Congratulations to Dr. Sniegoski for his persistence in leading the way through the briar patch of a difficult historical epoch, and congratulations to Ron Unz for his courage in hosting The Thornwalker.

    Thanks so much for confirming my impression. You have saved me a lot of wasted reading time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    iffen the enigmatic.

    regrettable if the implication is that you will not make the effort to read Dr. Thompson's work, but it will give you more time to devote to phone apps and diets.

    Every yin has its yang.
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Terrific choices, congrats! Yet, I still can’t stop wondering why not Cochran. What’s up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice? :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Yet, I still can’t stop wondering why not Cochran. What’s up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice?
     
    Well, sort of. He's a smart guy, but unfortunately he believes he's far, far smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. This serious personal flaw leads him to make all sorts of grandiose claims regarding topics in which he knows absolutely nothing and therefore looks ridiculous.

    Back about ten years ago, I'd given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.

    Some time after that, he wrote a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson. This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn't "confuse" the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.

    Based upon this disagreeable history, the only circumstances in which I might allow him to join my webzine would be if he provided me an explicit personal apology for deleting my polite comments disputing his mistaken ev-bio analysis and then banning me from his blogsite. Given Cochran's aforementioned personality, the likelihood of this happening is nil.
  11. Ron Unz says:
    @Anonymous
    Terrific choices, congrats! Yet, I still can't stop wondering why not Cochran. What's up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice? :-)

    Yet, I still can’t stop wondering why not Cochran. What’s up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice?

    Well, sort of. He’s a smart guy, but unfortunately he believes he’s far, far smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. This serious personal flaw leads him to make all sorts of grandiose claims regarding topics in which he knows absolutely nothing and therefore looks ridiculous.

    Back about ten years ago, I’d given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.

    Some time after that, he wrote a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson. This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn’t “confuse” the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.

    Based upon this disagreeable history, the only circumstances in which I might allow him to join my webzine would be if he provided me an explicit personal apology for deleting my polite comments disputing his mistaken ev-bio analysis and then banning me from his blogsite. Given Cochran’s aforementioned personality, the likelihood of this happening is nil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a men’s character, give him power[/money]."
     
    - http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/12/17/abraham-lincoln-10-quotes-to-help-you-lead-today/#687564077c6a

    Back about ten years ago, I’d given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.
     


    The Unz Foundation’s most heavily financed fellow in 2008 was Gregory M. Cochran, who received $600,000 to serve as an “Unz Independent Scholar.”
     
    - http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/4/14/ron-unz-donations/

    “Knowing others is intelligence;
    knowing yourself is true wisdom.
    Mastering others is strength;
    mastering yourself is true power.”

     
    - http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2979-knowing-others-is-intelligence-knowing-yourself-is-true-wisdom-mastering
    , @Anonymous
    Thanks for the reply, Ron! Most unfortunate situation. But understandable and not uncommon. You and Greg are both human, and this place is yours after all.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Dr. Unz,

    I am not a surprised about your interactions with Cochran. I was previously aware of your very heavy financial support. That's why I found his very rancorish public statements towards you very unprofessional and ungrateful. Shall we say that Cochran is endowed with a very churlish personality. On the other hand I've always felt that his collaborator the late Henry Harpending was a really great guy (and a great scientist to boot) based on a 10 minute conversation I had with him. At that time he informed me that Paul Krugman (of all people!) had publicly classified Stephen J Gould as a charlatan.
    , @iffen
    a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson

    Good for you R. Unz.

    I think Cochran needs to take at least one ice water shower before he bad mouths Wilson again.

    That aside, he is very knowledgeable and extremely insightful.
    , @anon
    Maybe he could be part of the webzine's drama/rumours section if you don't want to put him in the science section. This is captivating stuff. keep it coming.
    , @JackOH
    Ron, too bad about the Cochran thing. I've been told that tenure and successful grantsmanship can turn some academics into arrogant monsters.

    FWIW-One intellectual told me: "I spent fifteen years on a manuscript. It took me ten years to figure out what I was talking about. By that time I knew my work would bar me from advancement, financial support, and probably damage my reputation to boot. No regrets. The job of the intellectual is to go where his observations and reason lead him."
  12. FKA Max says:
    @Ron Unz

    Yet, I still can’t stop wondering why not Cochran. What’s up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice?
     
    Well, sort of. He's a smart guy, but unfortunately he believes he's far, far smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. This serious personal flaw leads him to make all sorts of grandiose claims regarding topics in which he knows absolutely nothing and therefore looks ridiculous.

    Back about ten years ago, I'd given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.

    Some time after that, he wrote a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson. This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn't "confuse" the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.

    Based upon this disagreeable history, the only circumstances in which I might allow him to join my webzine would be if he provided me an explicit personal apology for deleting my polite comments disputing his mistaken ev-bio analysis and then banning me from his blogsite. Given Cochran's aforementioned personality, the likelihood of this happening is nil.

    “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a men’s character, give him power[/money].”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/12/17/abraham-lincoln-10-quotes-to-help-you-lead-today/#687564077c6a

    Back about ten years ago, I’d given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.

    The Unz Foundation’s most heavily financed fellow in 2008 was Gregory M. Cochran, who received $600,000 to serve as an “Unz Independent Scholar.”

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/4/14/ron-unz-donations/

    “Knowing others is intelligence;
    knowing yourself is true wisdom.
    Mastering others is strength;
    mastering yourself is true power.”

    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2979-knowing-others-is-intelligence-knowing-yourself-is-true-wisdom-mastering

    Read More
  13. @iffen
    Thanks so much for confirming my impression. You have saved me a lot of wasted reading time.

    iffen the enigmatic.

    regrettable if the implication is that you will not make the effort to read Dr. Thompson’s work, but it will give you more time to devote to phone apps and diets.

    Every yin has its yang.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    SC the disingenuous.

    I have read Dr. Thompson for over two years.

    You keep reading Dr. Sniegoski.
  14. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Ron Unz

    Yet, I still can’t stop wondering why not Cochran. What’s up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice?
     
    Well, sort of. He's a smart guy, but unfortunately he believes he's far, far smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. This serious personal flaw leads him to make all sorts of grandiose claims regarding topics in which he knows absolutely nothing and therefore looks ridiculous.

    Back about ten years ago, I'd given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.

    Some time after that, he wrote a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson. This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn't "confuse" the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.

    Based upon this disagreeable history, the only circumstances in which I might allow him to join my webzine would be if he provided me an explicit personal apology for deleting my polite comments disputing his mistaken ev-bio analysis and then banning me from his blogsite. Given Cochran's aforementioned personality, the likelihood of this happening is nil.

    Thanks for the reply, Ron! Most unfortunate situation. But understandable and not uncommon. You and Greg are both human, and this place is yours after all.

    Read More
  15. Dahlia says:

    “The obvious cause was their incestuous ideological group-think and their tendency to purge all politically-incorrect naysayers. These days, every hour spent reading the New York Times and its peers surely renders an individual more and more ignorant of the world, whether with regard to foreign policy, domestic politics, history, or science, and thereby inculcating a completely delusional misunderstanding of Reality.”

    During the election, and especially in the aftermath when it became obvious they truly were surprised, I constantly thought of your Meritocracy article and Jewish collapse. Not that all the writers were Jewish and it wasn’t particular to them at all, but to liberals in general, but the realities of Jewish collapse and liberal elite collapse seemed to me to correspond with each other all too well.

    I found them so crushingly dumb and obtuse at times, that I made the mistake of attributing to malice, gaslighting in particular, what should have been attributed to stupidity. I thought they understood polls well, but found out later that the majority confessed to relying on aggregators. And the Clinton campaign’s stupidity: Trump’s team had the good quants whereas Team Clinton screwed up a Venn diagram. That Venn diagram was an omen!

    Also, had recently had a discussion with a friend about the decline in science writing and just lack of interest in it by writers. Again, I see all of this -Team Clinton lacking in brain power, ditto liberals journalists and their poor political reporting and lack of scientific interests- as a piece of Collapse.
    I’m not sure how it all works or why exactly, but, oh yes, when I learned how ignorant they were about the polls, I just wondered, “What do Ron and Steve think of this?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Has More Black Women Than Any Presidential Campaign in History

    Hillary Clinton’s downtown Brooklyn campaign headquarters sits in the rich pocket of Brooklyn — not Biggie or Spike’s Brooklyn. During the day, the neighborhood pulses with the click-clack of stilettos, men’s dress loafers, and new construction, and at night it hums to the soft anthem of Ubers shuttling their passengers home.
     
    - http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/meet-the-black-women-working-on-hillary-clintons-campaign.html

    REPORT: Hillary Clinton Wasted Millions in New Orleans, Chicago Trying to Win Popular Vote

    “a plan devised by [interim DNC head Donna Brazile] to drum up urban turnout” in the two cities, despite Illinois and Louisiana being solidly blue and red.
     
    - http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/report-hillary-clinton-wasted-millions-in-new-orleans-chicago-trying-to-win-popular-vote/

    Clinton HQ in Brooklyn: Who Needs Northern White Catholics?

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/clinton-hq-in-brooklyn-who-needs-northern-white-catholics/

    The Bubble - SNL

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKOb-kmOgpI
    , @ogunsiron

    I found them so crushingly dumb and obtuse at times, that I made the mistake of attributing to malice, gaslighting in particular, what should have been attributed to stupidity

     

    They're also largely unchallenged. No one speaks back to them.

    In alt-right circles they've been making fun of that rabbi at the Richard Spencer talk at Texas A&M, who had the audacity to claim, in public, that the torah was all about "radical inclusion"(!!!). Richard Spencer easily ridiculed that notion and it turns out that rabbi wasn't prepared for even the slightest pushback againt his ridiculous claim.
  16. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I hope you can push the authors for a bit more brevity. The Pearl Harbor article seemed worthy, but after two or three ‘pages’ I gave up. It was too much like an academic textbook.

    I am of the contrary opinion. For light reading, you have mainstream media. For lighter communication and information, there’s TV.

    Nothing good ever comes without effort.
    Go back to that article, and read it whole. Do it in a few session if it tires you.

    ——————-
    @RonUnz

    Thompson was maybe the best possible pick (since J. P. Rushton is, unfortunately, not among us any more).

    I wonder why the book section of the site has been so neglected for quite a long time. Relive it?

    I think that, like we don’t have people who tell us they have dreamed to kill Clinton, we shouldn’t have Rebecca Gordons either.

    Diversity of opinions, yes. Baseness and too-angry ravings, better not.

    A little note on C. J. Hopkins:

    As a former New Yorker who had to live in physical proximity to Donald Trump, and read his name in big gold letters protruding from the facades of various buildings on a daily basis for fifteen years, and given the current political climate, I feel it necessary to reiterate here my previously expressed contempt for Mr Trump, whom I consider a disgusting, self-aggrandizing charlatan, not to mention a racist, misogynist pig. I do not support him or any of his activities. I wish him, and all those like him, ill.

    Moreover, well after he had been published here, he claimed he didn’t know what this site was.
    I don’t think he belongs here either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    (since J. P. Rushton is, unfortunately, not among us any more).
     
    Mr. Khan did not have the highest of opinions of him, it seems:

    rushton was full of a lot of [it]. i had some email correspondences with him where i told him to stop it, and he refused, even when i pointed out to him how he was full of [it]. he said a lot of brave and courageous things that people didn’t want to hear, yeah. but he was also mendacious when it suited him. i guess he wasn’t a saint, but a human. but whatever.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/gnxp/why-its-not-surprising-west-africans-dominate-sprinting/#comment-1530754

    You might be interested in the two following papers. The first one in particular is rather critical of Rushton.

    Warning(!): both papers are highly controversial and might be upsetting to some.

    The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White
    http://thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacy

    Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton are the main proponents of the East Asian (sometimes just “Asian” is used) superiority thesis. Lynn believes that Asian civilisation was probably more advanced than Europe civilisation until about 500 years ago (which is becoming now an Establishment view). Rushton sees European technological supremacy as a mere blip. Lynne sees China as being the ultimate ruler of the world, not only because of their eugenic practices, but because the Chinese are racially superior to Whites. [...] Rushton grants that the IQ tests of Asians shows a relatively small standard deviation, with a smaller right tail towards the very high IQs. Thus the proportion of very high IQs and geniuses is much higher among Whites than Asians: M. Masters, “The Morality of Survival” (Part II), American Renaissance, August 1995, pp. 1, 3-5, at p.3. For IQ elitists such as Lynn and Rushton, this is a fact which should be of supreme analytical and theoretical importance because it is high IQ genius which builds and maintains civilisations, not mean/average intelligences. [...] Lynn and Rushton are not too concerned about what constitutes “White” and include North Africans and others who most theorists would not classify as “White”. The IQ of some countries, such as Australia, which has contributed more Nobel Prize winners than Japan [per capita], is a poor 98. But according to newspaper reports of televised Australian National IQ tests in 2002 , 2003 and 2004, the average Australian IQ score for a multiracial country was above 100. Men outscored women 112 to 108 and blondes (=Nordics) averaged 111 (which is greater than Lynn’s revised Ashkenazi Jewish average and also refutes the “dumb blonde” ideology of the media). People 181 to 200 cms tall (again predominately Nordics) averaged an IQ of 113.
     

    The next paper links in with commenter Dahlia's earlier comment:

    During the election, and especially in the aftermath when it became obvious they truly were surprised, I constantly thought of your Meritocracy article and Jewish collapse.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692174

    JEWISH INTELLECTUAL SUPREMACISM: A REFUTATION
    by Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White
    https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf


    Audrey Shuey [16] administered the American Council Psychological Examination to freshman students entering Washington Square College, New York in 1935-37 to 2,985 students as follows: 2,250 as Jewish, 399 as Catholics, 336 as Protestants were positively identified.
    Overall the groups ranked in order: Protestant, Jewish and Catholic with the Protestant average
    superior to the Jewish on all tests except one and the Jewish average superior to the Catholic on all tests. When foreign-born students and students of foreign-born parents were eliminated from the tests, the results were substantially the same. White Protestants were generally of Northern European extraction, while Catholics of Southern European, Central European or Irish extraction and Jews of Eastern European extraction. - 16. A.M. Shuey, "Differences in Performance of Jewish and Non-Jewish Students on the American Council Psychological Examination," Journal of Social Psychology, vol.15, 1942, pp.221-243.
     
    Here also an excerpt of one of my comments from a while back on this topic, with more insights in regards to IQ, Jewish wealth, etc.:

    How Jews Became Smart: Anti-”Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence”
    R. Brian Ferguson Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Rutgers-Newark

    http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/sites/fasn/files/How%20Jews%20Became%20Smart%20(2008).pdf


    What about those at the pinnacle, did they need high IQ’s? No doubt, it took cunning to see good opportunities. But other personality factors besides intelligence could lead to fortune.
    One could even keep this with a psychological Darwinian orientation by suggesting that risk taking, or aggressiveness-both traits often claimed to have genetic bases-led to great profit.
    Yet more then any individual qualities, the most important factors leading to greater financial
    success were possession of capital, social connections, and political patrons.
    And let us not forget luck–circumstances that lead to a huge payoff, or sudden ruination.
     
    – p. 35
     
    - http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-biggest-heist-in-human-history/#comment-1606786
  17. Dan Hayes says:
    @Ron Unz

    Yet, I still can’t stop wondering why not Cochran. What’s up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice?
     
    Well, sort of. He's a smart guy, but unfortunately he believes he's far, far smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. This serious personal flaw leads him to make all sorts of grandiose claims regarding topics in which he knows absolutely nothing and therefore looks ridiculous.

    Back about ten years ago, I'd given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.

    Some time after that, he wrote a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson. This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn't "confuse" the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.

    Based upon this disagreeable history, the only circumstances in which I might allow him to join my webzine would be if he provided me an explicit personal apology for deleting my polite comments disputing his mistaken ev-bio analysis and then banning me from his blogsite. Given Cochran's aforementioned personality, the likelihood of this happening is nil.

    Dr. Unz,

    I am not a surprised about your interactions with Cochran. I was previously aware of your very heavy financial support. That’s why I found his very rancorish public statements towards you very unprofessional and ungrateful. Shall we say that Cochran is endowed with a very churlish personality. On the other hand I’ve always felt that his collaborator the late Henry Harpending was a really great guy (and a great scientist to boot) based on a 10 minute conversation I had with him. At that time he informed me that Paul Krugman (of all people!) had publicly classified Stephen J Gould as a charlatan.

    Read More
  18. iffen says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    iffen the enigmatic.

    regrettable if the implication is that you will not make the effort to read Dr. Thompson's work, but it will give you more time to devote to phone apps and diets.

    Every yin has its yang.

    SC the disingenuous.

    I have read Dr. Thompson for over two years.

    You keep reading Dr. Sniegoski.

    Read More
  19. iffen says:
    @Ron Unz

    Yet, I still can’t stop wondering why not Cochran. What’s up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice?
     
    Well, sort of. He's a smart guy, but unfortunately he believes he's far, far smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. This serious personal flaw leads him to make all sorts of grandiose claims regarding topics in which he knows absolutely nothing and therefore looks ridiculous.

    Back about ten years ago, I'd given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.

    Some time after that, he wrote a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson. This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn't "confuse" the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.

    Based upon this disagreeable history, the only circumstances in which I might allow him to join my webzine would be if he provided me an explicit personal apology for deleting my polite comments disputing his mistaken ev-bio analysis and then banning me from his blogsite. Given Cochran's aforementioned personality, the likelihood of this happening is nil.

    a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson

    Good for you R. Unz.

    I think Cochran needs to take at least one ice water shower before he bad mouths Wilson again.

    That aside, he is very knowledgeable and extremely insightful.

    Read More
  20. @SolontoCroesus
    I'm sure Dr. Thompson will be a fine addition, and take up some of the topic-space Razib Khan occupied. One difficulty this non-science-oriented reader had was getting a start in the field: for some of your readers, Ron, college biology was a lot of years ago chronologically and several lifetimes in terms of knowledge explosion. It would be great to have a primer on the topics Thompson proposes to discuss.

    As for Dr. Sniegoski, I couldn't be happier that his work will find a home here. It was my privilege to meet him several years ago, after another Unz commenter alerted me to his work as The Thornwalker (indeed!) in The Last Ditch website.

    Several commenters have complained that Sniegoski's work is "too long," "too much like a textbook," and too detailed. That may be the natural reaction to getting what we call history in 28-minute segments or feature-length high-gross full-color emotion-drenched movie-spectacles. As historian Thomas Fleming observed almost a decade ago, the first cut of history, which can last 50 years or more, is all emotion; "fluid prejudice," to quote Mark Twain. It takes decades to achieve sufficient emotional detachment to analyze historic documents with cool objectivity, and that can occur only after the decades it takes to unearth documents. Stephen Sniegoski may be the vanguard of the quest into genuine historical analysis of the era of the world wars.

    Congratulations to Dr. Sniegoski for his persistence in leading the way through the briar patch of a difficult historical epoch, and congratulations to Ron Unz for his courage in hosting The Thornwalker.

    Dr. Thompson is eminently more readable than Razib Kahn. Kahn talked the talk but was very poor at explaining the meaning of geneticist’s specialized terminology in everyday language. Half of mastering any discipline is learning the vocabulary and for those of us who didn’t study genetics in college, Kahn’s essays were turgid. He reveled in using technical words that were not transparent to the outsider. The resulting confusion made him feel as though he were intellectually superior to his benighted readership and he was not shy about letting us know it. In reality, the superior mind can reduce complexity to relatively simple, readily understood concepts, but this requires that one set aside his ego.

    Read More
    • Replies: @frayedthread
    Its Khan (as in Genghis), bud. Not Kahn (as in Herman).
    And if you are truly interested in the terminology of genetics, read up on it, google it, whatever. Don't expect any blogger, or blog post, to substitute for an actual education on a technical subject.
  21. FKA Max says:
    @Dahlia
    "The obvious cause was their incestuous ideological group-think and their tendency to purge all politically-incorrect naysayers. These days, every hour spent reading the New York Times and its peers surely renders an individual more and more ignorant of the world, whether with regard to foreign policy, domestic politics, history, or science, and thereby inculcating a completely delusional misunderstanding of Reality."

    During the election, and especially in the aftermath when it became obvious they truly were surprised, I constantly thought of your Meritocracy article and Jewish collapse. Not that all the writers were Jewish and it wasn't particular to them at all, but to liberals in general, but the realities of Jewish collapse and liberal elite collapse seemed to me to correspond with each other all too well.

    I found them so crushingly dumb and obtuse at times, that I made the mistake of attributing to malice, gaslighting in particular, what should have been attributed to stupidity. I thought they understood polls well, but found out later that the majority confessed to relying on aggregators. And the Clinton campaign's stupidity: Trump's team had the good quants whereas Team Clinton screwed up a Venn diagram. That Venn diagram was an omen!

    Also, had recently had a discussion with a friend about the decline in science writing and just lack of interest in it by writers. Again, I see all of this -Team Clinton lacking in brain power, ditto liberals journalists and their poor political reporting and lack of scientific interests- as a piece of Collapse.
    I'm not sure how it all works or why exactly, but, oh yes, when I learned how ignorant they were about the polls, I just wondered, "What do Ron and Steve think of this?"

    Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Has More Black Women Than Any Presidential Campaign in History

    Hillary Clinton’s downtown Brooklyn campaign headquarters sits in the rich pocket of Brooklyn — not Biggie or Spike’s Brooklyn. During the day, the neighborhood pulses with the click-clack of stilettos, men’s dress loafers, and new construction, and at night it hums to the soft anthem of Ubers shuttling their passengers home.

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/meet-the-black-women-working-on-hillary-clintons-campaign.html

    REPORT: Hillary Clinton Wasted Millions in New Orleans, Chicago Trying to Win Popular Vote

    “a plan devised by [interim DNC head Donna Brazile] to drum up urban turnout” in the two cities, despite Illinois and Louisiana being solidly blue and red.

    http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/report-hillary-clinton-wasted-millions-in-new-orleans-chicago-trying-to-win-popular-vote/

    Clinton HQ in Brooklyn: Who Needs Northern White Catholics?

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/clinton-hq-in-brooklyn-who-needs-northern-white-catholics/

    The Bubble – SNL

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dahlia
    It's endless...

    How about spending $$$ to chase one electoral vote in Nebraska, but staying away from Wisconsin and Michigan?

    The Washington Post writer for that story spelled out exactly what was going on (and also explains their spending $$$ in New Orleans):
    Team Clinton thought they had it in the bag and were going for a HUMILIATION of Donald Trump.
    Will never admit to it in a million years since they, well, uh...
    , @Dahlia
    Yes, I do think a substantial cause for the intellectual collapse is the logical consequences of their ideology.

    Lawrence Auster always said "exceptions" would be made initially, but they would *always* give way eventually.

    Yeah, *lots* of affirmative action hires in lib media, politics, etc., but even the Jews, white gentiles aren't what they used to be. Frankly, I assume the white guys are gay anymore unless shown otherwise which brings its own problems of being juvenile, myopic, and *~\fabulous/~*-obsessed.
  22. FKA Max says:
    @Anon

    I hope you can push the authors for a bit more brevity. The Pearl Harbor article seemed worthy, but after two or three ‘pages’ I gave up. It was too much like an academic textbook.
     
    I am of the contrary opinion. For light reading, you have mainstream media. For lighter communication and information, there's TV.

    Nothing good ever comes without effort.
    Go back to that article, and read it whole. Do it in a few session if it tires you.

    -------------------
    @RonUnz

    Thompson was maybe the best possible pick (since J. P. Rushton is, unfortunately, not among us any more).

    I wonder why the book section of the site has been so neglected for quite a long time. Relive it?

    I think that, like we don't have people who tell us they have dreamed to kill Clinton, we shouldn't have Rebecca Gordons either.

    Diversity of opinions, yes. Baseness and too-angry ravings, better not.

    A little note on C. J. Hopkins:

    As a former New Yorker who had to live in physical proximity to Donald Trump, and read his name in big gold letters protruding from the facades of various buildings on a daily basis for fifteen years, and given the current political climate, I feel it necessary to reiterate here my previously expressed contempt for Mr Trump, whom I consider a disgusting, self-aggrandizing charlatan, not to mention a racist, misogynist pig. I do not support him or any of his activities. I wish him, and all those like him, ill.
     
    Moreover, well after he had been published here, he claimed he didn't know what this site was.
    I don't think he belongs here either.

    (since J. P. Rushton is, unfortunately, not among us any more).

    Mr. Khan did not have the highest of opinions of him, it seems:

    rushton was full of a lot of [it]. i had some email correspondences with him where i told him to stop it, and he refused, even when i pointed out to him how he was full of [it]. he said a lot of brave and courageous things that people didn’t want to hear, yeah. but he was also mendacious when it suited him. i guess he wasn’t a saint, but a human. but whatever.

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/why-its-not-surprising-west-africans-dominate-sprinting/#comment-1530754

    You might be interested in the two following papers. The first one in particular is rather critical of Rushton.

    Warning(!): both papers are highly controversial and might be upsetting to some.

    The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White

    http://thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacy

    Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton are the main proponents of the East Asian (sometimes just “Asian” is used) superiority thesis. Lynn believes that Asian civilisation was probably more advanced than Europe civilisation until about 500 years ago (which is becoming now an Establishment view). Rushton sees European technological supremacy as a mere blip. Lynne sees China as being the ultimate ruler of the world, not only because of their eugenic practices, but because the Chinese are racially superior to Whites. [...] Rushton grants that the IQ tests of Asians shows a relatively small standard deviation, with a smaller right tail towards the very high IQs. Thus the proportion of very high IQs and geniuses is much higher among Whites than Asians: M. Masters, “The Morality of Survival” (Part II), American Renaissance, August 1995, pp. 1, 3-5, at p.3. For IQ elitists such as Lynn and Rushton, this is a fact which should be of supreme analytical and theoretical importance because it is high IQ genius which builds and maintains civilisations, not mean/average intelligences. [...] Lynn and Rushton are not too concerned about what constitutes “White” and include North Africans and others who most theorists would not classify as “White”. The IQ of some countries, such as Australia, which has contributed more Nobel Prize winners than Japan [per capita], is a poor 98. But according to newspaper reports of televised Australian National IQ tests in 2002 , 2003 and 2004, the average Australian IQ score for a multiracial country was above 100. Men outscored women 112 to 108 and blondes (=Nordics) averaged 111 (which is greater than Lynn’s revised Ashkenazi Jewish average and also refutes the “dumb blonde” ideology of the media). People 181 to 200 cms tall (again predominately Nordics) averaged an IQ of 113.

    The next paper links in with commenter Dahlia‘s earlier comment:

    During the election, and especially in the aftermath when it became obvious they truly were surprised, I constantly thought of your Meritocracy article and Jewish collapse.

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692174

    JEWISH INTELLECTUAL SUPREMACISM: A REFUTATION
    by Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White

    https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf

    Audrey Shuey [16] administered the American Council Psychological Examination to freshman students entering Washington Square College, New York in 1935-37 to 2,985 students as follows: 2,250 as Jewish, 399 as Catholics, 336 as Protestants were positively identified.
    Overall the groups ranked in order: Protestant, Jewish and Catholic with the Protestant average
    superior to the Jewish on all tests except one and the Jewish average superior to the Catholic on all tests. When foreign-born students and students of foreign-born parents were eliminated from the tests, the results were substantially the same. White Protestants were generally of Northern European extraction, while Catholics of Southern European, Central European or Irish extraction and Jews of Eastern European extraction. – 16. A.M. Shuey, “Differences in Performance of Jewish and Non-Jewish Students on the American Council Psychological Examination,” Journal of Social Psychology, vol.15, 1942, pp.221-243.

    Here also an excerpt of one of my comments from a while back on this topic, with more insights in regards to IQ, Jewish wealth, etc.:

    How Jews Became Smart: Anti-”Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence”
    R. Brian Ferguson Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Rutgers-Newark

    http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/sites/fasn/files/How%20Jews%20Became%20Smart%20(2008).pdf

    What about those at the pinnacle, did they need high IQ’s? No doubt, it took cunning to see good opportunities. But other personality factors besides intelligence could lead to fortune.
    One could even keep this with a psychological Darwinian orientation by suggesting that risk taking, or aggressiveness-both traits often claimed to have genetic bases-led to great profit.
    Yet more then any individual qualities, the most important factors leading to greater financial
    success were possession of capital, social connections, and political patrons.
    And let us not forget luck–circumstances that lead to a huge payoff, or sudden ruination.

    – p. 35

    http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-biggest-heist-in-human-history/#comment-1606786

    Read More
  23. Grab up hbdchick, and pay her, but convince her to use an actual name….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uncle Remus
    Is hbd chick still writing? Her site seems to have had nothing new for months.
  24. Dahlia says:
    @FKA Max
    Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Has More Black Women Than Any Presidential Campaign in History

    Hillary Clinton’s downtown Brooklyn campaign headquarters sits in the rich pocket of Brooklyn — not Biggie or Spike’s Brooklyn. During the day, the neighborhood pulses with the click-clack of stilettos, men’s dress loafers, and new construction, and at night it hums to the soft anthem of Ubers shuttling their passengers home.
     
    - http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/meet-the-black-women-working-on-hillary-clintons-campaign.html

    REPORT: Hillary Clinton Wasted Millions in New Orleans, Chicago Trying to Win Popular Vote

    “a plan devised by [interim DNC head Donna Brazile] to drum up urban turnout” in the two cities, despite Illinois and Louisiana being solidly blue and red.
     
    - http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/report-hillary-clinton-wasted-millions-in-new-orleans-chicago-trying-to-win-popular-vote/

    Clinton HQ in Brooklyn: Who Needs Northern White Catholics?

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/clinton-hq-in-brooklyn-who-needs-northern-white-catholics/

    The Bubble - SNL

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKOb-kmOgpI

    It’s endless…

    How about spending $$$ to chase one electoral vote in Nebraska, but staying away from Wisconsin and Michigan?

    The Washington Post writer for that story spelled out exactly what was going on (and also explains their spending $$$ in New Orleans):
    Team Clinton thought they had it in the bag and were going for a HUMILIATION of Donald Trump.
    Will never admit to it in a million years since they, well, uh…

    Read More
  25. Dahlia says:
    @FKA Max
    Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Has More Black Women Than Any Presidential Campaign in History

    Hillary Clinton’s downtown Brooklyn campaign headquarters sits in the rich pocket of Brooklyn — not Biggie or Spike’s Brooklyn. During the day, the neighborhood pulses with the click-clack of stilettos, men’s dress loafers, and new construction, and at night it hums to the soft anthem of Ubers shuttling their passengers home.
     
    - http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/meet-the-black-women-working-on-hillary-clintons-campaign.html

    REPORT: Hillary Clinton Wasted Millions in New Orleans, Chicago Trying to Win Popular Vote

    “a plan devised by [interim DNC head Donna Brazile] to drum up urban turnout” in the two cities, despite Illinois and Louisiana being solidly blue and red.
     
    - http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/report-hillary-clinton-wasted-millions-in-new-orleans-chicago-trying-to-win-popular-vote/

    Clinton HQ in Brooklyn: Who Needs Northern White Catholics?

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/clinton-hq-in-brooklyn-who-needs-northern-white-catholics/

    The Bubble - SNL

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKOb-kmOgpI

    Yes, I do think a substantial cause for the intellectual collapse is the logical consequences of their ideology.

    Lawrence Auster always said “exceptions” would be made initially, but they would *always* give way eventually.

    Yeah, *lots* of affirmative action hires in lib media, politics, etc., but even the Jews, white gentiles aren’t what they used to be. Frankly, I assume the white guys are gay anymore unless shown otherwise which brings its own problems of being juvenile, myopic, and *~\fabulous/~*-obsessed.

    Read More
  26. utu says:
    @jtgw
    Great additions! It was sad when Razib left but Dr Thompson is a very worthy replacement.

    There seems to be very little discussion of Sniegoski, based on my internet search. In particular, I can't find anything critical of him. Is he really such a nobody that no one has bothered to respond to his controversial claims about the neocons or Pearl Harbor?

    I think Sniegoski is persona non grata. They pretend he does not exist. Probably because he does not shy away from Jewish topics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Well, compare him with, say, Holocaust revisionists. Those people are certainly pariahs, but still a lot of people have spent a lot of time refuting their claims and publishing those refutations. But I don't see any critiques of Sniegoski, not even a passing reference.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    Clues to Sniegoski's persona non grata status:

    Readers may be aware of Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), a lavishly funded Jewish extremist org that trolls media and intimidates those it deems antisemitic. CAMERA has a special section for monitoring C Span programming, especially the 3-hour call-in show, Washington Journal, of which CAMERA wrote:


    In recent years, the program has become a platform for anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic callers who are rarely, if ever, interrupted or challenged by the channel’s hosts. The themes of many such callers are the stereotypical charges of Jewish manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and the U.S. economy, and Israeli oppression of Arabs. The callers frequently promote anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic Web sites by name, encouraging listeners to visit. Among these are American sites as well as the Iran's PressTV site.
     
    CAMERA then identified "two individuals that call frequently . . . [who are] anti-Israel/anti-Semitic callers," then links to lists of each of those individuals' calls between 2008 and 2014. 73 calls are listed from the first named individual, one "James Morris."

    I didn't review each call, but I've monitored Washington Journal almost as zealously as CAMERA (without the lavish budget. sigh ); it's a safe bet that at least a third of those 73 calls mentioned Dr. Sniegoski's book, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel and that an equal number of calls mentioned "the JINSA crowd." Morris was one of Sniegoski's first and most loyal champions.

    On Israel Shamir's website (linked above) Sniegoski explores, with sardonic humor, the reception The Transparent Cabal has received:


    My book has finally gained recognition: it has been condemned as anti-Semitic (and conspiratorial) in a not-insignificant publication called The Public Eye. So I now join the ranks of Jimmy Carter, James Baker, and Pat Buchanan – well, at least as a very junior member. The Public Eye is the publication of Political Research Associates, which describes itself as “a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights” [Michele Goldberg wrote the review for PRA]. And certainly a book that connects American neoconservatives and Israel to America’s Middle East war policy would be regarded as a threat to “human rights,” at least in some quarters.
     
    Note that Paul Gottfried wrote the Preface to Transparent Cabal; the good guys -- Israel Shamir, Taki, and other pre-Alt-right conservatives have endorsed it, and the usual suspects have condemned it as "antisemitic." This is not to endorse Sniegoski because he is "the enemy of my enemy;" that's simplistic. I recommend Sniegoski as representative of the defining principle of the Unz forum: read it yourself, analyze and critique, Go forth and prosper.
  27. utu says:
    @beastie
    I believe that there has been such huge hysteria about Donald Trump's victory derives from the fact that the voting machines were rigged in such a way that he simply COULD NOT HAVE WON. In other words, their rigging did not go far enough.

    So they are now screaming bloody blue murder because they, after their certainty that they had metaphorically murdered Killary's opponent, find themselves on the losing side, and everything, literally everything they had staked on her victory, is now down the proverbial drain.

    I shall not be surprised at a coup d'etat, even under another rubric. But I think that the American people should be aware of the dangerous and cracking ice upon which they tread

    “the voting machines were rigged in such a way that he simply COULD NOT HAVE WON. In other words, their rigging did not go far enough.” – Exactly! Comey’s action on Oct. 28 was the signal to the media and DNC operatives that the election won’t be stolen, so they had 10 day to change the narrative and adjust coverage including the fake polls.

    Read More
  28. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Ron Unz

    Yet, I still can’t stop wondering why not Cochran. What’s up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice?
     
    Well, sort of. He's a smart guy, but unfortunately he believes he's far, far smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. This serious personal flaw leads him to make all sorts of grandiose claims regarding topics in which he knows absolutely nothing and therefore looks ridiculous.

    Back about ten years ago, I'd given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.

    Some time after that, he wrote a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson. This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn't "confuse" the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.

    Based upon this disagreeable history, the only circumstances in which I might allow him to join my webzine would be if he provided me an explicit personal apology for deleting my polite comments disputing his mistaken ev-bio analysis and then banning me from his blogsite. Given Cochran's aforementioned personality, the likelihood of this happening is nil.

    Maybe he could be part of the webzine’s drama/rumours section if you don’t want to put him in the science section. This is captivating stuff. keep it coming.

    Read More
  29. Old fogey says:

    Many thanks for all you do to help us understand the confusing world we live in. Bravo!

    Read More
  30. jtgw says:
    @utu
    I think Sniegoski is persona non grata. They pretend he does not exist. Probably because he does not shy away from Jewish topics.

    Well, compare him with, say, Holocaust revisionists. Those people are certainly pariahs, but still a lot of people have spent a lot of time refuting their claims and publishing those refutations. But I don’t see any critiques of Sniegoski, not even a passing reference.

    Read More
  31. @utu
    I think Sniegoski is persona non grata. They pretend he does not exist. Probably because he does not shy away from Jewish topics.

    Clues to Sniegoski’s persona non grata status:

    Readers may be aware of Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), a lavishly funded Jewish extremist org that trolls media and intimidates those it deems antisemitic. CAMERA has a special section for monitoring C Span programming, especially the 3-hour call-in show, Washington Journal, of which CAMERA wrote:

    In recent years, the program has become a platform for anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic callers who are rarely, if ever, interrupted or challenged by the channel’s hosts. The themes of many such callers are the stereotypical charges of Jewish manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and the U.S. economy, and Israeli oppression of Arabs. The callers frequently promote anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic Web sites by name, encouraging listeners to visit. Among these are American sites as well as the Iran’s PressTV site.

    CAMERA then identified “two individuals that call frequently . . . [who are] anti-Israel/anti-Semitic callers,” then links to lists of each of those individuals’ calls between 2008 and 2014. 73 calls are listed from the first named individual, one “James Morris.”

    I didn’t review each call, but I’ve monitored Washington Journal almost as zealously as CAMERA (without the lavish budget. sigh ); it’s a safe bet that at least a third of those 73 calls mentioned Dr. Sniegoski’s book, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel and that an equal number of calls mentioned “the JINSA crowd.” Morris was one of Sniegoski’s first and most loyal champions.

    On Israel Shamir’s website (linked above) Sniegoski explores, with sardonic humor, the reception The Transparent Cabal has received:

    My book has finally gained recognition: it has been condemned as anti-Semitic (and conspiratorial) in a not-insignificant publication called The Public Eye. So I now join the ranks of Jimmy Carter, James Baker, and Pat Buchanan – well, at least as a very junior member. The Public Eye is the publication of Political Research Associates, which describes itself as “a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights” [Michele Goldberg wrote the review for PRA]. And certainly a book that connects American neoconservatives and Israel to America’s Middle East war policy would be regarded as a threat to “human rights,” at least in some quarters.

    Note that Paul Gottfried wrote the Preface to Transparent Cabal; the good guys — Israel Shamir, Taki, and other pre-Alt-right conservatives have endorsed it, and the usual suspects have condemned it as “antisemitic.” This is not to endorse Sniegoski because he is “the enemy of my enemy;” that’s simplistic. I recommend Sniegoski as representative of the defining principle of the Unz forum: read it yourself, analyze and critique, Go forth and prosper.

    Read More
  32. @ThreeCranes
    Dr. Thompson is eminently more readable than Razib Kahn. Kahn talked the talk but was very poor at explaining the meaning of geneticist's specialized terminology in everyday language. Half of mastering any discipline is learning the vocabulary and for those of us who didn't study genetics in college, Kahn's essays were turgid. He reveled in using technical words that were not transparent to the outsider. The resulting confusion made him feel as though he were intellectually superior to his benighted readership and he was not shy about letting us know it. In reality, the superior mind can reduce complexity to relatively simple, readily understood concepts, but this requires that one set aside his ego.

    Its Khan (as in Genghis), bud. Not Kahn (as in Herman).
    And if you are truly interested in the terminology of genetics, read up on it, google it, whatever. Don’t expect any blogger, or blog post, to substitute for an actual education on a technical subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    And if one needs to consult a dictionary of technical terminology in order to understand the meaning of what an author who is writing for a general audience has to say, then that author has failed. Presumably his intention was to communicate and not put his erudition on display. Part of his job is to clear out the underbrush of jargon. All too often, Khan, Kahn whatever, simply restated facts without applying any judgement to them. It's as though he was showing off his retentive memory but lacked the capacity to compress facts into a coherent, concise judgement. He would have done as well to have just supplied a link to the article and left it at that. There was no distillation.

    "Next set off the half-breadth of the sheer line. The base line for the profile will be used as the center line now. On each station set off the half-breadth offset given in the tables. Measure on the profile at the stem the point where the rabbet of the stem intersects the sheer, using the forward perpendicular for the base line. Transfer this distance to the center line. From the offset table take the half-breadth of the sheer at stem and set it off perpendicular to the center line at the point just obtained. The is the fore end of the sheer line….Now lay off the half-breadths of the rabbet and keel bottom in the same manner. The end of the rabbet at the stern will be decided by the type of stern in the design; its fore-and-aft position is obtained in the same way as the fore end of the sheer. Mark the measuring staff for the lines faired in so far in the half-breadth plan." Howard Chapelle

    Did you get that? If I offer this as an explanation for how to loft the lines of a boat then I have communicated essentially nothing to the novice and that's not his fault, it's mine.
  33. @frayedthread
    Its Khan (as in Genghis), bud. Not Kahn (as in Herman).
    And if you are truly interested in the terminology of genetics, read up on it, google it, whatever. Don't expect any blogger, or blog post, to substitute for an actual education on a technical subject.

    And if one needs to consult a dictionary of technical terminology in order to understand the meaning of what an author who is writing for a general audience has to say, then that author has failed. Presumably his intention was to communicate and not put his erudition on display. Part of his job is to clear out the underbrush of jargon. All too often, Khan, Kahn whatever, simply restated facts without applying any judgement to them. It’s as though he was showing off his retentive memory but lacked the capacity to compress facts into a coherent, concise judgement. He would have done as well to have just supplied a link to the article and left it at that. There was no distillation.

    “Next set off the half-breadth of the sheer line. The base line for the profile will be used as the center line now. On each station set off the half-breadth offset given in the tables. Measure on the profile at the stem the point where the rabbet of the stem intersects the sheer, using the forward perpendicular for the base line. Transfer this distance to the center line. From the offset table take the half-breadth of the sheer at stem and set it off perpendicular to the center line at the point just obtained. The is the fore end of the sheer line….Now lay off the half-breadths of the rabbet and keel bottom in the same manner. The end of the rabbet at the stern will be decided by the type of stern in the design; its fore-and-aft position is obtained in the same way as the fore end of the sheer. Mark the measuring staff for the lines faired in so far in the half-breadth plan.” Howard Chapelle

    Did you get that? If I offer this as an explanation for how to loft the lines of a boat then I have communicated essentially nothing to the novice and that’s not his fault, it’s mine.

    Read More
  34. Mr. Sniegoski could have probably avoided the opprobrium of certain groups if he would have written a revisionist analysis of Pearl Harbour only this time have the Germans being the perpetrators.

    What is a lame joke on my part now was a hilarious line from the noted intellectual Bluto Blutarsky 1978. The audiences roared. Today I sincerely feel that if such a history was written in a serious manner in a ‘fake news’ venue like perhaps the New York Times, many younger types would read it as fact (if read it at all).

    Don’t forget that not very long ago Harvard and Yale alumnus (!) George Simian Bush proclaimed to Japanese Prime Minister the beauty of their respective nations having lived in peace for 150 years.

    It depresses me to no end that stupidity and anti-intellectualism thrives in a world where physical access to the equivalent of all the knowledge of a major research library is a few keystrokes away if one were to summon the energy to do as little as reach into one’s own pocket.

    I very much appreciate Unz.com, both content and commentary but fear that the day may come where it may be shuttered due to pretexts of some ‘sensibilities’ being offended or because of some security canard.
    Cheers-

    Read More
  35. My dream is that Ron Unz and a couple other wealthy people who love America and ethical professional journalism, will buy the NY Times from Slim (if he’ll sell).

    Or the LA Times or Washington Post.

    It would be a strange and wonderful experience to read articles under those mastheads and see an effort to be balanced and objective in the news section (and not completely one-sided and wacko in the editorials either).

    Read More
  36. Olorin says:

    huge stories on the benefits of jogging with donkeys and ideas for handling the health problems of an overactive bladder.

    That was in the section covering the Clinton campaign. Not the science section.

    Read More
  37. Olorin says:
    @polistra
    I hope you can push the authors for a bit more brevity. The Pearl Harbor article seemed worthy, but after two or three 'pages' I gave up. It was too much like an academic textbook.

    Or have a skilled master distiller create a shorter piece that points to the longer one. Something longer than a precis, and bearing in mind that hyperlinking can encourage readers to dig deeper into different parts of the story in the time they have available.

    This also increases the possibility of them returning later for more of the story (“optimizing for return visits” in webspeak).

    Read More
  38. Whoever says:
    @jtgw
    Great additions! It was sad when Razib left but Dr Thompson is a very worthy replacement.

    There seems to be very little discussion of Sniegoski, based on my internet search. In particular, I can't find anything critical of him. Is he really such a nobody that no one has bothered to respond to his controversial claims about the neocons or Pearl Harbor?

    Well, regarding his Pearl Harbor article, it was okay but didn’t really say anything new. The Pacific War and its origins are a special interest of mine and I know it pretty well. What struck me was that Sniegoski did not use even one Japanese source. The Japanese appear only as a “McGuffin” to move the story along.
    But, as could be imagined, the Japanese have written reams about this subject, and quite a few of their books and articles have been translated into English. Iguchi Takeo and Asada Sadao spring immediately to mind. Fuchida Mitsuo’s memoirs are available in English. Hasegawa Tsuyoshi, while better known for his writings on the ending of the war and his clashing views with those of Gar Alperovitz, I think has written about this subject. There are many others.
    That Sniegoski didn’t bother to consult any Japanese sources at all strikes me as odd and leads me not to take him that seriously. Maybe others feel the same way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    strikes me as odd

    There's nothing odd about presenting only the facts that support your point of view, rather common, if not predominate.
  39. Excellent. Science is real news that matters.

    The Unz Review is increasingly becoming a significant source of the real news. A fine example is the currently featured story on Aleppo, including some items in the comments.

    Sadly, relics like The New York Times have become the fake news. Let’s hope someday they are no longer mainstream.

    We may be living at the moment when the best independent webzines will replace established media powers as shapers of public perception. Certainly many of us are ready for it.

    Thank you, Mr. Unz, for this gift.

    Read More
  40. JackOH says:

    Ron, your heart’s in the right place for this blog’s editorship, that’s for sure. I’ve sometimes said to myself, “Well, I get the picture here”, while thinking about cutting back on my UR reading. But, there’s always something fresh in the articles and comments that keeps me an almost daily reader.

    This HBD idea. I have no expertise, nor do I believe there are yet any political legs to HBD. Am I understanding correctly (or half-correctly) that HBD means there’s sufficient evidence from modern genetic research such that we ought to be thinking about classifying humans into distinct, scientifically useful sub-species? Also, that we ought to be thinking about a new politics that’s informed by that “sub-speciation”?

    Am I anywhere close? If I’m not, I hope someone corrects me.

    Read More
  41. iffen says:
    @Whoever
    Well, regarding his Pearl Harbor article, it was okay but didn't really say anything new. The Pacific War and its origins are a special interest of mine and I know it pretty well. What struck me was that Sniegoski did not use even one Japanese source. The Japanese appear only as a "McGuffin" to move the story along.
    But, as could be imagined, the Japanese have written reams about this subject, and quite a few of their books and articles have been translated into English. Iguchi Takeo and Asada Sadao spring immediately to mind. Fuchida Mitsuo's memoirs are available in English. Hasegawa Tsuyoshi, while better known for his writings on the ending of the war and his clashing views with those of Gar Alperovitz, I think has written about this subject. There are many others.
    That Sniegoski didn't bother to consult any Japanese sources at all strikes me as odd and leads me not to take him that seriously. Maybe others feel the same way.

    strikes me as odd

    There’s nothing odd about presenting only the facts that support your point of view, rather common, if not predominate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whoever
    I did not mean to imply that Sniegoski did not reference Japanese sources because they contradict his narrative. I merely wanted to point out that some might not take seriously a writer who doesn't consult an obvious source of information on his subject.
  42. Mr. Unz,
    Science expansion is very welcome. Your stable of writers provides this reader with much information and objective views about current topics. Depth and breadth of writing leads to deep dives and to a tour d’horizon as well.

    Read More
  43. Svigor says:

    Great additions! It was sad when Razib left but Dr Thompson is a very worthy replacement.

    Razib’s left? Good. Never saw a point to having him here. This site’s all about the commentary, but Razib censors critical comments (his excuse is often “relevance,” when he lets comments like “Ur a gawd Razib” through). He truly has an alien psychology (south Asian), thinks critique is assault (said so when he deleted one of my comments).

    Read More
  44. Svigor says:

    He also has a strong tendency to pad his prose, and make his arguments much more abstruse than they need be. Einstein supposedly said, “if you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” I don’t know who said it, but it’s true. I didn’t read him much, but when I did, I often found myself wondering if his composition problems were worsened by ESL issues.

    Read More
  45. Svigor says:

    That Sniegoski didn’t bother to consult any Japanese sources at all strikes me as odd and leads me not to take him that seriously. Maybe others feel the same way.

    There’s nothing odd about presenting only the facts that support your point of view, rather common, if not predominate.

    Are there no Japanese sources that support his point of view, or is that a misdirect?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In the vast literature on WWII/Germany/holocaust, how many sources are from German authors, arguing from a German pov?
  46. Svigor says:

    This HBD idea. I have no expertise, nor do I believe there are yet any political legs to HBD. Am I understanding correctly (or half-correctly) that HBD means there’s sufficient evidence from modern genetic research such that we ought to be thinking about classifying humans into distinct, scientifically useful sub-species? Also, that we ought to be thinking about a new politics that’s informed by that “sub-speciation”?

    Am I anywhere close? If I’m not, I hope someone corrects me.

    More like “human population groups have different biological constitutions, a fact which often manifests itself in important ways.” Put another way, “no, human groups aren’t all equal in the ways that matter.” Getting hung up on “classifying humans,” into “distinct” categories is in the weeds.

    As for speciation, food for thought: sometimes behavior is an overriding factor in classification. I.e., an objective classification would put a group that builds Moon rockets and nukes into a different species than one that builds mud huts. A visiting extraterrestrial would almost certainly find the difference categorical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Thanks. Seems to me the HBDers have taken on a huge burden of argument, without the prospect of any popular success anytime soon. Someone--maybe on these pages--has to tackle head-on the "Hitler question" embedded in HBD. I'll suggest an essay title: "Why HBD Won't Lead to Auschwitz", maybe with a follow-up essay, something like: "Why HBD Will Make America Better". The idea is to give HBD proponents breathing room.

    As I said, I'm just a non-expert reader of the HBD articles, so I may be missing a lot. But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters.

  47. Svigor says:

    Dr. Thompson is eminently more readable than Razib Kahn. Kahn talked the talk but was very poor at explaining the meaning of geneticist’s specialized terminology in everyday language.

    Razib’s poor at explaining lots of things, not just genetics. His historical and archeological references were routinely impenetrable. And his prose was Rube Goldbergian.

    Its Khan (as in Genghis), bud.

    Strangely, he inspired no shortage of suckups.

    This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn’t “confuse” the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.

    Maybe Razib and Cochran can start a site together.

    That’s why I found his very rancorish public statements towards you very unprofessional and ungrateful. Shall we say that Cochran is endowed with a very churlish personality.

    Ben Franklin probably would have predicted Cochran’s behavior.

    In reality, the superior mind can reduce complexity to relatively simple, readily understood concepts, but this requires that one set aside his ego.

    I dunno, I’m egotistical as Hell, and I often leave people marveling at how interesting and understandable I can make topics that bored them stiff in school (I’m talking about normal IQ folks, here, or their kids, so it’s not like I’m explaining really complicated stuff). Dave Ramsey calls it “the heart of a teacher”; you get a kick out of enlightenment. Razib’s an arrogant South Asian (but, I repeat myself) type, they’re not into giving, they’re into getting. Hence, South Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OLD JEW
    Dear Svigor,

    I follow Razib's posts for the last five years. His posts (and Dienekes') convinced me to join 23andme relatively early in 2012. I am reading almost daily his tweets (+ his replies).

    You write:

    "Razib’s an arrogant South Asian (but, I repeat myself) type, they’re not into giving, they’re into getting. Hence, South Asia."

    My take: True his parents are Bengali muslims, but he is totally a product of the public library and the American Public schools. ( came to the US at age 5)

    He is an atheist who reads Hume not the Quran.

    His blog was at the Discovery magazine. I do not know why it ended there. He made a good name for himself, that NYT wanted him as new blood for their Science section. Somebody outed him for publishing once at Taki magazine.

    I guess it is NYT's loss not Razib`s. When one is a new young blogger one is glad that somebody will publish you, and not try to be politically correct (avoid Taki).

    I never understood why he joined unz.com in the first place.

    My understanding of "unz.com" is that it is a version of "The Occidental Observer" but for better educated people and focused less on "Damn those Jews".

    I have seen your comments for quite a while and they are smack in the middle of the iSteve commentariat (intelligent "white" political opinions).

    The comments on Razib's blog were always of a different nature. contribution by people who have read different scientific articles on the topic and illuminating new aspects on the topic "du jour". I only comment if I have some new info to add (and this is extremely rare).

    I am happy that there exist somebody who synthesizes the articles in the scientific pre-prints and publications (that are often behind a paywall).

    So dear Svigor, you are too harsh on Razib. He is not a "Steve Sailer" but more like Stephen Hsu at "Information Processing".

    Best,

    sf
  48. @william munny
    Grab up hbdchick, and pay her, but convince her to use an actual name....

    Is hbd chick still writing? Her site seems to have had nothing new for months.

    Read More
  49. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Svigor

    That Sniegoski didn’t bother to consult any Japanese sources at all strikes me as odd and leads me not to take him that seriously. Maybe others feel the same way.
     

    There’s nothing odd about presenting only the facts that support your point of view, rather common, if not predominate.
     
    Are there no Japanese sources that support his point of view, or is that a misdirect?

    In the vast literature on WWII/Germany/holocaust, how many sources are from German authors, arguing from a German pov?

    Read More
  50. OLD JEW says:
    @Svigor

    Dr. Thompson is eminently more readable than Razib Kahn. Kahn talked the talk but was very poor at explaining the meaning of geneticist’s specialized terminology in everyday language.
     
    Razib's poor at explaining lots of things, not just genetics. His historical and archeological references were routinely impenetrable. And his prose was Rube Goldbergian.

    Its Khan (as in Genghis), bud.
     
    Strangely, he inspired no shortage of suckups.

    This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn’t “confuse” the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.
     
    Maybe Razib and Cochran can start a site together.

    That’s why I found his very rancorish public statements towards you very unprofessional and ungrateful. Shall we say that Cochran is endowed with a very churlish personality.
     
    Ben Franklin probably would have predicted Cochran's behavior.

    In reality, the superior mind can reduce complexity to relatively simple, readily understood concepts, but this requires that one set aside his ego.
     
    I dunno, I'm egotistical as Hell, and I often leave people marveling at how interesting and understandable I can make topics that bored them stiff in school (I'm talking about normal IQ folks, here, or their kids, so it's not like I'm explaining really complicated stuff). Dave Ramsey calls it "the heart of a teacher"; you get a kick out of enlightenment. Razib's an arrogant South Asian (but, I repeat myself) type, they're not into giving, they're into getting. Hence, South Asia.

    Dear Svigor,

    I follow Razib’s posts for the last five years. His posts (and Dienekes’) convinced me to join 23andme relatively early in 2012. I am reading almost daily his tweets (+ his replies).

    You write:

    “Razib’s an arrogant South Asian (but, I repeat myself) type, they’re not into giving, they’re into getting. Hence, South Asia.”

    My take: True his parents are Bengali muslims, but he is totally a product of the public library and the American Public schools. ( came to the US at age 5)

    He is an atheist who reads Hume not the Quran.

    His blog was at the Discovery magazine. I do not know why it ended there. He made a good name for himself, that NYT wanted him as new blood for their Science section. Somebody outed him for publishing once at Taki magazine.

    I guess it is NYT’s loss not Razib`s. When one is a new young blogger one is glad that somebody will publish you, and not try to be politically correct (avoid Taki).

    I never understood why he joined unz.com in the first place.

    My understanding of “unz.com” is that it is a version of “The Occidental Observer” but for better educated people and focused less on “Damn those Jews”.

    I have seen your comments for quite a while and they are smack in the middle of the iSteve commentariat (intelligent “white” political opinions).

    The comments on Razib’s blog were always of a different nature. contribution by people who have read different scientific articles on the topic and illuminating new aspects on the topic “du jour”. I only comment if I have some new info to add (and this is extremely rare).

    I am happy that there exist somebody who synthesizes the articles in the scientific pre-prints and publications (that are often behind a paywall).

    So dear Svigor, you are too harsh on Razib. He is not a “Steve Sailer” but more like Stephen Hsu at “Information Processing”.

    Best,

    sf

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    and focused less on “Damn those Jews”.

    Damn, I'd hate to see what it would look like if it did focus on dem Jews more than it does.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Svigor is correct. Razib has that stereotypical brittle Middle Eastern/Southern Asian man personality. They can't handle opposition or rejection. Witness the high rate of rape and murder of white chicks in Germany and Scandinavia in response to the white European woman's having the temerity to assert her right to establishing boundaries.

    It makes one question whether immigration of these persons doesn't, won't and can't work. If anything, your description of his upbringing reaffirms that these people seem incapable of adopting our Western style independence, autonomy, impartial justice and especially, respect for another's person.

    , @5371
    Razib Khan is not remotely like Steve Hsu. The latter knows his own shop, physics, and takes an intelligent interest in a wide variety of unrelated things. Most unfortunately, he is also a technomane and has become an ever less critical and discerning one as time has passed. That, along with his disastrous career move to university administration, has had a bad influence on the interest and value of his blog. Khan, by contrast, knows very little about his own subject, nothing about any other, and cares less, so long as he can pose and prate volubly about banal rubbish. Even his best falls well short of Hsu's worst.
  51. ogunsiron says:
    @Dahlia
    "The obvious cause was their incestuous ideological group-think and their tendency to purge all politically-incorrect naysayers. These days, every hour spent reading the New York Times and its peers surely renders an individual more and more ignorant of the world, whether with regard to foreign policy, domestic politics, history, or science, and thereby inculcating a completely delusional misunderstanding of Reality."

    During the election, and especially in the aftermath when it became obvious they truly were surprised, I constantly thought of your Meritocracy article and Jewish collapse. Not that all the writers were Jewish and it wasn't particular to them at all, but to liberals in general, but the realities of Jewish collapse and liberal elite collapse seemed to me to correspond with each other all too well.

    I found them so crushingly dumb and obtuse at times, that I made the mistake of attributing to malice, gaslighting in particular, what should have been attributed to stupidity. I thought they understood polls well, but found out later that the majority confessed to relying on aggregators. And the Clinton campaign's stupidity: Trump's team had the good quants whereas Team Clinton screwed up a Venn diagram. That Venn diagram was an omen!

    Also, had recently had a discussion with a friend about the decline in science writing and just lack of interest in it by writers. Again, I see all of this -Team Clinton lacking in brain power, ditto liberals journalists and their poor political reporting and lack of scientific interests- as a piece of Collapse.
    I'm not sure how it all works or why exactly, but, oh yes, when I learned how ignorant they were about the polls, I just wondered, "What do Ron and Steve think of this?"

    I found them so crushingly dumb and obtuse at times, that I made the mistake of attributing to malice, gaslighting in particular, what should have been attributed to stupidity

    They’re also largely unchallenged. No one speaks back to them.

    In alt-right circles they’ve been making fun of that rabbi at the Richard Spencer talk at Texas A&M, who had the audacity to claim, in public, that the torah was all about “radical inclusion”(!!!). Richard Spencer easily ridiculed that notion and it turns out that rabbi wasn’t prepared for even the slightest pushback againt his ridiculous claim.

    Read More
  52. iffen says:
    @OLD JEW
    Dear Svigor,

    I follow Razib's posts for the last five years. His posts (and Dienekes') convinced me to join 23andme relatively early in 2012. I am reading almost daily his tweets (+ his replies).

    You write:

    "Razib’s an arrogant South Asian (but, I repeat myself) type, they’re not into giving, they’re into getting. Hence, South Asia."

    My take: True his parents are Bengali muslims, but he is totally a product of the public library and the American Public schools. ( came to the US at age 5)

    He is an atheist who reads Hume not the Quran.

    His blog was at the Discovery magazine. I do not know why it ended there. He made a good name for himself, that NYT wanted him as new blood for their Science section. Somebody outed him for publishing once at Taki magazine.

    I guess it is NYT's loss not Razib`s. When one is a new young blogger one is glad that somebody will publish you, and not try to be politically correct (avoid Taki).

    I never understood why he joined unz.com in the first place.

    My understanding of "unz.com" is that it is a version of "The Occidental Observer" but for better educated people and focused less on "Damn those Jews".

    I have seen your comments for quite a while and they are smack in the middle of the iSteve commentariat (intelligent "white" political opinions).

    The comments on Razib's blog were always of a different nature. contribution by people who have read different scientific articles on the topic and illuminating new aspects on the topic "du jour". I only comment if I have some new info to add (and this is extremely rare).

    I am happy that there exist somebody who synthesizes the articles in the scientific pre-prints and publications (that are often behind a paywall).

    So dear Svigor, you are too harsh on Razib. He is not a "Steve Sailer" but more like Stephen Hsu at "Information Processing".

    Best,

    sf

    and focused less on “Damn those Jews”.

    Damn, I’d hate to see what it would look like if it did focus on dem Jews more than it does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OLD JEW
    Dear iffen,

    We are fortunate to be part of iSteve's public.

    Please, read a few of the comments to Dr. MacDonald posts in The Occidental Observer, and imagine yourself stuck in that crowd.

    Cheers,
    sf
  53. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @polistra
    I hope you can push the authors for a bit more brevity. The Pearl Harbor article seemed worthy, but after two or three 'pages' I gave up. It was too much like an academic textbook.

    Fantastic, especially the Sniegorski’s piece.

    I admit I’ve read it in 3 sessions, but we, libertardians are used to academic-standard pieces, written for the intelligent layman.

    Perhaps, editing of such future material into 2 or even 3 parts would reduce the readership attrition.

    Read More
  54. @OLD JEW
    Dear Svigor,

    I follow Razib's posts for the last five years. His posts (and Dienekes') convinced me to join 23andme relatively early in 2012. I am reading almost daily his tweets (+ his replies).

    You write:

    "Razib’s an arrogant South Asian (but, I repeat myself) type, they’re not into giving, they’re into getting. Hence, South Asia."

    My take: True his parents are Bengali muslims, but he is totally a product of the public library and the American Public schools. ( came to the US at age 5)

    He is an atheist who reads Hume not the Quran.

    His blog was at the Discovery magazine. I do not know why it ended there. He made a good name for himself, that NYT wanted him as new blood for their Science section. Somebody outed him for publishing once at Taki magazine.

    I guess it is NYT's loss not Razib`s. When one is a new young blogger one is glad that somebody will publish you, and not try to be politically correct (avoid Taki).

    I never understood why he joined unz.com in the first place.

    My understanding of "unz.com" is that it is a version of "The Occidental Observer" but for better educated people and focused less on "Damn those Jews".

    I have seen your comments for quite a while and they are smack in the middle of the iSteve commentariat (intelligent "white" political opinions).

    The comments on Razib's blog were always of a different nature. contribution by people who have read different scientific articles on the topic and illuminating new aspects on the topic "du jour". I only comment if I have some new info to add (and this is extremely rare).

    I am happy that there exist somebody who synthesizes the articles in the scientific pre-prints and publications (that are often behind a paywall).

    So dear Svigor, you are too harsh on Razib. He is not a "Steve Sailer" but more like Stephen Hsu at "Information Processing".

    Best,

    sf

    Svigor is correct. Razib has that stereotypical brittle Middle Eastern/Southern Asian man personality. They can’t handle opposition or rejection. Witness the high rate of rape and murder of white chicks in Germany and Scandinavia in response to the white European woman’s having the temerity to assert her right to establishing boundaries.

    It makes one question whether immigration of these persons doesn’t, won’t and can’t work. If anything, your description of his upbringing reaffirms that these people seem incapable of adopting our Western style independence, autonomy, impartial justice and especially, respect for another’s person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    At least two of your cranes seem to be sky-hooks.
  55. iffen says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Svigor is correct. Razib has that stereotypical brittle Middle Eastern/Southern Asian man personality. They can't handle opposition or rejection. Witness the high rate of rape and murder of white chicks in Germany and Scandinavia in response to the white European woman's having the temerity to assert her right to establishing boundaries.

    It makes one question whether immigration of these persons doesn't, won't and can't work. If anything, your description of his upbringing reaffirms that these people seem incapable of adopting our Western style independence, autonomy, impartial justice and especially, respect for another's person.

    At least two of your cranes seem to be sky-hooks.

    Read More
  56. iffen says:

    On the row of tabs with agree/disagree/troll there is room for more tabs. If enough commenters agree, could we get a tab that says dickhead?

    Read More
  57. Miro23 says:
    @polistra
    I hope you can push the authors for a bit more brevity. The Pearl Harbor article seemed worthy, but after two or three 'pages' I gave up. It was too much like an academic textbook.

    But after two or three ‘pages’ I gave up. It was too much like an academic textbook.

    “Too much like an academic text book”.

    Dumbing Down is the US national requirement in information transfer, which is another way of saying Laziness, which is another reason why the US is heading towards the Turkey and Greece averages in the international PISA tests (Science, Math and English) which are in fact the best predictors of a country’s future international comparative economic performance.

    Read More
  58. OLD JEW says:
    @iffen
    and focused less on “Damn those Jews”.

    Damn, I'd hate to see what it would look like if it did focus on dem Jews more than it does.

    Dear iffen,

    We are fortunate to be part of iSteve’s public.

    Please, read a few of the comments to Dr. MacDonald posts in The Occidental Observer, and imagine yourself stuck in that crowd.

    Cheers,
    sf

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I've read a few, I can't hack it. At least they don't pretend like many of them here.

    I manage to read an article now and then.

  59. iffen says:
    @OLD JEW
    Dear iffen,

    We are fortunate to be part of iSteve's public.

    Please, read a few of the comments to Dr. MacDonald posts in The Occidental Observer, and imagine yourself stuck in that crowd.

    Cheers,
    sf

    I’ve read a few, I can’t hack it. At least they don’t pretend like many of them here.

    I manage to read an article now and then.

    Read More
  60. Whoever says:
    @iffen
    strikes me as odd

    There's nothing odd about presenting only the facts that support your point of view, rather common, if not predominate.

    I did not mean to imply that Sniegoski did not reference Japanese sources because they contradict his narrative. I merely wanted to point out that some might not take seriously a writer who doesn’t consult an obvious source of information on his subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I did not mean to imply that Sniegoski did not reference Japanese sources because they contradict his narrative.

    I did.
    , @Whoever
    To clarify my point, in R.J.C. Butow's monograph, How Roosevelt Attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor, he does footnote a Japanese source:

    29. The intercept of Tel. No. 1191 is dated November 26; the Japanese original indicates that this message was dispatched on November 27. See Gaimushō (hensan), Gaikō Shiryō: Nichi-Bei Kōshō Kiroku no Bu, Shōwa Jūroku Nen Nigatsu yori Jūnigatsu made (1946), Shiryō 5, pp. 487–489. In regard to the statement attributed to Hull, Nomura's telegram reads as follows: "teppei wa yōsuru-ni kōshō ni yoru shidai ni sh'te kanarazu-shimo sokuji jitsugen wo shuchō shioru shidai ni arazu" (p. 488).

    My comment was meant only to point out that Sniegoski hadn't cited any Japanese sources, and that some might consider that to be less than thorough, nothing more.

  61. I’d given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work.

    And what am I, chopped liver??!

    Granted, I’m essentially an anonymous nobody hiding behind a meaningless internet nickname, but still.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    > And what am I, chopped liver??!

    but did you, on your deathbed, brag about being a virgin?

    Or the acceptable physics alternative: write books bragging about picking desk locks and picking up chicks in dive bars.
  62. iffen says:
    @Whoever
    I did not mean to imply that Sniegoski did not reference Japanese sources because they contradict his narrative. I merely wanted to point out that some might not take seriously a writer who doesn't consult an obvious source of information on his subject.

    I did not mean to imply that Sniegoski did not reference Japanese sources because they contradict his narrative.

    I did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whoever

    I did not mean to imply that Sniegoski did not reference Japanese sources because they contradict his narrative.

    I did.
     
    If you actually have a sincere interest in this subject, may I recommend Pearl Harbor Reexamined: Prologue to the Pacific War; in particular Chapter 13, "Repulsing The Pearl Harbor Revisionists: The State Of Present Literature On The Debacle," by Alvin Coox. Coox, doctorate in history from Harvard, winner of the Samuel Eliot Morison Award for Naval Literature, was fluent in Japanese and a brilliant scholar of the rise of Japanese militarism.
  63. JackOH says:
    @Ron Unz

    Yet, I still can’t stop wondering why not Cochran. What’s up with it? Did he call you a fool once or twice?
     
    Well, sort of. He's a smart guy, but unfortunately he believes he's far, far smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. This serious personal flaw leads him to make all sorts of grandiose claims regarding topics in which he knows absolutely nothing and therefore looks ridiculous.

    Back about ten years ago, I'd given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work. Unfortunately (as far as I can tell) that grant caused him to become very arrogant and lazy, and he did no subsequent work of any significance during that five year period. Therefore, I decided not to renew his very large grant for an additional five years causing him to become outraged.

    Some time after that, he wrote a blogpost grossly insulting the intelligence of my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson. This led me to point out some of the obvious flaws in his reasoning in a series of very polite comments on his blogsite. Since my analysis was clearly correct and his analysis was wrong, he immediately deleted my comments and also banned me from his blogsite so that my arguments wouldn't "confuse" the flock of silly fanboys who foolishly worship his self-proclaimed brilliance.

    Based upon this disagreeable history, the only circumstances in which I might allow him to join my webzine would be if he provided me an explicit personal apology for deleting my polite comments disputing his mistaken ev-bio analysis and then banning me from his blogsite. Given Cochran's aforementioned personality, the likelihood of this happening is nil.

    Ron, too bad about the Cochran thing. I’ve been told that tenure and successful grantsmanship can turn some academics into arrogant monsters.

    FWIW-One intellectual told me: “I spent fifteen years on a manuscript. It took me ten years to figure out what I was talking about. By that time I knew my work would bar me from advancement, financial support, and probably damage my reputation to boot. No regrets. The job of the intellectual is to go where his observations and reason lead him.”

    Read More
  64. Whoever says:
    @iffen
    I did not mean to imply that Sniegoski did not reference Japanese sources because they contradict his narrative.

    I did.

    I did not mean to imply that Sniegoski did not reference Japanese sources because they contradict his narrative.

    I did.

    If you actually have a sincere interest in this subject, may I recommend Pearl Harbor Reexamined: Prologue to the Pacific War; in particular Chapter 13, “Repulsing The Pearl Harbor Revisionists: The State Of Present Literature On The Debacle,” by Alvin Coox. Coox, doctorate in history from Harvard, winner of the Samuel Eliot Morison Award for Naval Literature, was fluent in Japanese and a brilliant scholar of the rise of Japanese militarism.

    Read More
  65. Karl says:
    @Kyle McKenna

    I’d given him a very large unrestricted five-year financial grant based upon his outstanding previous work.
     
    And what am I, chopped liver??!

    Granted, I'm essentially an anonymous nobody hiding behind a meaningless internet nickname, but still.

    > And what am I, chopped liver??!

    but did you, on your deathbed, brag about being a virgin?

    Or the acceptable physics alternative: write books bragging about picking desk locks and picking up chicks in dive bars.

    Read More
  66. Whoever says:
    @Whoever
    I did not mean to imply that Sniegoski did not reference Japanese sources because they contradict his narrative. I merely wanted to point out that some might not take seriously a writer who doesn't consult an obvious source of information on his subject.

    To clarify my point, in R.J.C. Butow’s monograph, How Roosevelt Attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor, he does footnote a Japanese source:

    29. The intercept of Tel. No. 1191 is dated November 26; the Japanese original indicates that this message was dispatched on November 27. See Gaimushō (hensan), Gaikō Shiryō: Nichi-Bei Kōshō Kiroku no Bu, Shōwa Jūroku Nen Nigatsu yori Jūnigatsu made (1946), Shiryō 5, pp. 487–489. In regard to the statement attributed to Hull, Nomura’s telegram reads as follows: “teppei wa yōsuru-ni kōshō ni yoru shidai ni sh’te kanarazu-shimo sokuji jitsugen wo shuchō shioru shidai ni arazu” (p. 488).

    My comment was meant only to point out that Sniegoski hadn’t cited any Japanese sources, and that some might consider that to be less than thorough, nothing more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks for the recommendations on reading material. I see that the Butow article is available online so I can read that later today. I had hoped to extricate myself from this rabbit hole of Holocaust denial and WWII revision with as little pain to myself as possible. It appears that I will have to put my preferred reading in history aside and read myself out.

    My rejection of Sniegoski was intuitive and not based on any informed opinion of sources. I do not have a constitutional adversity to using facts to support my opinions so it will be worthwhile to find out exactly how dem Jews manipulated The Empire for their nefarious purposes.
  67. JackOH says:
    @Svigor

    This HBD idea. I have no expertise, nor do I believe there are yet any political legs to HBD. Am I understanding correctly (or half-correctly) that HBD means there’s sufficient evidence from modern genetic research such that we ought to be thinking about classifying humans into distinct, scientifically useful sub-species? Also, that we ought to be thinking about a new politics that’s informed by that “sub-speciation”?

    Am I anywhere close? If I’m not, I hope someone corrects me.
     

    More like "human population groups have different biological constitutions, a fact which often manifests itself in important ways." Put another way, "no, human groups aren't all equal in the ways that matter." Getting hung up on "classifying humans," into "distinct" categories is in the weeds.

    As for speciation, food for thought: sometimes behavior is an overriding factor in classification. I.e., an objective classification would put a group that builds Moon rockets and nukes into a different species than one that builds mud huts. A visiting extraterrestrial would almost certainly find the difference categorical.

    Thanks. Seems to me the HBDers have taken on a huge burden of argument, without the prospect of any popular success anytime soon. Someone–maybe on these pages–has to tackle head-on the “Hitler question” embedded in HBD. I’ll suggest an essay title: “Why HBD Won’t Lead to Auschwitz”, maybe with a follow-up essay, something like: “Why HBD Will Make America Better”. The idea is to give HBD proponents breathing room.

    As I said, I’m just a non-expert reader of the HBD articles, so I may be missing a lot. But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters
     
    It's a very hard sell. Maybe it won't always be but at the moment it's a very hard sell indeed.

    And it's a distraction. There are plenty of more promising soft targets. You don't need HBD to oppose mass immigration - the economic, social and cultural arguments against immigration are overwhelming. And I guess the environmental arguments if you buy the global warming nonsense. I don't but it's still a useful weapon to use against the immigration boosters.

    Free trade is another much more attractive soft target. The excesses of feminism and the LGBT madness are others.

    And there's the sheer greed and power-hunger that drives the globalists.

    Using the HBD argument is unnecessary and counter-productive. As to whether the HBD stuff is true or not, I have no idea. I suspect it is, to a certain degree at least. But it's a losing strategy. White nationalism is a losing strategy as well IMHO - good old-fashioned common-and-garden variety nationalism is enough.
  68. iffen says:
    @Whoever
    To clarify my point, in R.J.C. Butow's monograph, How Roosevelt Attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor, he does footnote a Japanese source:

    29. The intercept of Tel. No. 1191 is dated November 26; the Japanese original indicates that this message was dispatched on November 27. See Gaimushō (hensan), Gaikō Shiryō: Nichi-Bei Kōshō Kiroku no Bu, Shōwa Jūroku Nen Nigatsu yori Jūnigatsu made (1946), Shiryō 5, pp. 487–489. In regard to the statement attributed to Hull, Nomura's telegram reads as follows: "teppei wa yōsuru-ni kōshō ni yoru shidai ni sh'te kanarazu-shimo sokuji jitsugen wo shuchō shioru shidai ni arazu" (p. 488).

    My comment was meant only to point out that Sniegoski hadn't cited any Japanese sources, and that some might consider that to be less than thorough, nothing more.

    Thanks for the recommendations on reading material. I see that the Butow article is available online so I can read that later today. I had hoped to extricate myself from this rabbit hole of Holocaust denial and WWII revision with as little pain to myself as possible. It appears that I will have to put my preferred reading in history aside and read myself out.

    My rejection of Sniegoski was intuitive and not based on any informed opinion of sources. I do not have a constitutional adversity to using facts to support my opinions so it will be worthwhile to find out exactly how dem Jews manipulated The Empire for their nefarious purposes.

    Read More
  69. Svigor says:

    Thanks. Seems to me the HBDers have taken on a huge burden of argument, without the prospect of any popular success anytime soon. Someone–maybe on these pages–has to tackle head-on the “Hitler question” embedded in HBD. I’ll suggest an essay title: “Why HBD Won’t Lead to Auschwitz”, maybe with a follow-up essay, something like: “Why HBD Will Make America Better”. The idea is to give HBD proponents breathing room.

    As I said, I’m just a non-expert reader of the HBD articles, so I may be missing a lot. But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters.

    The null hypothesis doesn’t seem like a huge burden to me. The burden seems to be on the equalitarians, and they have no arguments of merit. Precious few arguments at all, really.

    There’s no more a “Hitler question” embedded in HBD, than there is an “Stalin question” buried in equalitarianism, blank-slate-ism, anti-racism, etc.

    P.S., if you’re looking for HBD’s moral imperative, it’s not found in defeating the phony “Hitler Question.” It’s found in defending the White race from leftism’s bogus accusations. The left has dragged the White race into court and charged it with causing “black failure,” (inter alia). When Whites defend themselves by saying that Blacks were “broken” before Whites got to them, that Blacks are just as “broken” wherever they are found, even sans Whitey, the leftist accusers scream “racism!” You can’t drag someone into court on bogus charges and expect them not to defend themselves. The time for the “politeness” argument was before leftists dragged Whitey into court and falsely accused him. Leftist accusations have made Race Realism (HBD) a moral imperative. Not just for Whites, but for everyone; moral people do not sit on exculpatory evidence when they see people falsely accused in court.

    White babes in swaddling are being lined up to be charged for this same crime, targeted with this same false accusation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    When Whites defend themselves by saying that Blacks were “broken” before Whites got to them, that Blacks are just as “broken” wherever they are found, even sans Whitey, the leftist accusers scream “racism!” You can’t drag someone into court on bogus charges and expect them not to defend themselves.
     
    You don't need HBD for that. Cultural factors are enough to account for differences in cultural and technological achievements. Arguing for cultural differences is not quite such political suicide as arguing for racial differences.

    All you have to do is point out that cultural differences can't easily be eradicated so immigrants from certain cultures just aren't going to assimilate.

    I'm not saying HBD is incorrect. It may be correct but at this point in time it's a bridge too far.
    , @JackOH
    Svigor, America's HBD-undecideds carry a whole mess of received opinions with them, plus most would like to keep the respect of their family, neighbors, and co-workers. Make it easy for them to give HBD ideas a fair shake.
  70. Svigor says:

    The comments on Razib’s blog were always of a different nature. contribution by people who have read different scientific articles on the topic and illuminating new aspects on the topic “du jour”. I only comment if I have some new info to add (and this is extremely rare).

    I am happy that there exist somebody who synthesizes the articles in the scientific pre-prints and publications (that are often behind a paywall).

    So dear Svigor, you are too harsh on Razib. He is not a “Steve Sailer” but more like Stephen Hsu at “Information Processing”.

    Thanks for the high-road defense of Razib. Maybe I am being hard on him. I tend to react that way to people who hide behind a phony impression of free inquiry, while deleting critical (but perfectly civil) commentary. I remember Razib from way back in his GNXP days, and in my opinion, he’s always been an egotistical, bigoted, censorious piece of shit.

    I do agree that he’s never really been in my wheelhouse, and that my main interest in commenting on his pieces has always been in correcting him on issues probably tangential to him, but not to me. I always figured if they were tangential, he should STFU about them.

    Please, read a few of the comments to Dr. MacDonald posts in The Occidental Observer, and imagine yourself stuck in that crowd.

    TOO’s commentary is a crime against humanity. They deserve better.

    Read More
  71. dfordoom says: • Website
    @JackOH
    Thanks. Seems to me the HBDers have taken on a huge burden of argument, without the prospect of any popular success anytime soon. Someone--maybe on these pages--has to tackle head-on the "Hitler question" embedded in HBD. I'll suggest an essay title: "Why HBD Won't Lead to Auschwitz", maybe with a follow-up essay, something like: "Why HBD Will Make America Better". The idea is to give HBD proponents breathing room.

    As I said, I'm just a non-expert reader of the HBD articles, so I may be missing a lot. But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters.

    But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters

    It’s a very hard sell. Maybe it won’t always be but at the moment it’s a very hard sell indeed.

    And it’s a distraction. There are plenty of more promising soft targets. You don’t need HBD to oppose mass immigration – the economic, social and cultural arguments against immigration are overwhelming. And I guess the environmental arguments if you buy the global warming nonsense. I don’t but it’s still a useful weapon to use against the immigration boosters.

    Free trade is another much more attractive soft target. The excesses of feminism and the LGBT madness are others.

    And there’s the sheer greed and power-hunger that drives the globalists.

    Using the HBD argument is unnecessary and counter-productive. As to whether the HBD stuff is true or not, I have no idea. I suspect it is, to a certain degree at least. But it’s a losing strategy. White nationalism is a losing strategy as well IMHO – good old-fashioned common-and-garden variety nationalism is enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    dfordoom, I agree. We have two suburban school districts here that permit so-called open enrollment, a scheme that permits urban Blacks to enroll in predominantly White suburban schools. The opposition to this is quiet and determined, and has come close to forcing the resignation of one school superintendent. The arguments against open enrollment are simple: local control, property values, quality of education. Neither race nor genetics are referenced, because they don't have to be. The massive, public failure of the adjacent Black-controlled school district from which these Black students are recruited makes its own case for them.

    I'm okay with seeing HBD ideas further developed, but right now I'm not seeing much that's politically useful.
    , @Kyle McKenna
    FWIW, one can be violently opposed to the environmental degradation which attends population increase without even mentioning or considering global warming.

    We have all kinds of environmental issues, greatly exacerbated by the presence of tens of millions of third world immigrants, and temperature trends are not the most immediate among them.

    If we lose on the issue of open-door immigration, as we have been since 1965, we lose everything that matters. Let's take allies where we find them.
  72. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Svigor

    Thanks. Seems to me the HBDers have taken on a huge burden of argument, without the prospect of any popular success anytime soon. Someone–maybe on these pages–has to tackle head-on the “Hitler question” embedded in HBD. I’ll suggest an essay title: “Why HBD Won’t Lead to Auschwitz”, maybe with a follow-up essay, something like: “Why HBD Will Make America Better”. The idea is to give HBD proponents breathing room.

    As I said, I’m just a non-expert reader of the HBD articles, so I may be missing a lot. But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters.
     
    The null hypothesis doesn't seem like a huge burden to me. The burden seems to be on the equalitarians, and they have no arguments of merit. Precious few arguments at all, really.

    There's no more a "Hitler question" embedded in HBD, than there is an "Stalin question" buried in equalitarianism, blank-slate-ism, anti-racism, etc.

    P.S., if you're looking for HBD's moral imperative, it's not found in defeating the phony "Hitler Question." It's found in defending the White race from leftism's bogus accusations. The left has dragged the White race into court and charged it with causing "black failure," (inter alia). When Whites defend themselves by saying that Blacks were "broken" before Whites got to them, that Blacks are just as "broken" wherever they are found, even sans Whitey, the leftist accusers scream "racism!" You can't drag someone into court on bogus charges and expect them not to defend themselves. The time for the "politeness" argument was before leftists dragged Whitey into court and falsely accused him. Leftist accusations have made Race Realism (HBD) a moral imperative. Not just for Whites, but for everyone; moral people do not sit on exculpatory evidence when they see people falsely accused in court.

    White babes in swaddling are being lined up to be charged for this same crime, targeted with this same false accusation.

    When Whites defend themselves by saying that Blacks were “broken” before Whites got to them, that Blacks are just as “broken” wherever they are found, even sans Whitey, the leftist accusers scream “racism!” You can’t drag someone into court on bogus charges and expect them not to defend themselves.

    You don’t need HBD for that. Cultural factors are enough to account for differences in cultural and technological achievements. Arguing for cultural differences is not quite such political suicide as arguing for racial differences.

    All you have to do is point out that cultural differences can’t easily be eradicated so immigrants from certain cultures just aren’t going to assimilate.

    I’m not saying HBD is incorrect. It may be correct but at this point in time it’s a bridge too far.

    Read More
  73. JackOH says:
    @Svigor

    Thanks. Seems to me the HBDers have taken on a huge burden of argument, without the prospect of any popular success anytime soon. Someone–maybe on these pages–has to tackle head-on the “Hitler question” embedded in HBD. I’ll suggest an essay title: “Why HBD Won’t Lead to Auschwitz”, maybe with a follow-up essay, something like: “Why HBD Will Make America Better”. The idea is to give HBD proponents breathing room.

    As I said, I’m just a non-expert reader of the HBD articles, so I may be missing a lot. But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters.
     
    The null hypothesis doesn't seem like a huge burden to me. The burden seems to be on the equalitarians, and they have no arguments of merit. Precious few arguments at all, really.

    There's no more a "Hitler question" embedded in HBD, than there is an "Stalin question" buried in equalitarianism, blank-slate-ism, anti-racism, etc.

    P.S., if you're looking for HBD's moral imperative, it's not found in defeating the phony "Hitler Question." It's found in defending the White race from leftism's bogus accusations. The left has dragged the White race into court and charged it with causing "black failure," (inter alia). When Whites defend themselves by saying that Blacks were "broken" before Whites got to them, that Blacks are just as "broken" wherever they are found, even sans Whitey, the leftist accusers scream "racism!" You can't drag someone into court on bogus charges and expect them not to defend themselves. The time for the "politeness" argument was before leftists dragged Whitey into court and falsely accused him. Leftist accusations have made Race Realism (HBD) a moral imperative. Not just for Whites, but for everyone; moral people do not sit on exculpatory evidence when they see people falsely accused in court.

    White babes in swaddling are being lined up to be charged for this same crime, targeted with this same false accusation.

    Svigor, America’s HBD-undecideds carry a whole mess of received opinions with them, plus most would like to keep the respect of their family, neighbors, and co-workers. Make it easy for them to give HBD ideas a fair shake.

    Read More
  74. JackOH says:
    @dfordoom

    But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters
     
    It's a very hard sell. Maybe it won't always be but at the moment it's a very hard sell indeed.

    And it's a distraction. There are plenty of more promising soft targets. You don't need HBD to oppose mass immigration - the economic, social and cultural arguments against immigration are overwhelming. And I guess the environmental arguments if you buy the global warming nonsense. I don't but it's still a useful weapon to use against the immigration boosters.

    Free trade is another much more attractive soft target. The excesses of feminism and the LGBT madness are others.

    And there's the sheer greed and power-hunger that drives the globalists.

    Using the HBD argument is unnecessary and counter-productive. As to whether the HBD stuff is true or not, I have no idea. I suspect it is, to a certain degree at least. But it's a losing strategy. White nationalism is a losing strategy as well IMHO - good old-fashioned common-and-garden variety nationalism is enough.

    dfordoom, I agree. We have two suburban school districts here that permit so-called open enrollment, a scheme that permits urban Blacks to enroll in predominantly White suburban schools. The opposition to this is quiet and determined, and has come close to forcing the resignation of one school superintendent. The arguments against open enrollment are simple: local control, property values, quality of education. Neither race nor genetics are referenced, because they don’t have to be. The massive, public failure of the adjacent Black-controlled school district from which these Black students are recruited makes its own case for them.

    I’m okay with seeing HBD ideas further developed, but right now I’m not seeing much that’s politically useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I’m okay with seeing HBD ideas further developed, but right now I’m not seeing much that’s politically useful.
     
    It's good to have multiple points of view to help assess what aspects are acceptable and important to different people. Thanks for providing your thoughtful view.

    From my vantage point HBD at the bottom is simply: People are different. Often in systematic ways. Often in ways that are relevant to assorted important outcomes.

    That basic idea covers many things. From differences between men and women to Sheldon's somatotypes discussed earlier. And then on to various stereotypes which may or may not have any basis in reality. Trying to understand which systematic differences are both real and important can be difficult.

    I see the primary political HBD benefit as being the opportunity to avoid misattributing blame for poor outcomes (resulting in "solutions" that are at best not helpful). For example, without HBD what responses do we have to
    - That inner city school has terrible test scores. The teachers should be punished and we should throw more money at it.
    - Women are underrepresented in mechanical engineering. Those engineers must be terrible sexists and we should punish them then throw money at the problem(s) until women are between 50 and 100% of all fields (absurdity intentional).
    - That medical treatment does not seem to work well for group X. Doctors must be Xist. But it would also be Xist to treat group X differently.

    Then there's the whole nature vs. nurture issue of group differences. I have my opinions (both scientific and observational), but, unless absolutely necessary, that political tarbaby should be left alone until we have GWAS (etc.) of sufficient sample size to give a much higher degree of certainty for conclusions.

    Another aspect of HBD is the recognition of the implications of overlapping distributions with different means. I like the example of "is it meaningful and/or true to say men and women have different average heights?" since most people find that relatively obvious and inoffensive. I don't think there is anyone who would seriously argue against that being true (well, besides the knee jerk "I know a woman/man taller/shorter than you" at which point ask if they understand "average", always make sure to include that word BTW). The interesting questions concern meaningful (i.e. so what?).
    - What is that average difference? About 5 inches in the US according to http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/normal their visual display of the distributions might help.
    - For the initiated, knowing the standard deviation matters greatly. Here it is 4" for men and 3.5" for women.
    - Given that, almost all of the tallest people will be men. See previous link. It's worth emphasizing that this is true even more than is intuitive because the normal distribution has a steep slope at the extremes!
    - Given that, men will likely be overrepresented in any field that values height highly (and is not sex segregated). This does not require sexism!
    - A 5 inch average height difference is important to product design and sizing.
    - If we have to do one size fits all, what size should that be? Should that vary depending on the setting?

    I assume the analogies to other traits that are more socially relevant are obvious. Pursuing these analogies is a great way to induce crimestop so not recommended initially.
    , @dfordoom

    Neither race nor genetics are referenced, because they don’t have to be.
     
    There's another problem with race-based HBD that has not been addressed by its proponents. If some races really are incapable of building and maintaining a civilisation then doesn't that give us a moral responsibility to maintain civilisation for them? Doesn't it make some form of benevolent paternalistic neo-colonialism a moral imperative? Doesn't it mean that we have a responsibility to take over places like Detroit and run them properly? Doesn't it mean that we have a responsibility to take over Africa and run it properly? Do we really want to open that can of worms? I know I don't.

    It also makes a welfare state an absolute necessity on both moral and practical grounds. And it makes massive foreign aid a necessity as well. Oddly enough very few HBD enthusiasts seem to understand this. Personally I have no quarrel with the welfare state but it doesn't seem to be a popular concept with the alt right, mainly because they haven't thought through the consequences of their position.

    Accepting HBD has some very worrying and complex ramifications.
  75. “These days, every hour spent reading the New York Times and its peers surely renders an individual more and more ignorant of the world, whether with regard to foreign policy, domestic politics, history, or science, and thereby inculcating a completely delusional misunderstanding of Reality.”

    Which is why I read Unz, not the Gray Hag.

    Read More
  76. res says:
    @JackOH
    dfordoom, I agree. We have two suburban school districts here that permit so-called open enrollment, a scheme that permits urban Blacks to enroll in predominantly White suburban schools. The opposition to this is quiet and determined, and has come close to forcing the resignation of one school superintendent. The arguments against open enrollment are simple: local control, property values, quality of education. Neither race nor genetics are referenced, because they don't have to be. The massive, public failure of the adjacent Black-controlled school district from which these Black students are recruited makes its own case for them.

    I'm okay with seeing HBD ideas further developed, but right now I'm not seeing much that's politically useful.

    I’m okay with seeing HBD ideas further developed, but right now I’m not seeing much that’s politically useful.

    It’s good to have multiple points of view to help assess what aspects are acceptable and important to different people. Thanks for providing your thoughtful view.

    From my vantage point HBD at the bottom is simply: People are different. Often in systematic ways. Often in ways that are relevant to assorted important outcomes.

    That basic idea covers many things. From differences between men and women to Sheldon’s somatotypes discussed earlier. And then on to various stereotypes which may or may not have any basis in reality. Trying to understand which systematic differences are both real and important can be difficult.

    I see the primary political HBD benefit as being the opportunity to avoid misattributing blame for poor outcomes (resulting in “solutions” that are at best not helpful). For example, without HBD what responses do we have to
    - That inner city school has terrible test scores. The teachers should be punished and we should throw more money at it.
    - Women are underrepresented in mechanical engineering. Those engineers must be terrible sexists and we should punish them then throw money at the problem(s) until women are between 50 and 100% of all fields (absurdity intentional).
    - That medical treatment does not seem to work well for group X. Doctors must be Xist. But it would also be Xist to treat group X differently.

    Then there’s the whole nature vs. nurture issue of group differences. I have my opinions (both scientific and observational), but, unless absolutely necessary, that political tarbaby should be left alone until we have GWAS (etc.) of sufficient sample size to give a much higher degree of certainty for conclusions.

    Another aspect of HBD is the recognition of the implications of overlapping distributions with different means. I like the example of “is it meaningful and/or true to say men and women have different average heights?” since most people find that relatively obvious and inoffensive. I don’t think there is anyone who would seriously argue against that being true (well, besides the knee jerk “I know a woman/man taller/shorter than you” at which point ask if they understand “average”, always make sure to include that word BTW). The interesting questions concern meaningful (i.e. so what?).
    - What is that average difference? About 5 inches in the US according to http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/normal their visual display of the distributions might help.
    - For the initiated, knowing the standard deviation matters greatly. Here it is 4″ for men and 3.5″ for women.
    - Given that, almost all of the tallest people will be men. See previous link. It’s worth emphasizing that this is true even more than is intuitive because the normal distribution has a steep slope at the extremes!
    - Given that, men will likely be overrepresented in any field that values height highly (and is not sex segregated). This does not require sexism!
    - A 5 inch average height difference is important to product design and sizing.
    - If we have to do one size fits all, what size should that be? Should that vary depending on the setting?

    I assume the analogies to other traits that are more socially relevant are obvious. Pursuing these analogies is a great way to induce crimestop so not recommended initially.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    That basic idea covers many things. From differences between men and women
     
    I put the differences between men and women in a different category from the race-based HBD stuff. The differences between men and women are so bleeding obvious I can't comprehend how anyone could deny them. Only a crazed rabid feminist could insist that they don't exist. And trying to push women into professions for which they are clearly unsuited (like fire-fighting or the military) has obvious disastrous consequences.

    Feminism is at its heart deeply misogynistic. The assumption behind feminism is that only male pursuits are worthwhile while feminine pursuits are useless and worthless. Women must be turned into men because to be a woman is to be less than human. The hatred that feminists have for women is terrifying.

    The race-based HBD stuff is what I try to avoid because it's just (as an earlier commenter said) not politically useful.
  77. Svigor says:

    You don’t need HBD for that. Cultural factors are enough to account for differences in cultural and technological achievements. Arguing for cultural differences is not quite such political suicide as arguing for racial differences.

    All you have to do is point out that cultural differences can’t easily be eradicated so immigrants from certain cultures just aren’t going to assimilate.

    I’m not saying HBD is incorrect. It may be correct but at this point in time it’s a bridge too far.

    I find cultural explanations weak tea. When someone falsely accuses me of a crime, I go for the jugular.

    Read More
  78. Svigor says:

    Not that I would expect others to eschew them, mind. I’m all for using every viable method available.

    Read More
  79. Ron, you should give Mickey Kaus a job as a blogger here. His main subject is immigration, and I think he qualifies as “Interesting, Important, and Controversial”. Alright, maybe not that controversial, but my understanding is that he got fired from the Daily Caller for criticizing Fox News’ coverage of immigration.

    Read More
  80. dfordoom says: • Website
    @res

    I’m okay with seeing HBD ideas further developed, but right now I’m not seeing much that’s politically useful.
     
    It's good to have multiple points of view to help assess what aspects are acceptable and important to different people. Thanks for providing your thoughtful view.

    From my vantage point HBD at the bottom is simply: People are different. Often in systematic ways. Often in ways that are relevant to assorted important outcomes.

    That basic idea covers many things. From differences between men and women to Sheldon's somatotypes discussed earlier. And then on to various stereotypes which may or may not have any basis in reality. Trying to understand which systematic differences are both real and important can be difficult.

    I see the primary political HBD benefit as being the opportunity to avoid misattributing blame for poor outcomes (resulting in "solutions" that are at best not helpful). For example, without HBD what responses do we have to
    - That inner city school has terrible test scores. The teachers should be punished and we should throw more money at it.
    - Women are underrepresented in mechanical engineering. Those engineers must be terrible sexists and we should punish them then throw money at the problem(s) until women are between 50 and 100% of all fields (absurdity intentional).
    - That medical treatment does not seem to work well for group X. Doctors must be Xist. But it would also be Xist to treat group X differently.

    Then there's the whole nature vs. nurture issue of group differences. I have my opinions (both scientific and observational), but, unless absolutely necessary, that political tarbaby should be left alone until we have GWAS (etc.) of sufficient sample size to give a much higher degree of certainty for conclusions.

    Another aspect of HBD is the recognition of the implications of overlapping distributions with different means. I like the example of "is it meaningful and/or true to say men and women have different average heights?" since most people find that relatively obvious and inoffensive. I don't think there is anyone who would seriously argue against that being true (well, besides the knee jerk "I know a woman/man taller/shorter than you" at which point ask if they understand "average", always make sure to include that word BTW). The interesting questions concern meaningful (i.e. so what?).
    - What is that average difference? About 5 inches in the US according to http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/normal their visual display of the distributions might help.
    - For the initiated, knowing the standard deviation matters greatly. Here it is 4" for men and 3.5" for women.
    - Given that, almost all of the tallest people will be men. See previous link. It's worth emphasizing that this is true even more than is intuitive because the normal distribution has a steep slope at the extremes!
    - Given that, men will likely be overrepresented in any field that values height highly (and is not sex segregated). This does not require sexism!
    - A 5 inch average height difference is important to product design and sizing.
    - If we have to do one size fits all, what size should that be? Should that vary depending on the setting?

    I assume the analogies to other traits that are more socially relevant are obvious. Pursuing these analogies is a great way to induce crimestop so not recommended initially.

    That basic idea covers many things. From differences between men and women

    I put the differences between men and women in a different category from the race-based HBD stuff. The differences between men and women are so bleeding obvious I can’t comprehend how anyone could deny them. Only a crazed rabid feminist could insist that they don’t exist. And trying to push women into professions for which they are clearly unsuited (like fire-fighting or the military) has obvious disastrous consequences.

    Feminism is at its heart deeply misogynistic. The assumption behind feminism is that only male pursuits are worthwhile while feminine pursuits are useless and worthless. Women must be turned into men because to be a woman is to be less than human. The hatred that feminists have for women is terrifying.

    The race-based HBD stuff is what I try to avoid because it’s just (as an earlier commenter said) not politically useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I put the differences between men and women in a different category from the race-based HBD stuff.
     
    But you do also see the similarities between the race and sex differences, right? I agree there are also differences as you note. But the similarities and the relative lack of controversy are what make my analogies useful IMHO. Try making similar analogies about any racial differences and see how quickly your listener shuts down.

    Some of the differences between men and women are obvious (e.g. height), some are not (e.g. possibly distribution of IQ at the high end, see the Larry Summers' controversy). Some are acceptable to notice for most people, some are not (this somewhat aligns with the previous split). Also, don't underestimate the ability of people to not see, ignore, dismiss, etc. the obvious. Part of what I value about HBD is the ability to quantify differences and make a realistic attempt at assessing their importance in the context of a given issue.

    I think if you look at the political discussions surrounding women in STEM you'll see some of the problems associated with ignoring differences (of both ability and preferences) and insisting everything should be between 50 and 100% women. Similarly for discussions of physical standards in the military or professions like firefighting. How is it possible to have meaningful conversations about these without an understanding of the underlying differences?

    The race-based HBD stuff is what I try to avoid because it’s just (as an earlier commenter said) not politically useful.
     
    I agree much of it is not politically useful and just becomes inflammatory more than anything else. But please tell me how one is supposed to meaningfully analyze or discuss either crime statistics or inner city school performance (and the implications!) without an understanding of, if not an open conversation about, HBD?

    And remember, disagreements about nature vs. nurture are the source of much of the controversy. There are big differences between asserting observational differences (i.e. facts, like the greater proportion of crimes committed by blacks per capita), asserting genetic determinism or absolutism (i.e. falsehoods, like all blacks commit more crimes, or the current situation is fixed always and forever), or asserting a possible genetic component (the third rail, although like it or not we will start having some answers soon IMHO) contributing to these differences. I am focusing on the first category: obvious and measurable observational differences (while remaining agnostic to causes).

    The problem, as both you and JackOH correctly observe, is this whole topic has become so toxic even raising the idea becomes politically impossible. IMHO this needs to change or we will never be able to attempt to meaningfully address problems like the disproportionate (to population) presence of blacks in the criminal justice system and the dismal performance of inner city schools.

    P.S. To tie all this back into the original thread: One of the things I like most about Dr. Thompson is I think he manages to address controversial questions related to intelligence in an incisive and intellectually rigorous manner while remaining civil, kind, and thoughtful to a degree I think even people who disagree with him intellectually have to respect. I think he makes a good advocate for some of the observations concerning intelligence and HBD even if that is not his goal (which I see more as just being intellectually honest).
  81. dfordoom says: • Website
    @JackOH
    dfordoom, I agree. We have two suburban school districts here that permit so-called open enrollment, a scheme that permits urban Blacks to enroll in predominantly White suburban schools. The opposition to this is quiet and determined, and has come close to forcing the resignation of one school superintendent. The arguments against open enrollment are simple: local control, property values, quality of education. Neither race nor genetics are referenced, because they don't have to be. The massive, public failure of the adjacent Black-controlled school district from which these Black students are recruited makes its own case for them.

    I'm okay with seeing HBD ideas further developed, but right now I'm not seeing much that's politically useful.

    Neither race nor genetics are referenced, because they don’t have to be.

    There’s another problem with race-based HBD that has not been addressed by its proponents. If some races really are incapable of building and maintaining a civilisation then doesn’t that give us a moral responsibility to maintain civilisation for them? Doesn’t it make some form of benevolent paternalistic neo-colonialism a moral imperative? Doesn’t it mean that we have a responsibility to take over places like Detroit and run them properly? Doesn’t it mean that we have a responsibility to take over Africa and run it properly? Do we really want to open that can of worms? I know I don’t.

    It also makes a welfare state an absolute necessity on both moral and practical grounds. And it makes massive foreign aid a necessity as well. Oddly enough very few HBD enthusiasts seem to understand this. Personally I have no quarrel with the welfare state but it doesn’t seem to be a popular concept with the alt right, mainly because they haven’t thought through the consequences of their position.

    Accepting HBD has some very worrying and complex ramifications.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    " . . . [A]nother problem . . . that has not been addressed by [HBD's] proponents." Agree. Maybe Ron can persuade an HBD proponent to write an essay explaining what the goals of an HBD-supported politics are. Yes, dfordoom, you're absolutely right to point out the potential for an HBD-inspired political cure being worse than the current political disease.
  82. JackOH says:
    @dfordoom

    Neither race nor genetics are referenced, because they don’t have to be.
     
    There's another problem with race-based HBD that has not been addressed by its proponents. If some races really are incapable of building and maintaining a civilisation then doesn't that give us a moral responsibility to maintain civilisation for them? Doesn't it make some form of benevolent paternalistic neo-colonialism a moral imperative? Doesn't it mean that we have a responsibility to take over places like Detroit and run them properly? Doesn't it mean that we have a responsibility to take over Africa and run it properly? Do we really want to open that can of worms? I know I don't.

    It also makes a welfare state an absolute necessity on both moral and practical grounds. And it makes massive foreign aid a necessity as well. Oddly enough very few HBD enthusiasts seem to understand this. Personally I have no quarrel with the welfare state but it doesn't seem to be a popular concept with the alt right, mainly because they haven't thought through the consequences of their position.

    Accepting HBD has some very worrying and complex ramifications.

    ” . . . [A]nother problem . . . that has not been addressed by [HBD's] proponents.” Agree. Maybe Ron can persuade an HBD proponent to write an essay explaining what the goals of an HBD-supported politics are. Yes, dfordoom, you’re absolutely right to point out the potential for an HBD-inspired political cure being worse than the current political disease.

    Read More
  83. res says:
    @dfordoom

    That basic idea covers many things. From differences between men and women
     
    I put the differences between men and women in a different category from the race-based HBD stuff. The differences between men and women are so bleeding obvious I can't comprehend how anyone could deny them. Only a crazed rabid feminist could insist that they don't exist. And trying to push women into professions for which they are clearly unsuited (like fire-fighting or the military) has obvious disastrous consequences.

    Feminism is at its heart deeply misogynistic. The assumption behind feminism is that only male pursuits are worthwhile while feminine pursuits are useless and worthless. Women must be turned into men because to be a woman is to be less than human. The hatred that feminists have for women is terrifying.

    The race-based HBD stuff is what I try to avoid because it's just (as an earlier commenter said) not politically useful.

    I put the differences between men and women in a different category from the race-based HBD stuff.

    But you do also see the similarities between the race and sex differences, right? I agree there are also differences as you note. But the similarities and the relative lack of controversy are what make my analogies useful IMHO. Try making similar analogies about any racial differences and see how quickly your listener shuts down.

    Some of the differences between men and women are obvious (e.g. height), some are not (e.g. possibly distribution of IQ at the high end, see the Larry Summers’ controversy). Some are acceptable to notice for most people, some are not (this somewhat aligns with the previous split). Also, don’t underestimate the ability of people to not see, ignore, dismiss, etc. the obvious. Part of what I value about HBD is the ability to quantify differences and make a realistic attempt at assessing their importance in the context of a given issue.

    I think if you look at the political discussions surrounding women in STEM you’ll see some of the problems associated with ignoring differences (of both ability and preferences) and insisting everything should be between 50 and 100% women. Similarly for discussions of physical standards in the military or professions like firefighting. How is it possible to have meaningful conversations about these without an understanding of the underlying differences?

    The race-based HBD stuff is what I try to avoid because it’s just (as an earlier commenter said) not politically useful.

    I agree much of it is not politically useful and just becomes inflammatory more than anything else. But please tell me how one is supposed to meaningfully analyze or discuss either crime statistics or inner city school performance (and the implications!) without an understanding of, if not an open conversation about, HBD?

    And remember, disagreements about nature vs. nurture are the source of much of the controversy. There are big differences between asserting observational differences (i.e. facts, like the greater proportion of crimes committed by blacks per capita), asserting genetic determinism or absolutism (i.e. falsehoods, like all blacks commit more crimes, or the current situation is fixed always and forever), or asserting a possible genetic component (the third rail, although like it or not we will start having some answers soon IMHO) contributing to these differences. I am focusing on the first category: obvious and measurable observational differences (while remaining agnostic to causes).

    The problem, as both you and JackOH correctly observe, is this whole topic has become so toxic even raising the idea becomes politically impossible. IMHO this needs to change or we will never be able to attempt to meaningfully address problems like the disproportionate (to population) presence of blacks in the criminal justice system and the dismal performance of inner city schools.

    P.S. To tie all this back into the original thread: One of the things I like most about Dr. Thompson is I think he manages to address controversial questions related to intelligence in an incisive and intellectually rigorous manner while remaining civil, kind, and thoughtful to a degree I think even people who disagree with him intellectually have to respect. I think he makes a good advocate for some of the observations concerning intelligence and HBD even if that is not his goal (which I see more as just being intellectually honest).

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But you do also see the similarities between the race and sex differences, right? I agree there are also differences as you note. But the similarities and the relative lack of controversy are what make my analogies useful IMHO. Try making similar analogies about any racial differences and see how quickly your listener shuts down.
     
    That's why it's better to focus on the differences between the sexes. Most people, including most women, know that these differences exist. Many try to pretend otherwise (mostly through fear of the consequences of ThoughtCrime) but they do know deep down that the differences are there and that they're profound. Even some feminists realise this.

    If we keep hammering on this, while being careful to make the points that both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses and that being different does not imply any value judgments on the worth of either sex and that differences are things to be celebrated rather than mourned, then maybe eventually it might be possible to discuss other genetic differences such as race.

    I think it's possible to make the argument about sex differences successfully. Not easy, but possible. On the other hand I think we're still decades away from being able to make the same arguments about race.

    It's also worth pointing out that there is one huge difference between the two arguments. Differences between the sexes are so obvious that it requires a real effort of mental gymnastics to deny them. And the differences are very clear-cut - if you have two XX chromosomes you're female, if you have an X and a Y chromosome you're male. End of story. The dividing lines between races and ethnicities on the other hand are extremely fuzzy. That doesn't mean they're not real but they're so fuzzy that opponents of HBD will always be able to use that to muddy the waters. And the differences between the sexes are a matter of undeniable scientific fact. Differences between races seem highly likely but they're a long way from being sufficiently established as absolute scientific fact.

    The argument about sex differences is winnable. The argument about racial differences is not (in political terms) winnable, and may not ever be winnable.
  84. dfordoom says: • Website
    @res

    I put the differences between men and women in a different category from the race-based HBD stuff.
     
    But you do also see the similarities between the race and sex differences, right? I agree there are also differences as you note. But the similarities and the relative lack of controversy are what make my analogies useful IMHO. Try making similar analogies about any racial differences and see how quickly your listener shuts down.

    Some of the differences between men and women are obvious (e.g. height), some are not (e.g. possibly distribution of IQ at the high end, see the Larry Summers' controversy). Some are acceptable to notice for most people, some are not (this somewhat aligns with the previous split). Also, don't underestimate the ability of people to not see, ignore, dismiss, etc. the obvious. Part of what I value about HBD is the ability to quantify differences and make a realistic attempt at assessing their importance in the context of a given issue.

    I think if you look at the political discussions surrounding women in STEM you'll see some of the problems associated with ignoring differences (of both ability and preferences) and insisting everything should be between 50 and 100% women. Similarly for discussions of physical standards in the military or professions like firefighting. How is it possible to have meaningful conversations about these without an understanding of the underlying differences?

    The race-based HBD stuff is what I try to avoid because it’s just (as an earlier commenter said) not politically useful.
     
    I agree much of it is not politically useful and just becomes inflammatory more than anything else. But please tell me how one is supposed to meaningfully analyze or discuss either crime statistics or inner city school performance (and the implications!) without an understanding of, if not an open conversation about, HBD?

    And remember, disagreements about nature vs. nurture are the source of much of the controversy. There are big differences between asserting observational differences (i.e. facts, like the greater proportion of crimes committed by blacks per capita), asserting genetic determinism or absolutism (i.e. falsehoods, like all blacks commit more crimes, or the current situation is fixed always and forever), or asserting a possible genetic component (the third rail, although like it or not we will start having some answers soon IMHO) contributing to these differences. I am focusing on the first category: obvious and measurable observational differences (while remaining agnostic to causes).

    The problem, as both you and JackOH correctly observe, is this whole topic has become so toxic even raising the idea becomes politically impossible. IMHO this needs to change or we will never be able to attempt to meaningfully address problems like the disproportionate (to population) presence of blacks in the criminal justice system and the dismal performance of inner city schools.

    P.S. To tie all this back into the original thread: One of the things I like most about Dr. Thompson is I think he manages to address controversial questions related to intelligence in an incisive and intellectually rigorous manner while remaining civil, kind, and thoughtful to a degree I think even people who disagree with him intellectually have to respect. I think he makes a good advocate for some of the observations concerning intelligence and HBD even if that is not his goal (which I see more as just being intellectually honest).

    But you do also see the similarities between the race and sex differences, right? I agree there are also differences as you note. But the similarities and the relative lack of controversy are what make my analogies useful IMHO. Try making similar analogies about any racial differences and see how quickly your listener shuts down.

    That’s why it’s better to focus on the differences between the sexes. Most people, including most women, know that these differences exist. Many try to pretend otherwise (mostly through fear of the consequences of ThoughtCrime) but they do know deep down that the differences are there and that they’re profound. Even some feminists realise this.

    If we keep hammering on this, while being careful to make the points that both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses and that being different does not imply any value judgments on the worth of either sex and that differences are things to be celebrated rather than mourned, then maybe eventually it might be possible to discuss other genetic differences such as race.

    I think it’s possible to make the argument about sex differences successfully. Not easy, but possible. On the other hand I think we’re still decades away from being able to make the same arguments about race.

    It’s also worth pointing out that there is one huge difference between the two arguments. Differences between the sexes are so obvious that it requires a real effort of mental gymnastics to deny them. And the differences are very clear-cut – if you have two XX chromosomes you’re female, if you have an X and a Y chromosome you’re male. End of story. The dividing lines between races and ethnicities on the other hand are extremely fuzzy. That doesn’t mean they’re not real but they’re so fuzzy that opponents of HBD will always be able to use that to muddy the waters. And the differences between the sexes are a matter of undeniable scientific fact. Differences between races seem highly likely but they’re a long way from being sufficiently established as absolute scientific fact.

    The argument about sex differences is winnable. The argument about racial differences is not (in political terms) winnable, and may not ever be winnable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    The argument about racial differences is not (in political terms) winnable, and may not ever be winnable.
     
    I fear you are correct. In that case, how do we begin evaluating policy alternatives for cases where the racial differences matter? I like the example of inner city schools as I outlined above because I think everyone can agree there are problems that need fixing. The problem is how to even evaluate the current status when the races differ so (on average) in school performance and behavior?

    One of my problems is I am an STEM type by both training and temperament and am just baffled by people who refuse to face reality. Especially when they then expect to be able to make intelligent decisions about that same reality.

    One point of disagreement regarding: "Differences between races seem highly likely but they’re a long way from being sufficiently established as absolute scientific fact."

    I think it is well established as an absolute scientific fact that there are significant differences in IQ and crime rates between whites and blacks in the US. What is not established is the "why" or the "what to do". Those are as you describe: uncertain and controversial.

    A bunch of other good points (e.g. fuzzy boundaries leading to muddying the waters) in your posts. Thanks for having the conversation!
  85. res says:
    @dfordoom

    But you do also see the similarities between the race and sex differences, right? I agree there are also differences as you note. But the similarities and the relative lack of controversy are what make my analogies useful IMHO. Try making similar analogies about any racial differences and see how quickly your listener shuts down.
     
    That's why it's better to focus on the differences between the sexes. Most people, including most women, know that these differences exist. Many try to pretend otherwise (mostly through fear of the consequences of ThoughtCrime) but they do know deep down that the differences are there and that they're profound. Even some feminists realise this.

    If we keep hammering on this, while being careful to make the points that both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses and that being different does not imply any value judgments on the worth of either sex and that differences are things to be celebrated rather than mourned, then maybe eventually it might be possible to discuss other genetic differences such as race.

    I think it's possible to make the argument about sex differences successfully. Not easy, but possible. On the other hand I think we're still decades away from being able to make the same arguments about race.

    It's also worth pointing out that there is one huge difference between the two arguments. Differences between the sexes are so obvious that it requires a real effort of mental gymnastics to deny them. And the differences are very clear-cut - if you have two XX chromosomes you're female, if you have an X and a Y chromosome you're male. End of story. The dividing lines between races and ethnicities on the other hand are extremely fuzzy. That doesn't mean they're not real but they're so fuzzy that opponents of HBD will always be able to use that to muddy the waters. And the differences between the sexes are a matter of undeniable scientific fact. Differences between races seem highly likely but they're a long way from being sufficiently established as absolute scientific fact.

    The argument about sex differences is winnable. The argument about racial differences is not (in political terms) winnable, and may not ever be winnable.

    The argument about racial differences is not (in political terms) winnable, and may not ever be winnable.

    I fear you are correct. In that case, how do we begin evaluating policy alternatives for cases where the racial differences matter? I like the example of inner city schools as I outlined above because I think everyone can agree there are problems that need fixing. The problem is how to even evaluate the current status when the races differ so (on average) in school performance and behavior?

    One of my problems is I am an STEM type by both training and temperament and am just baffled by people who refuse to face reality. Especially when they then expect to be able to make intelligent decisions about that same reality.

    One point of disagreement regarding: “Differences between races seem highly likely but they’re a long way from being sufficiently established as absolute scientific fact.”

    I think it is well established as an absolute scientific fact that there are significant differences in IQ and crime rates between whites and blacks in the US. What is not established is the “why” or the “what to do”. Those are as you describe: uncertain and controversial.

    A bunch of other good points (e.g. fuzzy boundaries leading to muddying the waters) in your posts. Thanks for having the conversation!

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I fear you are correct. In that case, how do we begin evaluating policy alternatives for cases where the racial differences matter?
     
    We're left with the cultural differences argument. It may not be ideal but realistically at least it's an argument that has some slight chance of succeeding. We can argue that cultural differences are incredibly intractable. In some ways it doesn't matter - the point is to convince people that there are actual and real differences in abilities and that expecting equal outcomes is unrealistic. Whether the differences are genetic or cultural shouldn't matter that much (and in truth the differences are undoubtedly a combination of both anyway).

    And when it comes to arguing against immigration we have lots of powerful arguments - intractable and irreconcilable cultural differences, the devastating economic effects, the environmental consequences, the overloading of infrastructure, over-crowding., skyrocketing housing costs, etc. In fact dropping the HBD stuff is a major advantage - it makes it much more likely that anti-immigration arguments will get some sort of hearing.

    I think it is well established as an absolute scientific fact that there are significant differences in IQ and crime rates between whites and blacks in the US. What is not established is the “why” or the “what to do”. Those are as you describe: uncertain and controversial.
     
    Agreed, but the uncertainties about the “why” are the crux of the matter, added to the fact that IQ is not really perfectly understood.

    A bunch of other good points (e.g. fuzzy boundaries leading to muddying the waters) in your posts.
     
    Fuzzy boundaries are a huge hurdle for most people, even though we deal with fuzzy boundaries every day. No-one will ever agree on where we draw the boundary between short people and tall people but short and tall are still real concepts and very useful ones. Where do we draw the line between rich and poor? No-one will ever agree but everyone still understands that some people really are rich and some really are poor. No-one would argue that fuzzy boundaries invalidate the concepts of rich and poor or tall and short, but bring race into it and immediately people will latch on to fuzzy boundaries as totally invalidating the whole concept.
  86. dfordoom says: • Website
    @res

    The argument about racial differences is not (in political terms) winnable, and may not ever be winnable.
     
    I fear you are correct. In that case, how do we begin evaluating policy alternatives for cases where the racial differences matter? I like the example of inner city schools as I outlined above because I think everyone can agree there are problems that need fixing. The problem is how to even evaluate the current status when the races differ so (on average) in school performance and behavior?

    One of my problems is I am an STEM type by both training and temperament and am just baffled by people who refuse to face reality. Especially when they then expect to be able to make intelligent decisions about that same reality.

    One point of disagreement regarding: "Differences between races seem highly likely but they’re a long way from being sufficiently established as absolute scientific fact."

    I think it is well established as an absolute scientific fact that there are significant differences in IQ and crime rates between whites and blacks in the US. What is not established is the "why" or the "what to do". Those are as you describe: uncertain and controversial.

    A bunch of other good points (e.g. fuzzy boundaries leading to muddying the waters) in your posts. Thanks for having the conversation!

    I fear you are correct. In that case, how do we begin evaluating policy alternatives for cases where the racial differences matter?

    We’re left with the cultural differences argument. It may not be ideal but realistically at least it’s an argument that has some slight chance of succeeding. We can argue that cultural differences are incredibly intractable. In some ways it doesn’t matter – the point is to convince people that there are actual and real differences in abilities and that expecting equal outcomes is unrealistic. Whether the differences are genetic or cultural shouldn’t matter that much (and in truth the differences are undoubtedly a combination of both anyway).

    And when it comes to arguing against immigration we have lots of powerful arguments – intractable and irreconcilable cultural differences, the devastating economic effects, the environmental consequences, the overloading of infrastructure, over-crowding., skyrocketing housing costs, etc. In fact dropping the HBD stuff is a major advantage – it makes it much more likely that anti-immigration arguments will get some sort of hearing.

    I think it is well established as an absolute scientific fact that there are significant differences in IQ and crime rates between whites and blacks in the US. What is not established is the “why” or the “what to do”. Those are as you describe: uncertain and controversial.

    Agreed, but the uncertainties about the “why” are the crux of the matter, added to the fact that IQ is not really perfectly understood.

    A bunch of other good points (e.g. fuzzy boundaries leading to muddying the waters) in your posts.

    Fuzzy boundaries are a huge hurdle for most people, even though we deal with fuzzy boundaries every day. No-one will ever agree on where we draw the boundary between short people and tall people but short and tall are still real concepts and very useful ones. Where do we draw the line between rich and poor? No-one will ever agree but everyone still understands that some people really are rich and some really are poor. No-one would argue that fuzzy boundaries invalidate the concepts of rich and poor or tall and short, but bring race into it and immediately people will latch on to fuzzy boundaries as totally invalidating the whole concept.

    Read More
  87. @dfordoom

    But, right now, HBD is just too easy to dismiss by our masters
     
    It's a very hard sell. Maybe it won't always be but at the moment it's a very hard sell indeed.

    And it's a distraction. There are plenty of more promising soft targets. You don't need HBD to oppose mass immigration - the economic, social and cultural arguments against immigration are overwhelming. And I guess the environmental arguments if you buy the global warming nonsense. I don't but it's still a useful weapon to use against the immigration boosters.

    Free trade is another much more attractive soft target. The excesses of feminism and the LGBT madness are others.

    And there's the sheer greed and power-hunger that drives the globalists.

    Using the HBD argument is unnecessary and counter-productive. As to whether the HBD stuff is true or not, I have no idea. I suspect it is, to a certain degree at least. But it's a losing strategy. White nationalism is a losing strategy as well IMHO - good old-fashioned common-and-garden variety nationalism is enough.

    FWIW, one can be violently opposed to the environmental degradation which attends population increase without even mentioning or considering global warming.

    We have all kinds of environmental issues, greatly exacerbated by the presence of tens of millions of third world immigrants, and temperature trends are not the most immediate among them.

    If we lose on the issue of open-door immigration, as we have been since 1965, we lose everything that matters. Let’s take allies where we find them.

    Read More
  88. JackOH says:

    “zyezek”, commenting beneath Prof. Thompson’s most recent article here, notes that IQ (and, more broadly, HBD ideas) are bound up with unclear moral claims to greater deserved entitlement to resources, positions, etc. for those with higher IQ. (I’m paraphrasing very loosely.) As “dfordoom” notes, that opens a can of worms, or muddling metaphors, risks a battle that seems to me can’t be readily won. Example: will Blacks be less entitled to exercise First Amendment liberties, or will they be less deserving of other Constitutional protections?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    As “dfordoom” notes, that opens a can of worms, or muddling metaphors, risks a battle that seems to me can’t be readily won. Example: will Blacks be less entitled to exercise First Amendment liberties, or will they be less deserving of other Constitutional protections?
     
    Or it might even be argued that in some cases they're deserving of more Constitutional protections.

    And what about Second Amendment rights?

    And where do we draw the line? How black do you have to be to be treated differently? Do we return to the One Drop Rule? Do East Asians get more rights than whites since they're smarter than whites?

    It's not just rights, there are also implied responsibilities. Most of us accept that children are entitled to special protections and special care. Should this apply to certain races?

    What about jury duty? In fact legal rights in general? Children don't have the same legal rights as adults. Children aren't allowed to vote.

    It's not just a can of worms. It's a whole cupboard full of cans of worms. All of them potentially politically disastrous. Even if I believed in HBD (I'm agnostic on the subject) I'd still run a hundred miles from these issues. Politically they're all losing issues.
  89. 5371 says:
    @OLD JEW
    Dear Svigor,

    I follow Razib's posts for the last five years. His posts (and Dienekes') convinced me to join 23andme relatively early in 2012. I am reading almost daily his tweets (+ his replies).

    You write:

    "Razib’s an arrogant South Asian (but, I repeat myself) type, they’re not into giving, they’re into getting. Hence, South Asia."

    My take: True his parents are Bengali muslims, but he is totally a product of the public library and the American Public schools. ( came to the US at age 5)

    He is an atheist who reads Hume not the Quran.

    His blog was at the Discovery magazine. I do not know why it ended there. He made a good name for himself, that NYT wanted him as new blood for their Science section. Somebody outed him for publishing once at Taki magazine.

    I guess it is NYT's loss not Razib`s. When one is a new young blogger one is glad that somebody will publish you, and not try to be politically correct (avoid Taki).

    I never understood why he joined unz.com in the first place.

    My understanding of "unz.com" is that it is a version of "The Occidental Observer" but for better educated people and focused less on "Damn those Jews".

    I have seen your comments for quite a while and they are smack in the middle of the iSteve commentariat (intelligent "white" political opinions).

    The comments on Razib's blog were always of a different nature. contribution by people who have read different scientific articles on the topic and illuminating new aspects on the topic "du jour". I only comment if I have some new info to add (and this is extremely rare).

    I am happy that there exist somebody who synthesizes the articles in the scientific pre-prints and publications (that are often behind a paywall).

    So dear Svigor, you are too harsh on Razib. He is not a "Steve Sailer" but more like Stephen Hsu at "Information Processing".

    Best,

    sf

    Razib Khan is not remotely like Steve Hsu. The latter knows his own shop, physics, and takes an intelligent interest in a wide variety of unrelated things. Most unfortunately, he is also a technomane and has become an ever less critical and discerning one as time has passed. That, along with his disastrous career move to university administration, has had a bad influence on the interest and value of his blog. Khan, by contrast, knows very little about his own subject, nothing about any other, and cares less, so long as he can pose and prate volubly about banal rubbish. Even his best falls well short of Hsu’s worst.

    Read More
  90. Sunbeam says:

    HBD is well and good. It’s obvious at this point that genetics determines an awful lot. Including the obvious like intelligence. But also things like behavior, and apparently even the SOCIETIES different populations form.

    Given the absolute stake to the heart this puts into the worldview of … progressives? SJW’s? I can see why they hate it so much. Their utopia can’t be realized. They were already in it for social engineering. Now they have to get messy with eugenics.

    But everything happens at once. There is another beast in the room now, and it’s a whole lot more formidable than anything to do with genetics.

    Namely the possibility of AI. I’m not really familiar with the history of Unz, but apparently he lives in California, with the singularity epicenter in SF. So obviously he has to be familiar with the arguments.

    Here’s the thing. If creating an AI with the tools we’ll have available in the next couple of decades is possible… then anything to do with genetics is irrelevant. I mean irrelevant, immaterial, and not pertinent to the case at hand. Because literally nothing else will matter.

    You quite simply are not going to outpace “digital evolution” with biological, no matter if the first generation of 200+ IQ supermen is working on it (and who says they aren’t working on AI?).

    And on a very related note, just the things that we know how to do now, and what appears to be reachable in the next decade or so without fundamental advances are going to be endlessly disruptive to current human societies. And these problems are going to be fundamentally unlike any faced by any societies before us.

    I mean I’d say it is a CW of most of the posters on this site, that most immigrants are future drains on treasuries, and in no way, shape, or form will ever be an economic asset. In the future I’d wager most countries are going to do everything they can to avoid having a lot of “unproductive assets” on the books.

    Anyway HBD is obviously important. Only it is a fox in the henhouse. There is a wolf, or let’s say a grizzly bear in the henhouse too. Only this site seems to be obsessed with the fox, while the grizzly bear just stands there… for the moment.

    So if you are going to cover science here, I think more than genetics needs to be addressed. Focus is fine, but in the long run I question how important any of the genetics and HBD stuff actually will be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Given the absolute stake to the heart this puts into the worldview of … progressives? SJW’s? I can see why they hate it so much.
     
    HBD is a stake through the heart of libertarianism as well. And free market conservatism.

    We would either have to accept having an unjust, horrifyingly unequal and dangerously unstable society (probably about as stable as ancien regime France on the eve of the French Revolution) or a society in which different rules apply to different races. With all the economic dislocations and distortions that would imply.
  91. dfordoom says: • Website
    @JackOH
    "zyezek", commenting beneath Prof. Thompson's most recent article here, notes that IQ (and, more broadly, HBD ideas) are bound up with unclear moral claims to greater deserved entitlement to resources, positions, etc. for those with higher IQ. (I'm paraphrasing very loosely.) As "dfordoom" notes, that opens a can of worms, or muddling metaphors, risks a battle that seems to me can't be readily won. Example: will Blacks be less entitled to exercise First Amendment liberties, or will they be less deserving of other Constitutional protections?

    As “dfordoom” notes, that opens a can of worms, or muddling metaphors, risks a battle that seems to me can’t be readily won. Example: will Blacks be less entitled to exercise First Amendment liberties, or will they be less deserving of other Constitutional protections?

    Or it might even be argued that in some cases they’re deserving of more Constitutional protections.

    And what about Second Amendment rights?

    And where do we draw the line? How black do you have to be to be treated differently? Do we return to the One Drop Rule? Do East Asians get more rights than whites since they’re smarter than whites?

    It’s not just rights, there are also implied responsibilities. Most of us accept that children are entitled to special protections and special care. Should this apply to certain races?

    What about jury duty? In fact legal rights in general? Children don’t have the same legal rights as adults. Children aren’t allowed to vote.

    It’s not just a can of worms. It’s a whole cupboard full of cans of worms. All of them potentially politically disastrous. Even if I believed in HBD (I’m agnostic on the subject) I’d still run a hundred miles from these issues. Politically they’re all losing issues.

    Read More
  92. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sunbeam
    HBD is well and good. It's obvious at this point that genetics determines an awful lot. Including the obvious like intelligence. But also things like behavior, and apparently even the SOCIETIES different populations form.

    Given the absolute stake to the heart this puts into the worldview of ... progressives? SJW's? I can see why they hate it so much. Their utopia can't be realized. They were already in it for social engineering. Now they have to get messy with eugenics.

    But everything happens at once. There is another beast in the room now, and it's a whole lot more formidable than anything to do with genetics.

    Namely the possibility of AI. I'm not really familiar with the history of Unz, but apparently he lives in California, with the singularity epicenter in SF. So obviously he has to be familiar with the arguments.

    Here's the thing. If creating an AI with the tools we'll have available in the next couple of decades is possible... then anything to do with genetics is irrelevant. I mean irrelevant, immaterial, and not pertinent to the case at hand. Because literally nothing else will matter.

    You quite simply are not going to outpace "digital evolution" with biological, no matter if the first generation of 200+ IQ supermen is working on it (and who says they aren't working on AI?).

    And on a very related note, just the things that we know how to do now, and what appears to be reachable in the next decade or so without fundamental advances are going to be endlessly disruptive to current human societies. And these problems are going to be fundamentally unlike any faced by any societies before us.

    I mean I'd say it is a CW of most of the posters on this site, that most immigrants are future drains on treasuries, and in no way, shape, or form will ever be an economic asset. In the future I'd wager most countries are going to do everything they can to avoid having a lot of "unproductive assets" on the books.

    Anyway HBD is obviously important. Only it is a fox in the henhouse. There is a wolf, or let's say a grizzly bear in the henhouse too. Only this site seems to be obsessed with the fox, while the grizzly bear just stands there... for the moment.

    So if you are going to cover science here, I think more than genetics needs to be addressed. Focus is fine, but in the long run I question how important any of the genetics and HBD stuff actually will be.

    Given the absolute stake to the heart this puts into the worldview of … progressives? SJW’s? I can see why they hate it so much.

    HBD is a stake through the heart of libertarianism as well. And free market conservatism.

    We would either have to accept having an unjust, horrifyingly unequal and dangerously unstable society (probably about as stable as ancien regime France on the eve of the French Revolution) or a society in which different rules apply to different races. With all the economic dislocations and distortions that would imply.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Personal Classics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.