The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
February Diary: An Alt Right Style Book, Overproduction of Elites, Etc.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Credit: VDare.com.
Credit: VDare.com.
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Wanted: an Alt Right Style Book. Did I coin the phrase “Cold Civil War”? It’s possible. I’ve been using the expression for four years. A Google search on the term finds “about 23,800 results,” none of them earlier than that in the half-dozen Google pages I could be bothered to view.

Whether I coined it or not, the expression is now definitely current, as that 23,800 number testifies. A VDARE.com reader spotted it recently in the weekly vlog of Chris Farrell at Judicial Watch, February 21st edition. Chris:

Welcome to the Cold Civil War. You studied the American Civil War in school; some of you are old enough, like me, to have lived through the Cold War; Americans today face a Cold Civil War.

Armed groups are not yet engaged in open combat, but the country is fracturing in dramatic ways. Sometimes too dramatic: there are media figures in front of television cameras in a near-perpetual state of fear and anxiety, and they hope to contaminate you with the same hysteria …

I can remember why I first started using the phrase: to point up the fact that for all the fussing about race in America, the real division in our country is not racial. Rather it is, as I said on Radio Derb last year:

between two big blocs of white people who can’t stand the sight of each other: Goodwhites and Badwhites. The Goodwhites draft in battalions of colored people to dig latrine trenches and feed the horses, and to act as figureheads for Goodwhite values, as with our [then-] current President.

That’s what it is, and that’s how I most commonly refer to the two sections: Goodwhites and Badwhites.

Nobody’s passions are stirred by thinking about other races in the aggregate. What gets our juices flowing is thinking about our own status ranking among people of our own race. That’s what supplies the driving energy, the will to combat, in the Cold Civil War: How do other white people see me? No white person gives a fig about how blacks see him. Who cares what blacks think?

I may have coined “Goodwhite/Badwhite” too; can’t be bothered to search it. Occasionally I vary the descriptors to Tutsis and Hutus, again sticking to the idea that the energizing division is between groups of the same race.

That excellent blogger The Z-Man prefers “Cloud People” and “Dirt People.” He thinks he may have coined those terms, but like me with “Cold Civil War,” he’s not sure.

The Cloud/Dirt nomenclature is neat, but it obscures the intra-racial factor that, according to me, is a key feature of the Cold Civil War, as it was of the hot one.

That aside, I think it would help if those of who write honestly about the Cold Civil War could settle on which terms we want to use:

  • Goodwhites and Badwhites, or
  • Tutsis and Hutus, or
  • Cloud People and Dirt People, or
  • something else.

I’m totally not going to be possessive about this. Whatever we-all decide on, I’ll stick with it.

ORDER IT NOW

What we need, in fact, is an Alt Right Style Book to bring some uniformity to nomenclature and usage out here among the Deplorables. It needn’t be as long as the New York Public Library Writer’s Guide to Style and Usage, my 1994 edition of which runs to 840 pages. You could probably get the essentials into just a pamphlet.

I’ll do the job if someone will pay me.

Out of the frying-pan into the Ring of Fire? I’ve sometimes ruminated in my diaries about finding a bolt-hole to escape to if civilization collapses. Uruguay, I’ve said, looks pretty good, except for the chore of having to learn Spanish.

The subject of bolt-holes seems to be on the minds of our tech billionaires. Like me, they favor the Southern Hemisphere as the best possibility for a, er, safe space. They have picked a different country, though.

Silicon Valley tech leaders are snapping up property in Australasia as they believe that the apocalypse is near.

The elite business people have identified Queenstown on the southern island [of New Zealand] as a safe haven if the worse does happen.

The richest the U.S. has to offer have chosen the picturesque mountain town to reside in if tensions continue to mount in the US, with many fearing a nuclear war, political turmoil and terrorism. [APOCALYPSE WARNING: Billionaires buy up land in NEW ZEALAND as they look for safe haven by Sean Martin; Daily Express, February 13th 2017.]

Apocalypse aside, there is a current political dimension to this phenomenon. Peter Thiel, who is part of this movement, has been given New Zealand citizenship. He has bought a $10 million estate in New Zealand’s South Island.

The Kiwis are an egalitarian lot with exceptionally sensible immigration laws. To get residence — never mind citizenship — you have to show you bring something positive to the country, and nothing negative. The New Zealand authorities once refused a settlement visa to a British woman on the grounds that she was too fat. And the adjective “positive” there has not usually been taken to encompass just a big box of money.

The grant of citizenship to Thiel therefore raised eyebrows, and there has been to-ing and fro-ing in the Kiwi press about it.

Politics aside, I think Thiel has made a good choice. He doesn’t have to learn Spanish, see? My old Dad, who lamented that returning home to Britain from New Zealand in 1930 was “the worst mistake I ever made,” is surely smiling down his approval from the Other Place.

I just hope that Peter Thiel and these other tech moguls know that New Zealand sits smack-dab on the Ring of Fire.

Elite Overproduction. The Daily Express link in that previous segment, if you read down the linked story a bit, mentions anthropologist Peter Turchin’s theory of “elite overproduction.”

That theory came to mind this month while I was, on Prof. LaFleur’s recommendation, reading Ichisada Miyazaki’s 1963 book China’s Examination Hell.

As I think everybody knows, the Chinese early on in their history developed a system of rigorous examinations for entrance into the imperial bureaucracy. Prof. Miyazaki gives us a close look at how the system worked.

It sure was rigorous.

The examination cells had neither doors nor furniture and amounted to no more than spaces partitioned on three sides by brick walls and covered by a roof. The floors were packed dirt. Each cell was equipped with only three long boards. When placed across the cell from wall to wall, the highest became a shelf, the middle one functioned as a desk, and the lowest served as a seat. There were no other facilities: it was really like a prison without bars. Here candidates taking the provincial examination had to spend three days and two nights in succession.

Once the exams were under way, the examination compound — a huge place, almost a town in itself — was strictly sealed off from the world outside.

Thus, if a candidate died in the middle of an examination, the officials were presented with an annoying problem. The latch bar on the Great Gate was tightly closed and sealed, and since it was absolutely never opened ahead of schedule, beleaguered administrators had no alternative but to wrap the body in straw matting and throw it over the wall.

The main social problem, though, was elite overproduction. The number of Chinese provinces — and therefore the requirement for provincial governors, attorneys-general, and so on — was more or less the same in the later Qing Dynasty (39 by my count from Hermann’s Historical Atlas of China) as it had been in the Song Dynasty eight hundred years earlier (36, I think); but the population had quintupled, and every man who could scrape together some school fees wanted to be a Mandarin. “Ferociously competitive”? You bet.

Some similar phenomenon has been happening to elite education in the U.S.A. Steve Sailer has been writing about this for years.

Consider the growth rate of Harvard, the world’s richest university. The number of undergraduates in its class of 1986 was 1,722. After a quarter of a century, during which the US population grew by about 75,000,000, Harvard’s class of 2011 was 1,726: an increase of 4 …

Similarly, Yale’s undergraduate student body has been the same size since 1978. [The Fence Around the Ivory Tower by Steve Sailer; Taki’s Magazine, February 27th 2013.]

ORDER IT NOW

Taking entry into the Ivy League as the current American equivalent of landing a senior position in the imperial Chinese Mandarinate, along with the turn from teaching practical skills towards book learning in education at large, we are looking at a nasty case of elite overproduction here. It didn’t work out well for China.

How much of a factor has elite overproduction been in the raising of our political temperature to its present blistering levels? I don’t know, but I’m sure the answer is not “no factor at all.”

President Johnson Deep in the Art of Taxes. The only other style book on my shelves is a 1981 paperback by novelist, playwright, and veteran British journalist Keith Waterhouse.

Published by the London tabloid Daily Mirror, the book is titled Daily Mirror Style. It’s not an official style book, though, only, to quote from Waterhouse’s introduction, “a book about the style of English used by newspapers, particularly popular newspapers.”

Waterhouse is stern about puns, of which, he says, there are far too many in the average tabloid newspaper.

There will always be room for a really good pun or ingenious play on words in a headline, which is where the pun started its long and mainly undistinguished career in journalism. There is hardly any place for it in the text … Automatic punning is a tedious schoolboy game which must leave the reader feeling as he would if he switched on his TV set and found [then-famous newsreader] Anna Ford playing ping-pong while reading the News at Ten.

(I named this section of the Diary with a headline I recall fondly from the 1960s Daily Telegraph.)

These strictures came to mind the other day as I perused my New York Post. The three stories on page 3 were:

  • Police officers at Coney Island’s 60th Precinct have adopted as mascot a stray cat who’d been hanging around the station house. Headline: Thin Mew Line. Opener: “He’s on paw-trol …”
  • A New York pizza chain has opened an outlet in Accra, the capital city of Ghana. To make the pizza dough as authentic as possible, they are shipping New York City tap water over there. Headline: They’re “Ghana” Love It!
  • The small-budget white-guilt-porn thriller movie Get Out is proving unexpectedly popular. Headline: “Get Out” is in at box office.

Oy. Still, the tabloid punsters can point to a noble precedent. Shakespeare was a chronic punster, leading Dr. Johnson (in whose time puns were known as “quibbles”) to complain:

A quibble is to Shakespeare, what luminous vapours are to the traveller; he follows it at all adventures; it is sure to lead him out of his way, and sure to engulf him in the mire. It has some malignant power over his mind, and its fascinations are irresistible. Whatever be the dignity or profundity of his disquisition, whether he be enlarging knowledge or exalting affection, whether he be amusing attention with incidents, or enchaining it in suspense, let but a quibble spring up before him, and he leaves his work unfinished. A quibble is the golden apple for which he will always turn aside from his career, or stoop from his elevation. A quibble, poor and barren as it is, gave him such delight, that he was content to purchase it, by the sacrifice of reason, propriety and truth. A quibble was to him the fatal Cleopatra for which he lost the world, and was content to lose it.

Why not an Alt-Right Awards Ceremony? I didn’t see much of the Oscars ceremony February 26th, only glimpses as I passed through the living room now and then. I missed the FUBAR episode at the end, where they announced the wrong Best Picture. Pity: I would have enjoyed seeing a bunch of self-important showbiz nitwits being made to look almost as dumb as they actually are.

To judge from those glimpses, the whole thing was a White Guilt-o-Rama — the Cold Civil War version of a demonstration parade through occupied territory.

Every so often some polling firm asks Americans what proportion of the population is black. The guesstimates are always wildly high.

On average, Americans say that 33 percent of the U.S. population is black. In fact, a majority of Americans (56 percent) estimate that the percentage of blacks in this country stands at 30 percent or higher. As many as 17 percent of Americans say the percentage of blacks is 50 percent or greater. Only 7 percent accurately state that the percentage of blacks falls between 10 percent and 14 percent of the entire population. [Gallup, June 4th 2001.]

If I had nothing about the Oscars show to work from but those snippets glimpsed while heading from study to liquor cabinet and back, I’d have put the proportion at eighty percent. What is this, Disparate Impact?

Whatever it is, I was thinking about the Alt Right Style Book, and my imagination leapt ahead to an Alt Right awards ceremony.

Why not? We could have trophies for Most Rioted Against, Loudest Defenestration, Best Anti-Anti-White Polemic, Lengthiest Denunciation by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Most Referred To As “Literally Hitler,” and so on.

Personally, I’d be hoping for a nomination at least.

And if there were to be a general-purpose Lifetime Achievement Award, surely there is no doubt it should go to the magnificent, unwavering Jared Taylor — the rock of the Alt Right.

The Curse of Politics. As in any civil war, personal relationships can be affected, even sundered, by sectionalist differences of opinion.

With heated political interactions now the norm, both on social media and in the real world, is dating someone with different political beliefs a thing of the past? …

Peter, 41, in Midtown East has gotten dramatic reactions from dates when he mentions he’s a Trump supporter. “One stormed out,” he said. Another “just shut down and stared into space.” [The perils of dating in the time of Trump by Karol Markowicz; New York Post, February 6th 2017.]

I haven’t yet heard of cases like that of Union General George Thomas in the Hot Civil War, whose Virginia family disowned him when he declined to join the Confederacy, but ruptures like that can’t be far away.

This is damn depressing. Politics shouldn’t matter that much to civilized people.

I’m occasionally asked about the politics of the Derbyshire household. Short answer: There isn’t any.

ORDER IT NOW

Mrs D, like most sensible people, is uninterested in politics ninety-five percent of the time. She stayed up to watch the election result in November (which was more political engagement than I could summon) but in all probability has not thought about politics for ten consecutive seconds since.

She understands instinctively that a passionate, all-consuming interest in politics is characteristic of bores and monomaniacs. Normal people have better things to think and talk about.

Being raised in China during the Great Cultural Revolution anyway made her cynical about politics. It also left a slight vague residue of fear, of a sense that politics is dangerous. On the rare occasions she looks at something political I’ve written, she warns me to be careful: “You can get in trouble, writing things like that.” What a ridiculous idea!

Those occasions are, though, very rare. Mrs D’s usual self-description when this comes up in conversation is “Mafia wife”: “Don’t ask me about my business, Kay.”

Weaponizing autonomous vehicles. In a January Radio Derb podcast I passed some remarks about car-size drones being the natural end-point of personal transportation, with massive savings to the public fisc in road maintenance and so on.

That drew some thoughtful emails from listeners. One pointed out another great advantage for autonomous vehicles going airborne: It makes them much harder to hijack.

Apparently one of the issues vexing the designers of autonomous vehicles is just that — hijacking. A driver-driven car or truck is, as well as being a nifty means of transportation, also a weapon.

If a menacing character waving a sawn-off shotgun steps in front of my 2010 Toyota Camry in a dark street at night, I can run him down, and the law (I hope) would say I was justified in doing so. If that same person does that same thing to an autonomous vehicle, it stops, and a hijacking follows.

A different listener pointed out the inverse problem: the weaponizing of autonomous vehicles by remote hacking. This would be worse with flying drone-cars (“drars”? “cones”?) — think lots of mini-9/11s as hacked vehicles smash into skyscrapers.

The hacking issue applies to robots in general, says this report from security-services firm IOActive.

If we combine powerful burgeoning AI technology with insecure robots, the Skynet scenario of the famous Terminator films all of a sudden seems not nearly as far-fetched as it once did.

While we continue researching and hacking robot technology, we hope this paper will be a wake-up call for robot vendors to start taking cybersecurity seriously. If robot ecosystems continue to be vulnerable to hacking, robots could soon end up hurting instead of helping us, and potentially taking the “fiction” out of science fiction.

I guess we should discount that warning some on the grounds that IOActive has a product to sell. It’s still true that we aren’t doing half as much hard thinking as we should about the pluses and minuses of machine intelligence.

Learning nothing about everything. Here’s an example of that educational trend from the practical to the bookish.

ORDER IT NOW

A friend of my wife’s is a trained nurse, a very competent and conscientious one. She recently decided that to advance in her career, she needed to get a degree in nursing, an actual bachelor’s degree. She accordingly signed up as an undergraduate at her local university.

Now this lady, who is not at all bookish, is having to study topics in history, literature, and philosophy. For a recent essay assignment she was told to read the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, then write 500 words that “express how your understanding of the origin of the universe impacts your worldview, especially your view of God, of humanity, and of our responsibility to care for the earth.”

I’ll certainly allow that it’s a good thing for citizens to contemplate such matters once in a while; but should such contemplations be a condition for acquiring a nursing degree?

Possibly there’s just a transatlantic difference in attitudes here. In my Ed School days back in England, the cliché in Comparative Ed class was that British higher education was narrow but deep, while the American system was wide but shallow. The lecturer’s inevitable following joke was that those who pursued higher education in Britain learned more and more about less and less, until at last they knew everything about nothing; while at American universities you learned less and less about more and more, until at last you knew nothing about everything.

Speaking as a very occasional hospital patient, my strong preference is for nurses to know all there is to know about nursing. If that leaves no room in their heads for opinions about the origin of the universe, I’m fine with it.

The Little Bang Theory. Speaking of that, among my other nonfiction reading this month was a new pop cosmology book: Zeeya Merali’s A Big Bang in a Little Room. The book’s subtitle is “The Quest to Create New Universes,” and that’s what it’s about, although the author takes a while to get around to it.

Before she does get around to it she gives us a survey of modern cosmology, with “modern” referring to the past forty years, since the theory of cosmic inflation settled in. This theory posits that in the very early universe — the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second or so after the Big Bang — the universe went through a period of sensationally rapid expansion, before settling down to something more sedate.

Merali, who is herself a trained physicist, gives us a lively and interesting tour around the main centers of research, and interviews all the big-name players. These are super-smart people — the math they use is very advanced — yet the speculations they come up with are so weird, you wonder if they can really be serious.

Might it really be possible to create an entire universe — galaxies, stars, planets — in a lab, or at least in a machine like the Large Hadron Collider? On our best, most sophisticated understandings of physics, the answer seems to be “yes.”

You don’t need much matter to get a universe started. On current theories, in fact, you don’t need any. Hence the famous remark by Alan Guth, one of the founders of inflation theory, that our universe is “the ultimate free lunch.”

A different cosmologist has suggested that our cosmos may be the result of a high-school science project in some higher reality. The level of weirdness in this field is so high, it’s hard to know whether to smile or not.

ORDER IT NOW

The real weirdness is that all these ideas, while of course speculative, are grounded in our very best understandings of math and physics. It’s weirdness, but it’s not UFO-Bigfoot-telepathy-National Enquirer weirdness. And no, there is nothing wrong with speculative science. To the contrary, without speculation there would be no science.

Once we have created a baby universe, of course, we have became a Creator. This opens the door to some thoughts about religious belief — a door which Zeeya Merali does not hesitate to peer through. For example: Might a Creator leave some hints about himself in his Creation? Visible to sufficiently advanced intelligences in the universe’s physical laws, perhaps? Or even drawn in some kind of code on the ultimate whiteboard: the Cosmic Background Radiation?

I’m a sucker for this stuff. A lot of other people must be, too: Publishers turn out pop-cosmology books at a fair clip. I only just recently read Max Tegmark’s 2014 contribution Our Mathematical Universe — deeper than Zeeya Merali’s book, but not such fun to read.

Can anything, to the enquiring mind, be more interesting than Everything? It may of course turn out in the long run that we today, like those hypothetical products of American higher education, really know nothing about Everything. Reading pop cosmology is, though, at least more rewarding than watching the Oscars. Those Hollywood folk know nothing about Anything.

Although I still can’t see how cosmology belongs in the course syllabus for a nursing degree.

Math Corner. The February Notices of the American Mathematical Societyrecords the success of Ukrainian mathematician Maryna Viazovska in solving the sphere packing problem in eight dimensions.

That raised a tiny nostalgic thrill in my breast. Back in my wasted adolescence I spent many happy hours sticking ping-pong balls together with Durofix glue in an effort to understand the fundamentals of sphere packing, which math geeks of my generation had read about in Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen’s Geometry and the Imagination.

It’s a fascinating topic, with many curiosities. Most elementary accounts concentrate — as Dr. Viazovska did — on maximum-density packings, seeking to answer the question: “What’s the maximum number of identical spheres I can pack into a given space?” That’s what’s usually meant by “the sphere-packing problem.”

(The space is of course supposed to be very large by comparison with the spheres, to minimize boundary effects. Most research in fact assumes an infinite space, although there is fun to be had with finite spaces, especially if the spheres are allowed to be different sizes.)

In two dimensions, where “sphere” means “circle,” the hexagonal “honeycomb” packing is the densest possible, a fact proved by Gauss in 1831.

In three dimensions, where “sphere” means “sphere,” things get radically more difficult. You have to distinguish between regular and irregular packings. A regular packing is one where the arrangement of spheres repeats in a predictable way, like the famous cannonball stacking. An irregular one is anything else.

Is the cannonball stacking (along with some close relatives, also regular) the densest possible in three dimensions? Johannes Kepler, in 1611, surmised that it was. This was the famous Kepler Conjecture. Gauss proved it true for regular packings, but the possibility of a more dense irregular packing remained open until 1998 when Thomas Hales proved the Kepler Conjecture true for all possible packings. If you pack a very large volume of space with spheres arranged in this optimal way, the spheres occupy 0.74048 … of the overall volume (pi divided by the square root of 18). You can’t improve on that.

A related problem is to find the least dense possible packing that is still rigid: that is, each sphere is held firmly in place by others. Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen cooked up a rigid packing with density only 0.123, which they thought the “loosest.” It seems, however, that by clever manipulations you can make the density as low as you please without sacrificing rigidity; so that the infimum — the highest lower bound of the density number for all possible rigid-packing densities — is zero!

Well, this two- and three-dimensional stuff is picayune to modern mathematicians. They want to know how to pack n-dimensional spheres into n-dimensional space. That’s what the Ukrainian lady was working on. She has cracked the maximum-density problem for n = 8.

So what is that maximum density? It’s the fourth power of pi divided by 384, or 0.25366 … Lots of empty space up there in eight dimensions.

Dr. Viazovska’s result is the more striking because we still don’t know the corresponding answer in 4, 5, 6, or 7 dimensions. In fact we don’t know the answer in any dimensions other than 1, 2, 3, 8, and 24. Or rather, we’re pretty sure we know the numerical answers, but don’t have rigorous logical proofs.

(The maximum packing density in 24-space is .0019295744 … Pack 24-dimensional spheres as tightly as you can into 24-dimensional space, and 99.8 percent of your space will still be empty!)

As I said, it’s a fascinating topic. Here’s another little subtopic.

Suppose your identical spheres (we’re back in three dimensions here) are made of some material — one of the workable metals, perhaps — that are rigid up to a point but can be deformed with sufficient pressure. Fill up a very large container with zillions of spheres arranged at random, not in any regular way. Now apply pressure from all directions, squishing the spheres together until there is no space left between them.

Each sphere is now an irregular polyhedron, a solid figure with plane faces. What is the average number of those faces?

I read the answer many years ago in some math journal and remember it as thirteen point something. I thought it was in Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen, but it isn’t, and Googling hasn’t turned anything up. Anybody got a reference?

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
    []
  1. A New York pizza chain has opened an outlet in Accra, the capital city of Ghana. To make the pizza dough as authentic as possible, they are shipping New York City tap water over there.

    Not to be churlish, but to make the pizza “authentic” is not the real reason they are shipping NYC tap water to Africa.

    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
    /jderbyshire/february-diary-an-alt-right-style-book-overproduction-of-elites-etc/#comment-1784261
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Discard says:

    How is Harvard’s low growth rate indicative of a nasty case of elite overproduction? It seems to me that they’re keeping the number artificially low, which would be elite underproduction.
    Did you misspeak, or am I clueless?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Light Roast
    I had to look that up to confirm what Derb meant by "elite overproduction." It looks like a term coined by Peter Turchin to mean that we have an overproduction of people who could qualify to be in the elite. But, we have the same number of elite spots now as we did earlier. So the competition to get one of those spots has become fiercer.
  3. fitzGetty says:

    We need to do better than the W-word in referring to ourselves … its use plays into the colour lobby’s hands … what about ***European American***, lads ??

    Read More
  4. Uruguay, I’ve said, looks pretty good, except for the chore of having to learn Spanish.

    Or go to Argentina and hook up with this survivalist.

    How much of a factor has elite overproduction been in the raising of our political temperature to its present blistering levels? I don’t know, but I’m sure the answer is not “no factor at all.”

    I’m a huge fan of Turchin, but like Robin Hanson, I am skeptical to what extent the elite overproduction theory applies to post-Malthusian societies. (Disclaimer: Haven’t read his very last book on this subject).

    Under Malthusian conditions, only a certain small percentage of people could be something other than peasants, so of course you had problems when titles multiplied while official positions dried up. But what is elite overproduction in the context of a post-Malthusian industrial economy where if you don’t get a job with the NYT you can still employ your skills in thousands of other professions? Okay, obviously its not that simple, but in Qing China your range of choices was smaller: Back to peasantry; beggary; or banditry/rebellion.

    Also its not as if the US is even an outlier in percentage tertiary enrollment relative to OECD countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    Explain to me how you get your money.

    A moment of introspection. Look at what you do, say this is where I added the value (I'm quite positive you aren't raising bushels of wheat or pounding rocks with a pick). It should be easy to point out where you received funds (however you do that exactly), then used those funds to produce more "output" than you were given.

    Now blogging and ideas are nebulous things. Maybe you can't even come up with a way to do a nuts and bolts analysis.

    But long story short... no way in hell would you work at Target. By environment you were raised to expect different things (as opposed to Sam Walton say, who must have had something in the inherited IQ department, so don't go there).

    You'd hoist the black flag in a skinny minute if your best option were to work in an American box store or cubicle veal farm (or the equivalents anywhere in the world).

    And as it is with you, so is it with others. Maybe you are the first or second generation, did all the right things, got your ticket punched at the right places. But you just didn't have the connections when it came time to get admission to the places where they make real money, have real influence, get to have the "interesting" lifestyle. Or maybe you are obnoxious or don't have the physical appearance these guys/girls actually want, no matter what they say.

    Point is, if things had broken a little differently you could be living large, around lots of poon tang raised organically. But instead you are dealing with the kind of people you see here:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=people+of+walmart&biw=1600&bih=740&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjXyfHzjbjSAhVL7iYKHYmbBgEQsAQILg&dpr=1

    And you are so mad... so very, very mad now. And all your real pals are people just like you, and wouldn't you know it, they are mad too. Despite the education, despite being able to say something intelligible about Adam Smith, Marx, Japanese History, or Kant at dinner parties, they just can't figure it out. Or they are unwilling to go there. - For now.

    Of course that isn't you. But there is someone just like that out there.

    Actually I really hope you don't take this as a personal attack. To you I am just a random poster on an internet site.

    But in the spirit of having a gaze "blank and pitiless as the sun," at the end of the day what are we talking about here?

    Plus your lifestyle puzzles me. You are the one blogging about your trip back to Russia right? How in god's name do you finance something like that if blogging is what you do? Always wondered about that, since the casual observer can't figure out how the inhabitants of Portland, Oregon even exist if you look at it from a purely economic point of view.

    How exactly were so many people financed to complete expensive educations, live lifestyles that appear to be low key on the surface, yet involve lots of jet fuel and burn time on support funds while on safari, and can't seem to be defined as producing much of anything to support it all?

    I'm a cynic, and have many theories without assigning blame or malignance to anyone. But don't kid a kidder. You ever sat back and thought about it all?
  5. Sunbeam says:

    This is a personal opinion.

    If the all-knowing Celestial Accountant descended from the heavens and did a fundamental cost analysis of American society -

    I think we would find that a high portion of people who currently went to elite colleges, and have jobs where they make lots of money are fundamentally useless.

    Basically if the Accountant snapped his fingers and said “It is written in the stars, you are unprofitable. Away with you,” we’d find that society suffered no ill effects. Wouldn’t even notice really. And the balance sheets would be better in certain quarters.

    And so with the less lofty segments of society.

    Then the Accountant determines we have overproduced the dregs of society.

    Basically for any kind of society we might actually want, we already have lots more people than we can productively use anyway. And this is basically true the world over.

    I take no satisfaction in this viewpoint. Actually I don’t like it at all. But that’s the way I think it is really.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    It's been said that our society rewards jobs in inverse relation to their social utility.
  6. @Discard
    How is Harvard's low growth rate indicative of a nasty case of elite overproduction? It seems to me that they're keeping the number artificially low, which would be elite underproduction.
    Did you misspeak, or am I clueless?

    I had to look that up to confirm what Derb meant by “elite overproduction.” It looks like a term coined by Peter Turchin to mean that we have an overproduction of people who could qualify to be in the elite. But, we have the same number of elite spots now as we did earlier. So the competition to get one of those spots has become fiercer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Discard
    OK, then it's not the ivies who are overproducing elites. They are one of the filters keeping wannabes out of the elite.
  7. This is damn depressing. Politics shouldn’t matter that much to civilized people.

    I’m occasionally asked about the politics of the Derbyshire household. Short answer: There isn’t any.

    Mrs D, like most sensible people, is uninterested in politics ninety-five percent of the time. She stayed up to watch the election result in November (which was more political engagement than I could summon) but in all probability has not thought about politics for ten consecutive seconds since.

    She understands instinctively that a passionate, all-consuming interest in politics is characteristic of bores and monomaniacs. Normal people have better things to think and talk about.

    I am in great disagreement with this part of your otherwise great February Diary. Here’s the deal, you’re from England, see. Over there they’ve had big government for a long time. With China that time is another order of magnitude longer. There are still Americans to this day who can remember when Americans had pretty good control of all governments up to the Federal one. It used to be a really free country, because state government was small, and the Federal one was reasonably small enough to control.

    OK, so far this may seem like I’m getting it backwards here, but I’m not. Listen, you SHOULDN’T HAVE TO be interested in politics. That’s the case in a few great countries like the former US. However, when the government gets big, politics is interested in you. The future of your life, that of your family, your business or even whole field of employment, the property you own, ALL OF IT, can be messed with by changes made in the Washington Federal S__thole .

    In other countries that have had statist governments for centuries running, nobody figures that there is any control; government is gonna do what it’s gonna do, so what is the point in caring about it so much. Now, the reason many Americans feel they need to get so involved is that they used to have control of things, and not that long ago. The decent Americans that can remember freedom want to set things right, and are used to having a say. They also see that any day of the working-week some new law could be passed to mess with their lives, and we still feel like they need to fight this stuff.

    Normal people are not really going to have any “better things to think and talk about” when this world becomes nothing but a big statist hellhole resembling George Orwell’s Oceana. It’s time to put the hurt on the statists before that is not possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    Scott Richert made comments similar to Derb's about not focusing on national politics in the December issue of Chronicles. His point was more about focusing on changing the culture rather than obsessing about the national political landscape. I largely agree with your point though, you can't help but focus on politics because it intrudes into every area of your life. Simply as a means of self preservation the average citizen needs to be aware of what is happening at the national level. This is especially true considering no one is too insignificant for the left to ignore.
  8. And another thing!

    Haha, this is where I may partially agree with you:

    Your wife again:

    Mrs D, like most sensible people, is uninterested in politics ninety-five percent of the time. She stayed up to watch the election result in November (which was more political engagement than I could summon) but in all probability has not thought about politics for ten consecutive seconds since.

    She understands instinctively that a passionate, all-consuming interest in politics is characteristic of bores and monomaniacs. Normal people have better things to think and talk about.

    It is not the woman’s job to worry about this stuff – it has never been. If you have a conservative society where men and woman are in general in the correct gender roles, then only men should be voting, running for office, etc. It would take me too long to explain that, but I shouldn’t need to, to a conservative.

    My wife is the same way and asked me to vote for her back in November. That didn’t work out, but I sure was not going to get her registered if she wasn’t going to vote for Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheBoom
    "It is not the woman’s job to worry about this stuff"

    Agree. In a sane society women worry about the family and, at most, the community. Men worry about protecting the society (guarding the borders), growing the economy, protecting their family and making money. That plays to each gender's strength. As, plays to weaknesses as well.
  9. Sunbeam says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Uruguay, I’ve said, looks pretty good, except for the chore of having to learn Spanish.
     
    Or go to Argentina and hook up with this survivalist.

    How much of a factor has elite overproduction been in the raising of our political temperature to its present blistering levels? I don’t know, but I’m sure the answer is not “no factor at all.”
     
    I'm a huge fan of Turchin, but like Robin Hanson, I am skeptical to what extent the elite overproduction theory applies to post-Malthusian societies. (Disclaimer: Haven't read his very last book on this subject).

    Under Malthusian conditions, only a certain small percentage of people could be something other than peasants, so of course you had problems when titles multiplied while official positions dried up. But what is elite overproduction in the context of a post-Malthusian industrial economy where if you don't get a job with the NYT you can still employ your skills in thousands of other professions? Okay, obviously its not that simple, but in Qing China your range of choices was smaller: Back to peasantry; beggary; or banditry/rebellion.

    Also its not as if the US is even an outlier in percentage tertiary enrollment relative to OECD countries.

    Explain to me how you get your money.

    A moment of introspection. Look at what you do, say this is where I added the value (I’m quite positive you aren’t raising bushels of wheat or pounding rocks with a pick). It should be easy to point out where you received funds (however you do that exactly), then used those funds to produce more “output” than you were given.

    Now blogging and ideas are nebulous things. Maybe you can’t even come up with a way to do a nuts and bolts analysis.

    But long story short… no way in hell would you work at Target. By environment you were raised to expect different things (as opposed to Sam Walton say, who must have had something in the inherited IQ department, so don’t go there).

    You’d hoist the black flag in a skinny minute if your best option were to work in an American box store or cubicle veal farm (or the equivalents anywhere in the world).

    And as it is with you, so is it with others. Maybe you are the first or second generation, did all the right things, got your ticket punched at the right places. But you just didn’t have the connections when it came time to get admission to the places where they make real money, have real influence, get to have the “interesting” lifestyle. Or maybe you are obnoxious or don’t have the physical appearance these guys/girls actually want, no matter what they say.

    Point is, if things had broken a little differently you could be living large, around lots of poon tang raised organically. But instead you are dealing with the kind of people you see here:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=people+of+walmart&biw=1600&bih=740&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjXyfHzjbjSAhVL7iYKHYmbBgEQsAQILg&dpr=1

    And you are so mad… so very, very mad now. And all your real pals are people just like you, and wouldn’t you know it, they are mad too. Despite the education, despite being able to say something intelligible about Adam Smith, Marx, Japanese History, or Kant at dinner parties, they just can’t figure it out. Or they are unwilling to go there. – For now.

    Of course that isn’t you. But there is someone just like that out there.

    Actually I really hope you don’t take this as a personal attack. To you I am just a random poster on an internet site.

    But in the spirit of having a gaze “blank and pitiless as the sun,” at the end of the day what are we talking about here?

    Plus your lifestyle puzzles me. You are the one blogging about your trip back to Russia right? How in god’s name do you finance something like that if blogging is what you do? Always wondered about that, since the casual observer can’t figure out how the inhabitants of Portland, Oregon even exist if you look at it from a purely economic point of view.

    How exactly were so many people financed to complete expensive educations, live lifestyles that appear to be low key on the surface, yet involve lots of jet fuel and burn time on support funds while on safari, and can’t seem to be defined as producing much of anything to support it all?

    I’m a cynic, and have many theories without assigning blame or malignance to anyone. But don’t kid a kidder. You ever sat back and thought about it all?

    Read More
  10. The thing I don’t understand about the Oscars fubar is how everyone knew it was the wrong movie announced. Apparently only the mischievous accountants have access to the ballots and totals and the whole thing is supposed to be kept secret.

    Perhaps the most surprising thing is that the crew from the eventual best movie Moonlight did not rush the stage Kanye West-style.

    However, perhaps it is telling that retired Hollywood figures gave the most votes to a movie that portrayed blacks as queers, or something. Just a few years after they gave it to a movie that portrayed shepherds as queers. Anyhow, Oscar or no Oscar, I won’t be taking my kids to see it. They will have to wait for the lesbian Peppa Pig movie.

    Read More
  11. Barnard says:

    I looked up images of Queenstown, New Zealand and it looks like an area with incredible natural beauty. It is easy to understand why wealthy people would want a home there without even considering it a safe haven from a meltdown in civilization. Plus, aren’t a lot of these people looking for new places to visit that are considered trendy? This is a way to impress other elites, what, you haven’t been to Queenstown?

    Read More
  12. @Sunbeam
    This is a personal opinion.

    If the all-knowing Celestial Accountant descended from the heavens and did a fundamental cost analysis of American society -

    I think we would find that a high portion of people who currently went to elite colleges, and have jobs where they make lots of money are fundamentally useless.

    Basically if the Accountant snapped his fingers and said "It is written in the stars, you are unprofitable. Away with you," we'd find that society suffered no ill effects. Wouldn't even notice really. And the balance sheets would be better in certain quarters.

    And so with the less lofty segments of society.

    Then the Accountant determines we have overproduced the dregs of society.

    Basically for any kind of society we might actually want, we already have lots more people than we can productively use anyway. And this is basically true the world over.

    I take no satisfaction in this viewpoint. Actually I don't like it at all. But that's the way I think it is really.

    It’s been said that our society rewards jobs in inverse relation to their social utility.

    Read More
  13. OutWest says:

    You don’t need matter to start a universe. But ours packed a whole bunch of energy into the initial singularity. Of course with expansion, entropy and cooling (redundant) energy and matter are fungible

    Read More
  14. Barnard says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    This is damn depressing. Politics shouldn’t matter that much to civilized people.

    I’m occasionally asked about the politics of the Derbyshire household. Short answer: There isn’t any.

    Mrs D, like most sensible people, is uninterested in politics ninety-five percent of the time. She stayed up to watch the election result in November (which was more political engagement than I could summon) but in all probability has not thought about politics for ten consecutive seconds since.

    She understands instinctively that a passionate, all-consuming interest in politics is characteristic of bores and monomaniacs. Normal people have better things to think and talk about.

     
    I am in great disagreement with this part of your otherwise great February Diary. Here's the deal, you're from England, see. Over there they've had big government for a long time. With China that time is another order of magnitude longer. There are still Americans to this day who can remember when Americans had pretty good control of all governments up to the Federal one. It used to be a really free country, because state government was small, and the Federal one was reasonably small enough to control.

    OK, so far this may seem like I'm getting it backwards here, but I'm not. Listen, you SHOULDN'T HAVE TO be interested in politics. That's the case in a few great countries like the former US. However, when the government gets big, politics is interested in you. The future of your life, that of your family, your business or even whole field of employment, the property you own, ALL OF IT, can be messed with by changes made in the Washington Federal S__thole .

    In other countries that have had statist governments for centuries running, nobody figures that there is any control; government is gonna do what it's gonna do, so what is the point in caring about it so much. Now, the reason many Americans feel they need to get so involved is that they used to have control of things, and not that long ago. The decent Americans that can remember freedom want to set things right, and are used to having a say. They also see that any day of the working-week some new law could be passed to mess with their lives, and we still feel like they need to fight this stuff.

    Normal people are not really going to have any "better things to think and talk about" when this world becomes nothing but a big statist hellhole resembling George Orwell's Oceana. It's time to put the hurt on the statists before that is not possible.

    Scott Richert made comments similar to Derb’s about not focusing on national politics in the December issue of Chronicles. His point was more about focusing on changing the culture rather than obsessing about the national political landscape. I largely agree with your point though, you can’t help but focus on politics because it intrudes into every area of your life. Simply as a means of self preservation the average citizen needs to be aware of what is happening at the national level. This is especially true considering no one is too insignificant for the left to ignore.

    Read More
  15. A lot of your good whites are not white. They are Jews. Still it’s a useful metaphor. What would be better would be if you would stop thinking long enough to realize it’s a good old fashioned Class War. You don’t have to be a Communist to say CLASS WAR! Occupy Wall Street could not bring themselves to say it. They had to fall back on 1% vs. 99%.

    College educated white people cannot think of themselves as working class. They think class is an old fashioned and obsolete concept. Like gold. I remember the question that asked is writing code a science or an art. When programing was outsourced we had the answer. It’s labor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    A lot of your good whites are not white. They are Jews. Still it’s a useful metaphor. What would be better would be if you would stop thinking long enough to realize it’s a good old fashioned Class War. You don’t have to be a Communist to say CLASS WAR! Occupy Wall Street could not bring themselves to say it. They had to fall back on 1% vs. 99%.

    I daresay that most of the people who are writing articulately online about white issues are upper class or middle class. The issue is treason, not class. Though certainly the white working class has been screwed hard as a class.
    , @Joe Franklin
    In casual parlance, class warfare implies a poor versus rich people dichotomy, with poor people being the recognized virtuous class.

    This idea is not what is the core perversity in the US today.

    The modern virtuous class in the US and Israel is the victim class, allegedly oppressed by Nazi and white supremacist, and the victim class is recognized by the US federal government as protected class groups.

    Protected class groups frequently demand and receive illicit federal entitlements, and they are exhorted to exchange their votes for more entitlements.

    For example:

    http://www.unk.edu/offices/human_resources/aaeo/hiring_guidelines/identification_of_protected.php

    Identification of Protected Class Groups

    The following five groups are considered "Protected Classes" under various federal laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires reporting employment information on the first two groups, females and minorities, which are traditionally underutilized.

    1.FEMALES

    2.INDIGENOUS MINORITIES. Groups for whom established patterns of discrimination have been determined to exist (based on self-identification):

    •Black: (not Hispanic origin): All persons having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

    •Hispanic: All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

    •American Indian or Alaskan Native: All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

    •Asian or Pacific Islander: All persons having their origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent or the Pacific Islands. For example: China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands and Samoa.


    3.INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES: Defined as an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that constitutes a substantial limitation on a major life activity, a person with record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived as having such an impairment. The law also protects those who are in a relationship or associated with someone with a disability.

    4.VETERANS AND DISABLED VETERANS

    5.PERSONS AGE 40 OR OVER.

    Last Update: 5/2003
  16. iffen says:

    There is no unifying ism.

    An elite faction has to go up against the elites in control. This will not happen because there are very few elites that have interests or ideology separate from the elites in control.

    An elite faction could lead the proles against the ruling elites (hey, it’s worked before) but the % of the population that sees the problem has more contempt for the proles than they have for the elite.

    They are in control and winning by default.

    Read More
  17. Randal says:

    The lecturer’s inevitable following joke was that those who pursued higher education in Britain learned more and more about less and less, until at last they knew everything about nothing; while at American universities you learned less and less about more and more, until at last you knew nothing about everything.

    Whereas in modern Britain the country is ruled by people who have learned more and more about things that are just inapt to the real world:

    PPE: the Oxford degree that runs Britain

    And I’ve observed more than once that the three greatest post-WW2 strategic blunders (in the military/foreign policy sphere) by the UK government were all the responsibility of Oxford alumni:

    Suez – responsibility of Anthony Eden (Double First in Oriental Languages, Christchurch Oxford)

    Iraq War – responsibility of Tony Blair (Second in Jurisprudence, St John’s Oxford)

    Libyan war – responsibility of David Cameron (First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Brasenose Oxford

    On the other hand, the man who was probably the greatest C20th British politician in terms of intellect and potential if not achievement was a Cambridge man (Enoch Powell, double starred first in Latin and Greek, Trinity Cambridge)

    Read More
    • Replies: @eD
    This is an interesting point.

    The two biggest British strategic mistakes were the complete mishandling of the "July Crisis" that lead to World War I in 1914 (just about any other course of action would have worked out better), and, in second place, the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1914.

    The mishandling of the July Crisis was primarily due to the Foreign Secretary at the time, Edward Grey. Grey had a third class degree in jurisprudence from Balliol College, Oxford, at one point having been expelled. The PM at the time, Asquith, who let Grey run foreign policy, also had a degree (Wikipedia doesn't say how how) in jurisprudence from Balliol College.

    With Munich, the PM, Neville Chamberlain, took the lead. Chamberlain attended college in Birmingham briefly but never graduated. His Foreign Secretary, Edward Wood, Lord Halifax, though, was a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. So there is an Oxford connection after all.

    For contrast, neither Winston Churchill or David Lloyd George were (civilian) university graduates, though Churchill graduated from a military academy after having a horrible academic career.

    To be fair, of this group only Halifax, Eden, and Cameron really excelled academically. Eden actually was a very good Foreign Secretary and Halifax's overall record is not bad. The Cameron government wasn't as disastrous as that of Asquith, Chamberlain, or Eden, or Blair, but you wonder why he was considered so promising in his youth.
  18. Randal says:

    Once we have created a baby universe, of course, we have became a Creator.

    A repeated theme in science fiction (in the particular case of relatively mundane creatures such as humans achieving that status through technology alone). I can recall Philip Jose Farmer’s World of Tiers series based upon exactly that idea, and I think Jack Chalker’s Well World series and others of his, and I’m sure I have read at least two or three more books/series also based upon it, and a number more which have it as a vague or hypothesized backstory. The names of the others will undoubtedly come back to me over the next couple of days when I’m away from the computer.

    Read More
  19. Truth says:

    I’ve sometimes ruminated in my diaries about finding a bolt-hole to escape to if civilization collapses.

    I thought that was why you brought your candy-ass to this country.

    Read More
  20. Keith Vaz says:

    I disagree anout GoodWhites vs BadWhites. It is Whites vs (((ELITES))) + shabbos goy + brainwashed + job depends on their approval.

    Read More
  21. Sean says:

    Australia has been bought by the Chinese, it’s their Caribbean. Billionaires are looking to New Zealand for land, (a limited edition product) cheap land anywhere there is a government that can be trusted to not steal is the best investment on the planet.

    But people don’t like foreigners coming in on a high horse, even in Australasia. A related point is yes, the Taiping leader failed the Mandarin exam, but he got a lot of common people to follow him and the rebellion was very very difficult to put down. I suspect the main cause was the government had been discredited by an accurate perception that the rulers of China were capitulating to foreigners letting them push opium while buying up the country. The nation state has an emergent quality:it fights to maintain independence and when push comes to shove the majority of the people or elites will bestir themselves in that cause.

    The Confederacy was a bit like Whites in the Russian civil war, foreign connections helped, but were a disaster at the moral level. The Confederacy was seen as anti American, the Whites as anti Russian. As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death. Anti Trump forces’ greatest headway has come from the accusations of complicity with Putin, but the anti Trump campaign being openly supported by foreign peoples and governments in addition to foreigner-sympathetic elites, means they have effectively lost a Gettysburg of the cold civil war in the moral conflict space that according to strategist Col. Boyd is the decisive one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death.

    The American War of Independence, supported by France, was in your view the exception that proves the rule?
  22. Svigor says:

    Yes, “Cold Civil War” is good coinage. I’m surprised I didn’t come up with it myself. On the other hand, I have been saying for at least ten years that the current and coming conflicts are and will be civil wars between Whites.

    Let’s hope it ends the way the Cold War did; with the bankruptcy and then complete collapse of the leftist regime. We shouldn’t end it the way the right did, though. We should prosecute and punish the arch-leftists; Kaganovich died in his bed, of very old age.

    what about ***European American***, lads ??

    I like and use:

    American-American
    Euro-American
    Euro
    European

    Read More
  23. Svigor says:

    The Confederacy was a bit like Whites in the Russian civil war, foreign connections helped, but were a disaster at the moral level. The Confederacy was seen as anti American, the Whites as anti Russian. As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death. Anti Trump forces’ greatest headway has come from the accusations of complicity with Putin, but the anti Trump campaign being openly supported by foreign peoples and governments in addition to foreigner-sympathetic elites, means they have effectively lost a Gettysburg of the cold civil war in the moral conflict space that according to strategist Col. Boyd is the decisive one.

    Yeah, all that gold the Bolsheviks got from New York Jews felt very “indigenous,” no doubt. As did international socialism (AKA, communism).

    And the American Revolution failed because France. Oh, wait, it succeeded because France, my bad.

    And there’s nothing foreign or anti-nationalist about the globalist elite that Trump is fighting.

    Read More
  24. Svigor says:

    And obviously Americans hate hate hate the fact that our entire political establishment is up to their eyeballs in Israeli/Zionist money, fact which has made Israel and Jews anathema.

    Read More
  25. Svigor says:

    Everybody’s always trying to come up with Rube Goldberg alternatives to the perfectly apt “the world operates not on reality, but on the perception of reality.” Sometimes perception tracks well with reality, and sometimes it doesn’t, but it is the perception that moves people. Necessarily.

    Read More
  26. eD says:
    @Randal

    The lecturer’s inevitable following joke was that those who pursued higher education in Britain learned more and more about less and less, until at last they knew everything about nothing; while at American universities you learned less and less about more and more, until at last you knew nothing about everything.
     
    Whereas in modern Britain the country is ruled by people who have learned more and more about things that are just inapt to the real world:

    PPE: the Oxford degree that runs Britain

    And I've observed more than once that the three greatest post-WW2 strategic blunders (in the military/foreign policy sphere) by the UK government were all the responsibility of Oxford alumni:

    Suez - responsibility of Anthony Eden (Double First in Oriental Languages, Christchurch Oxford)

    Iraq War - responsibility of Tony Blair (Second in Jurisprudence, St John's Oxford)

    Libyan war - responsibility of David Cameron (First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Brasenose Oxford

    On the other hand, the man who was probably the greatest C20th British politician in terms of intellect and potential if not achievement was a Cambridge man (Enoch Powell, double starred first in Latin and Greek, Trinity Cambridge)

    This is an interesting point.

    The two biggest British strategic mistakes were the complete mishandling of the “July Crisis” that lead to World War I in 1914 (just about any other course of action would have worked out better), and, in second place, the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1914.

    The mishandling of the July Crisis was primarily due to the Foreign Secretary at the time, Edward Grey. Grey had a third class degree in jurisprudence from Balliol College, Oxford, at one point having been expelled. The PM at the time, Asquith, who let Grey run foreign policy, also had a degree (Wikipedia doesn’t say how how) in jurisprudence from Balliol College.

    With Munich, the PM, Neville Chamberlain, took the lead. Chamberlain attended college in Birmingham briefly but never graduated. His Foreign Secretary, Edward Wood, Lord Halifax, though, was a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. So there is an Oxford connection after all.

    For contrast, neither Winston Churchill or David Lloyd George were (civilian) university graduates, though Churchill graduated from a military academy after having a horrible academic career.

    To be fair, of this group only Halifax, Eden, and Cameron really excelled academically. Eden actually was a very good Foreign Secretary and Halifax’s overall record is not bad. The Cameron government wasn’t as disastrous as that of Asquith, Chamberlain, or Eden, or Blair, but you wonder why he was considered so promising in his youth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    It's almost as though the Oxford education (in particular) indoctrinates its alumni in attitudes or ideas about the world that render their judgement suspect at crucial times in dealing with people from other worlds, or with harsh realities that can't just be controlled by the mere assertion of establishment privilege and power.

    The Cameron government wasn’t as disastrous as that of Asquith, Chamberlain, or Eden, or Blair
     
    I suspect that if it were not for the near miraculous defeat of the Cameron regime's attempt to get authorisation for a military attack on the Syrian government in 2013 (itself a result of its own incompetence at managing the Commons), the Cameron government would by now be seen as close to as disastrous as the Blair one, if not on a par. And of course, Cameron was only in power for six years (again thanks to his own incompetence, in calling a referendum he thought he could safely win, but lost).

    but you wonder why he was considered so promising in his youth
     
    Well brought up, impeccable connections, instinctively good at brown-nosing and sensing what those in authority want to hear, most likely, and enough intelligence to get by.

    of this group only Halifax, Eden, and Cameron really excelled academically
     
    Pace the one I mentioned who failed to achieve the highest office, imo because his intellect and basic honesty prevented him from toeing the establishment line on the crucial issue of the times.
    , @dfordoom

    The two biggest British strategic mistakes were the complete mishandling of the “July Crisis” that lead to World War I in 1914 (just about any other course of action would have worked out better), and, in second place, the Munich agreement with Hitler
     
    Surely the biggest British strategic mistake was the guarantee to Poland in 1939.
    , @dfordoom

    The two biggest British strategic mistakes were the complete mishandling of the “July Crisis” that lead to World War I in 1914 (just about any other course of action would have worked out better)
     
    In fact the big mistake was getting dragged into the Entente in the first place.
  27. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Just keep out Milo, who is proof that the current problem is not sexual repression
    but ‘sexual excession’.

    Read More
  28. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Some say Alt Right is about identity politics of whites but not quite.

    It’s more like Inheritance Politics.

    ‘Identity’ implies personal choice, like one of 50 genders. There’s an arbitrariness.

    In contrast, Alt Right is about accepting what you are. It is about inheriting, gratefully and graciously, the racial, cultural, historical, and territorial integrity of your people. It’s not a matter of choice. The decision has been made for you by the line of your people.
    Of course, one may choose to reject such inheritance. Or one may forget it. Or one may not have been taught it, in which case one must rediscover it, like Moses discovered he is really a Jew and not an Egyptian.

    Alt Right is different from prog identity politics is that its identity is really an inheritance, an obligation than an option. In contrast, Identity Politics is a fashion, a game.

    Inheritance is like Kaddish. Identity Politics is faddish.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaddish#Mourner.27s_Kaddish

    Read More
  29. duncsbaby says:

    I just read a biography on Thomas Jefferson & when he contemplated a civil war in America due to slavery, which he did many times, he thought it would be a war between blacks and whites. He thought the blacks would rise up in bloody rebellion, massacring the southern whites. Little did he know that for the most part the war would be very bloody indeed but fought for the most part between whites. One could very well say good whites and bad whites.

    Read More
  30. Randal says:
    @eD
    This is an interesting point.

    The two biggest British strategic mistakes were the complete mishandling of the "July Crisis" that lead to World War I in 1914 (just about any other course of action would have worked out better), and, in second place, the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1914.

    The mishandling of the July Crisis was primarily due to the Foreign Secretary at the time, Edward Grey. Grey had a third class degree in jurisprudence from Balliol College, Oxford, at one point having been expelled. The PM at the time, Asquith, who let Grey run foreign policy, also had a degree (Wikipedia doesn't say how how) in jurisprudence from Balliol College.

    With Munich, the PM, Neville Chamberlain, took the lead. Chamberlain attended college in Birmingham briefly but never graduated. His Foreign Secretary, Edward Wood, Lord Halifax, though, was a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. So there is an Oxford connection after all.

    For contrast, neither Winston Churchill or David Lloyd George were (civilian) university graduates, though Churchill graduated from a military academy after having a horrible academic career.

    To be fair, of this group only Halifax, Eden, and Cameron really excelled academically. Eden actually was a very good Foreign Secretary and Halifax's overall record is not bad. The Cameron government wasn't as disastrous as that of Asquith, Chamberlain, or Eden, or Blair, but you wonder why he was considered so promising in his youth.

    It’s almost as though the Oxford education (in particular) indoctrinates its alumni in attitudes or ideas about the world that render their judgement suspect at crucial times in dealing with people from other worlds, or with harsh realities that can’t just be controlled by the mere assertion of establishment privilege and power.

    The Cameron government wasn’t as disastrous as that of Asquith, Chamberlain, or Eden, or Blair

    I suspect that if it were not for the near miraculous defeat of the Cameron regime’s attempt to get authorisation for a military attack on the Syrian government in 2013 (itself a result of its own incompetence at managing the Commons), the Cameron government would by now be seen as close to as disastrous as the Blair one, if not on a par. And of course, Cameron was only in power for six years (again thanks to his own incompetence, in calling a referendum he thought he could safely win, but lost).

    but you wonder why he was considered so promising in his youth

    Well brought up, impeccable connections, instinctively good at brown-nosing and sensing what those in authority want to hear, most likely, and enough intelligence to get by.

    of this group only Halifax, Eden, and Cameron really excelled academically

    Pace the one I mentioned who failed to achieve the highest office, imo because his intellect and basic honesty prevented him from toeing the establishment line on the crucial issue of the times.

    Read More
  31. Discard says:
    @Light Roast
    I had to look that up to confirm what Derb meant by "elite overproduction." It looks like a term coined by Peter Turchin to mean that we have an overproduction of people who could qualify to be in the elite. But, we have the same number of elite spots now as we did earlier. So the competition to get one of those spots has become fiercer.

    OK, then it’s not the ivies who are overproducing elites. They are one of the filters keeping wannabes out of the elite.

    Read More
  32. JackOH says:

    “What we need, in fact, is an Alt Right Style Book to bring some uniformity to nomenclature and usage out here among the Deplorables. It needn’t be as long as the New York Public Library Writer’s Guide to Style and Usage, my 1994 edition of which runs to 840 pages. You could probably get the essentials into just a pamphlet.”

    Yep, John, something like a style book, or an alt-right reader done in an aphoristic manner, nothing longer than maybe 300 words might be helpful. 200 pp. tops, a cheap, paperbound edition subsidized by a high roller?

    I’ll admit I disagree with much on Unz Review, but these pages offer the most polemical oxygen I’ve had in many years.

    BTW-is Physicist John Archibald Wheeler worth a mention by you? I know he was not a mathematician so he may not be known to you. Wheeler spent his growing-up years in my home town, where his parents were librarians. Nobody locally seems to recognize the name. I think Feynman was one of his students.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    J.A. Wheeler worked very productively (mostly after 1945) on H-bomb design. Feynman was his graduate student in pre-WW-2 time in Princeton. Feynman was undergraduate student at MIT; his adviser there was Slater. None of advisers got Nobel prize.
  33. Anonym says:
    @WorkingClass
    A lot of your good whites are not white. They are Jews. Still it's a useful metaphor. What would be better would be if you would stop thinking long enough to realize it's a good old fashioned Class War. You don't have to be a Communist to say CLASS WAR! Occupy Wall Street could not bring themselves to say it. They had to fall back on 1% vs. 99%.

    College educated white people cannot think of themselves as working class. They think class is an old fashioned and obsolete concept. Like gold. I remember the question that asked is writing code a science or an art. When programing was outsourced we had the answer. It's labor.

    A lot of your good whites are not white. They are Jews. Still it’s a useful metaphor. What would be better would be if you would stop thinking long enough to realize it’s a good old fashioned Class War. You don’t have to be a Communist to say CLASS WAR! Occupy Wall Street could not bring themselves to say it. They had to fall back on 1% vs. 99%.

    I daresay that most of the people who are writing articulately online about white issues are upper class or middle class. The issue is treason, not class. Though certainly the white working class has been screwed hard as a class.

    Read More
  34. Anonym says:
    @Sean
    Australia has been bought by the Chinese, it's their Caribbean. Billionaires are looking to New Zealand for land, (a limited edition product) cheap land anywhere there is a government that can be trusted to not steal is the best investment on the planet.

    But people don't like foreigners coming in on a high horse, even in Australasia. A related point is yes, the Taiping leader failed the Mandarin exam, but he got a lot of common people to follow him and the rebellion was very very difficult to put down. I suspect the main cause was the government had been discredited by an accurate perception that the rulers of China were capitulating to foreigners letting them push opium while buying up the country. The nation state has an emergent quality:it fights to maintain independence and when push comes to shove the majority of the people or elites will bestir themselves in that cause.

    The Confederacy was a bit like Whites in the Russian civil war, foreign connections helped, but were a disaster at the moral level. The Confederacy was seen as anti American, the Whites as anti Russian. As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death. Anti Trump forces' greatest headway has come from the accusations of complicity with Putin, but the anti Trump campaign being openly supported by foreign peoples and governments in addition to foreigner-sympathetic elites, means they have effectively lost a Gettysburg of the cold civil war in the moral conflict space that according to strategist Col. Boyd is the decisive one.

    As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death.

    The American War of Independence, supported by France, was in your view the exception that proves the rule?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    In that case the Patriot side was not really a state but trying to bring a independent state into being. All the same Benedict Arnold (a military genius) switched sides because Washington allied with the Quebec French Catholics. And there were a considerable number of Loyalist Americans who fought for the Crown throughout, these may have been disgusted by the rebels foreign support. . Britain had too many wars (not just the French they were fighting) at once to win in America, French support could easily have finished the rebels otherwise

    The only thing that the opposition has Trump in trouble with is collusion with Russia. He will need to slap Russia down to prove there is nothing in it. A few Stingers to Syria will do it.

    , @eD
    A. "As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death."

    B. "The American War of Independence, supported by France, was in your view the exception that proves the rule?"

    The funny thing about this side argument is that the American War of Independence is usually cited as evidence in support of A.'s thesis, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

    A big factor in rallying support to the Patriot cause was in George III's use of German soldiers ("Hessians") to suppress the revolt. Recruiting Indian tribes to raid American settlements didn't help either.

    France and Spain financed the Patriots and provided nearly all their ammunition, but no French soldiers sent to the thirteen states until long after Hessians appeared, and for limited operations, after declaring war on Britain, France and Spain mostly fought their own war against the British, in other theaters. And actually it took the Anglo-French War to rally British public opinion behind the government, before it had been pretty hostile across the board to the attempt to retake the thirteen colonies.
  35. TheBoom says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    And another thing!

    Haha, this is where I may partially agree with you:

    Your wife again:

    Mrs D, like most sensible people, is uninterested in politics ninety-five percent of the time. She stayed up to watch the election result in November (which was more political engagement than I could summon) but in all probability has not thought about politics for ten consecutive seconds since.

    She understands instinctively that a passionate, all-consuming interest in politics is characteristic of bores and monomaniacs. Normal people have better things to think and talk about.

     
    It is not the woman's job to worry about this stuff - it has never been. If you have a conservative society where men and woman are in general in the correct gender roles, then only men should be voting, running for office, etc. It would take me too long to explain that, but I shouldn't need to, to a conservative.

    My wife is the same way and asked me to vote for her back in November. That didn't work out, but I sure was not going to get her registered if she wasn't going to vote for Trump.

    “It is not the woman’s job to worry about this stuff”

    Agree. In a sane society women worry about the family and, at most, the community. Men worry about protecting the society (guarding the borders), growing the economy, protecting their family and making money. That plays to each gender’s strength. As, plays to weaknesses as well.

    Read More
  36. Anonym says:

    The Kiwis are an egalitarian lot with exceptionally sensible immigration laws. To get residence — never mind citizenship — you have to show you bring something positive to the country, and nothing negative. The New Zealand authorities once refused a settlement visa to a British woman on the grounds that she was too fat. And the adjective “positive” there has not usually been taken to encompass just a big box of money.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Australia

    NZ’s population is 12% Asian, and Australia’s is 8% if you believe the statistics. I guess it’s is exceptionally sensible for your government to dispossess you. This coming civil war – it’s going to get warmer.

    I may have coined “Goodwhite/Badwhite” too; can’t be bothered to search it. Occasionally I vary the descriptors to Tutsis and Hutus, again sticking to the idea that the energizing division is between groups of the same race.

    Tutsis and Hutus are of different ethnicities. I know Whiskey puts this down to WASP vs Scots-Irish factions but I see no evidence of there being an ethnic divide, other than the majority of Jews are on the side of the leftists historically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jews aren't white. Jews have very specific and identifiable genetic signatures, and the cost of genetic sequencing is dropping precipitously. In any coming civil wars, those with Jewish ancestry, even small amounts, will be easily targeted by all sides.
  37. @WorkingClass
    A lot of your good whites are not white. They are Jews. Still it's a useful metaphor. What would be better would be if you would stop thinking long enough to realize it's a good old fashioned Class War. You don't have to be a Communist to say CLASS WAR! Occupy Wall Street could not bring themselves to say it. They had to fall back on 1% vs. 99%.

    College educated white people cannot think of themselves as working class. They think class is an old fashioned and obsolete concept. Like gold. I remember the question that asked is writing code a science or an art. When programing was outsourced we had the answer. It's labor.

    In casual parlance, class warfare implies a poor versus rich people dichotomy, with poor people being the recognized virtuous class.

    This idea is not what is the core perversity in the US today.

    The modern virtuous class in the US and Israel is the victim class, allegedly oppressed by Nazi and white supremacist, and the victim class is recognized by the US federal government as protected class groups.

    Protected class groups frequently demand and receive illicit federal entitlements, and they are exhorted to exchange their votes for more entitlements.

    For example:

    http://www.unk.edu/offices/human_resources/aaeo/hiring_guidelines/identification_of_protected.php

    Identification of Protected Class Groups

    The following five groups are considered “Protected Classes” under various federal laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires reporting employment information on the first two groups, females and minorities, which are traditionally underutilized.

    1.FEMALES

    2.INDIGENOUS MINORITIES. Groups for whom established patterns of discrimination have been determined to exist (based on self-identification):

    •Black: (not Hispanic origin): All persons having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

    •Hispanic: All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

    •American Indian or Alaskan Native: All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

    •Asian or Pacific Islander: All persons having their origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent or the Pacific Islands. For example: China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands and Samoa.

    3.INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES: Defined as an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that constitutes a substantial limitation on a major life activity, a person with record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived as having such an impairment. The law also protects those who are in a relationship or associated with someone with a disability.

    4.VETERANS AND DISABLED VETERANS

    5.PERSONS AGE 40 OR OVER.

    Last Update: 5/2003

    Read More
  38. Sean says:
    @Anonym
    As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death.

    The American War of Independence, supported by France, was in your view the exception that proves the rule?

    In that case the Patriot side was not really a state but trying to bring a independent state into being. All the same Benedict Arnold (a military genius) switched sides because Washington allied with the Quebec French Catholics. And there were a considerable number of Loyalist Americans who fought for the Crown throughout, these may have been disgusted by the rebels foreign support. . Britain had too many wars (not just the French they were fighting) at once to win in America, French support could easily have finished the rebels otherwise

    The only thing that the opposition has Trump in trouble with is collusion with Russia. He will need to slap Russia down to prove there is nothing in it. A few Stingers to Syria will do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Hey, Sean:
    And people in Syria are just a convenient tool for intro-american dealings ?
  39. eD says:
    @Anonym
    As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death.

    The American War of Independence, supported by France, was in your view the exception that proves the rule?

    A. “As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death.”

    B. “The American War of Independence, supported by France, was in your view the exception that proves the rule?”

    The funny thing about this side argument is that the American War of Independence is usually cited as evidence in support of A.’s thesis, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

    A big factor in rallying support to the Patriot cause was in George III’s use of German soldiers (“Hessians”) to suppress the revolt. Recruiting Indian tribes to raid American settlements didn’t help either.

    France and Spain financed the Patriots and provided nearly all their ammunition, but no French soldiers sent to the thirteen states until long after Hessians appeared, and for limited operations, after declaring war on Britain, France and Spain mostly fought their own war against the British, in other theaters. And actually it took the Anglo-French War to rally British public opinion behind the government, before it had been pretty hostile across the board to the attempt to retake the thirteen colonies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Perhaps a more sophisticated view would be that the revolutionaries (I think in most civil wars one side merits this description more than the other) and suppressors (is there a better word? establishment?) differ in the need for and impact of foreign support. Foreign support for the suppressors seems to damage their moral authority and unite the opposing revolutionaries. On the other hand, foreign support for the revolutionaries seems almost a requirement for success given the usual disparity in resources.

    I'm sure there are counterexamples (e.g. little external support for both the revolutionaries of the French Revolution and Bourbons), but I think this idea is worth discussion.

    P.S. One interesting thing about the Cold Civil War is that the establishment appears to be on the opposite side from conserving the status quo. This was also true about the US Civil War, but seems atypical of civil wars (especially the "revolution" variety ; ) in general (e.g. the American Revolution). Of course, another interesting thing about the Cold Civil War is how in flux the idea of "the status quo" is (claiming that as high ground seems like a fundamental aspect of what we see now).
  40. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @JackOH
    "What we need, in fact, is an Alt Right Style Book to bring some uniformity to nomenclature and usage out here among the Deplorables. It needn’t be as long as the New York Public Library Writer’s Guide to Style and Usage, my 1994 edition of which runs to 840 pages. You could probably get the essentials into just a pamphlet."

    Yep, John, something like a style book, or an alt-right reader done in an aphoristic manner, nothing longer than maybe 300 words might be helpful. 200 pp. tops, a cheap, paperbound edition subsidized by a high roller?

    I'll admit I disagree with much on Unz Review, but these pages offer the most polemical oxygen I've had in many years.

    BTW-is Physicist John Archibald Wheeler worth a mention by you? I know he was not a mathematician so he may not be known to you. Wheeler spent his growing-up years in my home town, where his parents were librarians. Nobody locally seems to recognize the name. I think Feynman was one of his students.

    J.A. Wheeler worked very productively (mostly after 1945) on H-bomb design. Feynman was his graduate student in pre-WW-2 time in Princeton. Feynman was undergraduate student at MIT; his adviser there was Slater. None of advisers got Nobel prize.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Anonymous,

    Just to add a little to your very interesting and factual description of John Archibald Wheeler. Following his death there was a letter in Physics Today stating that one of the reasons he had never received a Nobel Prize was his support of American involvement in the Vietnam War coupled with his vehement public disdain for anti-war protesters.

    In his autobiography he never said any thing bad about those scientists who disagreed with his politics with one notable exception - he mistrusted J R Oppenheimer.

  41. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    In that case the Patriot side was not really a state but trying to bring a independent state into being. All the same Benedict Arnold (a military genius) switched sides because Washington allied with the Quebec French Catholics. And there were a considerable number of Loyalist Americans who fought for the Crown throughout, these may have been disgusted by the rebels foreign support. . Britain had too many wars (not just the French they were fighting) at once to win in America, French support could easily have finished the rebels otherwise

    The only thing that the opposition has Trump in trouble with is collusion with Russia. He will need to slap Russia down to prove there is nothing in it. A few Stingers to Syria will do it.

    Hey, Sean:
    And people in Syria are just a convenient tool for intro-american dealings ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The American Revolution was largely prompted by the 1763 British eradication of French military power in north America (meaning that the colonists no longer needed Britain's protection against New France), and the Quebec Act allowing French in Que4bec to maintain their traditions. The main one the 13 colonies objected to was Catholicism. The Patriots were mainly anti Catholic bigots (George Washington had to forbid his men from their pastime of public celebrations while burning the pope in effigy.) But then Washington tried to form an alliance with the French Canadians against Britain and allowed his emissaries to attend a Catholic memorial service for the French dead --Benedict Arnold, an early hero of the Patriot cause, switched sides because of it. For independent countries trying to survive as such, the wellbeing of other peoples is an incident not an end.

    Why would America care more about Syrians in 2017 than it did about Canadians in 1776. But if you want the morality then actually Syria was a family dictatorship and the family was from a minority. Assad the younger was the only one stupid enough to believe the majority of Syrians were happy being ruled by the Assads until the crack of doom. He put up the price of basic necessities and lost most of the country to a popular uprising.. No ethical principle requires the US to back a Syrian government that is backed by Russia, and power politics realism forbids it. I don't subscribe to William Lind's view about anti-state forces being the enemy. Some middle east states are going to be smashed, and it is not in the West's interest to prevent it.

  42. res says:
    @eD
    A. "As with blood drenched actual civil wars (including the French revolution) foreign support is the kiss of death."

    B. "The American War of Independence, supported by France, was in your view the exception that proves the rule?"

    The funny thing about this side argument is that the American War of Independence is usually cited as evidence in support of A.'s thesis, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

    A big factor in rallying support to the Patriot cause was in George III's use of German soldiers ("Hessians") to suppress the revolt. Recruiting Indian tribes to raid American settlements didn't help either.

    France and Spain financed the Patriots and provided nearly all their ammunition, but no French soldiers sent to the thirteen states until long after Hessians appeared, and for limited operations, after declaring war on Britain, France and Spain mostly fought their own war against the British, in other theaters. And actually it took the Anglo-French War to rally British public opinion behind the government, before it had been pretty hostile across the board to the attempt to retake the thirteen colonies.

    Perhaps a more sophisticated view would be that the revolutionaries (I think in most civil wars one side merits this description more than the other) and suppressors (is there a better word? establishment?) differ in the need for and impact of foreign support. Foreign support for the suppressors seems to damage their moral authority and unite the opposing revolutionaries. On the other hand, foreign support for the revolutionaries seems almost a requirement for success given the usual disparity in resources.

    I’m sure there are counterexamples (e.g. little external support for both the revolutionaries of the French Revolution and Bourbons), but I think this idea is worth discussion.

    P.S. One interesting thing about the Cold Civil War is that the establishment appears to be on the opposite side from conserving the status quo. This was also true about the US Civil War, but seems atypical of civil wars (especially the “revolution” variety ; ) in general (e.g. the American Revolution). Of course, another interesting thing about the Cold Civil War is how in flux the idea of “the status quo” is (claiming that as high ground seems like a fundamental aspect of what we see now).

    Read More
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonym
    The Kiwis are an egalitarian lot with exceptionally sensible immigration laws. To get residence — never mind citizenship — you have to show you bring something positive to the country, and nothing negative. The New Zealand authorities once refused a settlement visa to a British woman on the grounds that she was too fat. And the adjective “positive” there has not usually been taken to encompass just a big box of money.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Australia

    NZ's population is 12% Asian, and Australia's is 8% if you believe the statistics. I guess it's is exceptionally sensible for your government to dispossess you. This coming civil war - it's going to get warmer.

    I may have coined “Goodwhite/Badwhite” too; can’t be bothered to search it. Occasionally I vary the descriptors to Tutsis and Hutus, again sticking to the idea that the energizing division is between groups of the same race.

    Tutsis and Hutus are of different ethnicities. I know Whiskey puts this down to WASP vs Scots-Irish factions but I see no evidence of there being an ethnic divide, other than the majority of Jews are on the side of the leftists historically.

    Jews aren’t white. Jews have very specific and identifiable genetic signatures, and the cost of genetic sequencing is dropping precipitously. In any coming civil wars, those with Jewish ancestry, even small amounts, will be easily targeted by all sides.

    Read More
  44. Svigor says:

    In contrast, Alt Right is about accepting what you are.

    If one were to go through my old posts at Stormfront, he’d find more than a few comments making this argument about racial nationalism, though I’d use the word “embracing” instead.

    other than the majority of Jews are on the side of the leftists historically.

    If the diaspora Jews had to choose between economically socialist, but ethnically nationalist gov’t on one hand, and economically rightist, but ethnically globalist, they’d go with the latter in a heartbeat. You could offer Jews everything leftist and socialist under the sun, but they would reject it for small-gov’t, capitalistic, open borders gov’t. In fact, Jews would rather join both sides, and work to make sure each is open-borders and anti-majoritarian.

    The left and the right bits are basically theater, in this context.

    The only thing that the opposition has Trump in trouble with is collusion with Russia. He will need to slap Russia down to prove there is nothing in it. A few Stingers to Syria will do it.

    I think you’re wrong on both counts. I don’t think Trump is in trouble. I think he should just go about the business of governing. Treat the Congressional theater of the Russia BS as pro forma; let the lawyers handle it, that’s what they’re there for. Treat the Big Media theater of the Russia BS as pro forma; that’s what PR people and news conferences are there for.

    I also think it would be a mistake to slap down Russia, as nothing will “prove” anything to Big Media, or their Congressional lapdogs.

    Perhaps a more sophisticated view would be that the revolutionaries (I think in most civil wars one side merits this description more than the other) and suppressors (is there a better word? establishment?) differ in the need for and impact of foreign support. Foreign support for the suppressors seems to damage their moral authority and unite the opposing revolutionaries. On the other hand, foreign support for the revolutionaries seems almost a requirement for success given the usual disparity in resources.

    This.

    Read More
  45. Sean says:
    @Anonymous
    Hey, Sean:
    And people in Syria are just a convenient tool for intro-american dealings ?

    The American Revolution was largely prompted by the 1763 British eradication of French military power in north America (meaning that the colonists no longer needed Britain’s protection against New France), and the Quebec Act allowing French in Que4bec to maintain their traditions. The main one the 13 colonies objected to was Catholicism. The Patriots were mainly anti Catholic bigots (George Washington had to forbid his men from their pastime of public celebrations while burning the pope in effigy.) But then Washington tried to form an alliance with the French Canadians against Britain and allowed his emissaries to attend a Catholic memorial service for the French dead –Benedict Arnold, an early hero of the Patriot cause, switched sides because of it. For independent countries trying to survive as such, the wellbeing of other peoples is an incident not an end.

    Why would America care more about Syrians in 2017 than it did about Canadians in 1776. But if you want the morality then actually Syria was a family dictatorship and the family was from a minority. Assad the younger was the only one stupid enough to believe the majority of Syrians were happy being ruled by the Assads until the crack of doom. He put up the price of basic necessities and lost most of the country to a popular uprising.. No ethical principle requires the US to back a Syrian government that is backed by Russia, and power politics realism forbids it. I don’t subscribe to William Lind’s view about anti-state forces being the enemy. Some middle east states are going to be smashed, and it is not in the West’s interest to prevent it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thank you for clearly formulating your position.
  46. Dan Hayes says:
    @Anonymous
    J.A. Wheeler worked very productively (mostly after 1945) on H-bomb design. Feynman was his graduate student in pre-WW-2 time in Princeton. Feynman was undergraduate student at MIT; his adviser there was Slater. None of advisers got Nobel prize.

    Anonymous,

    Just to add a little to your very interesting and factual description of John Archibald Wheeler. Following his death there was a letter in Physics Today stating that one of the reasons he had never received a Nobel Prize was his support of American involvement in the Vietnam War coupled with his vehement public disdain for anti-war protesters.

    In his autobiography he never said any thing bad about those scientists who disagreed with his politics with one notable exception – he mistrusted J R Oppenheimer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Just one more fun fact about J A Wheeler. It was well known that no fellow academic paid any credence to any of his letters of recommendation since they were all prefaced with the statement that the recommendee was the best student he ever had!

    As we say in NYC, he was a real mensch (especially since he was the quintessential WASP). This part of his nature/personality makes his disdain for J R Oppenheimer even more striking and significant.
    , @res
    I think this is the Physics Today letter: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.3272999
    More from Physics Today: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3120893

    Another article talking about Wheeler not winning a Nobel Prize: https://paw.princeton.edu/article/rally-round-cannon-professor-john-wheeler-and-nobel-prize-he-never-won
    and another: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-physicists-no-nobel
    , @Anonymous
    J. A. Wheeler was Ph.D. adviser of Kip Thorne,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne
    Thorn has a good chance for Nobel prize
    in connection with the discovery of Gravitational Waves.
    I also recommend wholeheartedly his book
    Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0393312763/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all
    $ 1.14 + $3.99 S&H (used.)
  47. Dan Hayes says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Anonymous,

    Just to add a little to your very interesting and factual description of John Archibald Wheeler. Following his death there was a letter in Physics Today stating that one of the reasons he had never received a Nobel Prize was his support of American involvement in the Vietnam War coupled with his vehement public disdain for anti-war protesters.

    In his autobiography he never said any thing bad about those scientists who disagreed with his politics with one notable exception - he mistrusted J R Oppenheimer.

    Just one more fun fact about J A Wheeler. It was well known that no fellow academic paid any credence to any of his letters of recommendation since they were all prefaced with the statement that the recommendee was the best student he ever had!

    As we say in NYC, he was a real mensch (especially since he was the quintessential WASP). This part of his nature/personality makes his disdain for J R Oppenheimer even more striking and significant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    I read memoirs by the leader of Soviet (i.e. KGB-Moscow) atomic spy work in 1942-1948,
    Pavel Sudoplatov. He claims that cooperation of Oppenheimer with Soviets
    was not in the form of direct transfer of technical info.
    Oppenheimer was too valuable to Moscow for risking him in that manner.
    But Oppenheimer, according to Sudoplatov, helped to hire to Los Alamos
    the people (sill extremely capable technically), who actually were transferring info,
    and when they were coming under suspicion, O. insisted on keeping them
    in Manhattan Project.
    Sill in USSR, I read the book "Lawrence and Oppenheimer", in English.
    The book was mostly about E. Teller versus Oppenheimer,
    and reading it, I felt to be on Teller's side
    (who was I to make such judgement, but still ...)
    I have no independent sources to confirm or to refute statements by Sudoplatov.
  48. res says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Anonymous,

    Just to add a little to your very interesting and factual description of John Archibald Wheeler. Following his death there was a letter in Physics Today stating that one of the reasons he had never received a Nobel Prize was his support of American involvement in the Vietnam War coupled with his vehement public disdain for anti-war protesters.

    In his autobiography he never said any thing bad about those scientists who disagreed with his politics with one notable exception - he mistrusted J R Oppenheimer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    res,

    Your quick and resource rich response is just another example of UR perspicaciousness.

    Many thanks.
  49. Dan Hayes says:
    @res
    I think this is the Physics Today letter: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.3272999
    More from Physics Today: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3120893

    Another article talking about Wheeler not winning a Nobel Prize: https://paw.princeton.edu/article/rally-round-cannon-professor-john-wheeler-and-nobel-prize-he-never-won
    and another: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-physicists-no-nobel

    res,

    Your quick and resource rich response is just another example of UR perspicaciousness.

    Many thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    And thanks to you, Dan, for all of your information about Wheeler prompting my searches.
  50. rw95 says:

    Derb, why do you keep calling yourself “alt-right?”

    You’re a Gook lover and a race-mixer. Your chink wife and offspring are not welcome in a white ethno-state, and you are a race traitor of the first magnitude.

    And as for your buddy Jared Taylor, you know he’s falling out of favor with the alt-right, since he’s a Jew lover, married to a Jewess and believes Jews are white.

    Have fun with your increasing irrelevance, Derb.

    Read More
  51. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    The American Revolution was largely prompted by the 1763 British eradication of French military power in north America (meaning that the colonists no longer needed Britain's protection against New France), and the Quebec Act allowing French in Que4bec to maintain their traditions. The main one the 13 colonies objected to was Catholicism. The Patriots were mainly anti Catholic bigots (George Washington had to forbid his men from their pastime of public celebrations while burning the pope in effigy.) But then Washington tried to form an alliance with the French Canadians against Britain and allowed his emissaries to attend a Catholic memorial service for the French dead --Benedict Arnold, an early hero of the Patriot cause, switched sides because of it. For independent countries trying to survive as such, the wellbeing of other peoples is an incident not an end.

    Why would America care more about Syrians in 2017 than it did about Canadians in 1776. But if you want the morality then actually Syria was a family dictatorship and the family was from a minority. Assad the younger was the only one stupid enough to believe the majority of Syrians were happy being ruled by the Assads until the crack of doom. He put up the price of basic necessities and lost most of the country to a popular uprising.. No ethical principle requires the US to back a Syrian government that is backed by Russia, and power politics realism forbids it. I don't subscribe to William Lind's view about anti-state forces being the enemy. Some middle east states are going to be smashed, and it is not in the West's interest to prevent it.

    Thank you for clearly formulating your position.

    Read More
  52. res says:
    @Dan Hayes
    res,

    Your quick and resource rich response is just another example of UR perspicaciousness.

    Many thanks.

    And thanks to you, Dan, for all of your information about Wheeler prompting my searches.

    Read More
  53. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Dan Hayes
    Anonymous,

    Just to add a little to your very interesting and factual description of John Archibald Wheeler. Following his death there was a letter in Physics Today stating that one of the reasons he had never received a Nobel Prize was his support of American involvement in the Vietnam War coupled with his vehement public disdain for anti-war protesters.

    In his autobiography he never said any thing bad about those scientists who disagreed with his politics with one notable exception - he mistrusted J R Oppenheimer.

    J. A. Wheeler was Ph.D. adviser of Kip Thorne,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne

    Thorn has a good chance for Nobel prize
    in connection with the discovery of Gravitational Waves.
    I also recommend wholeheartedly his book
    Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0393312763/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

    $ 1.14 + $3.99 S&H (used.)

    Read More
  54. @Dan Hayes
    Just one more fun fact about J A Wheeler. It was well known that no fellow academic paid any credence to any of his letters of recommendation since they were all prefaced with the statement that the recommendee was the best student he ever had!

    As we say in NYC, he was a real mensch (especially since he was the quintessential WASP). This part of his nature/personality makes his disdain for J R Oppenheimer even more striking and significant.

    I read memoirs by the leader of Soviet (i.e. KGB-Moscow) atomic spy work in 1942-1948,
    Pavel Sudoplatov. He claims that cooperation of Oppenheimer with Soviets
    was not in the form of direct transfer of technical info.
    Oppenheimer was too valuable to Moscow for risking him in that manner.
    But Oppenheimer, according to Sudoplatov, helped to hire to Los Alamos
    the people (sill extremely capable technically), who actually were transferring info,
    and when they were coming under suspicion, O. insisted on keeping them
    in Manhattan Project.
    Sill in USSR, I read the book “Lawrence and Oppenheimer”, in English.
    The book was mostly about E. Teller versus Oppenheimer,
    and reading it, I felt to be on Teller’s side
    (who was I to make such judgement, but still …)
    I have no independent sources to confirm or to refute statements by Sudoplatov.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Immigrant from the former USSR,

    Thanks for the refernces. I concur with Sudoplatov's beliefs.

    While Wheeler never publicly questioned Oppenheimer's loyalty, I would not be surprised if he privately thought otherwise. This is based on the fact that his public mistrust (relatively mild) of Oppenheimer was so much at variance with his otherwise nonconfrontational public utterances.

    And just in passing, your response is just one more example of the UR being a treasure trove of information.
  55. Dan Hayes says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    I read memoirs by the leader of Soviet (i.e. KGB-Moscow) atomic spy work in 1942-1948,
    Pavel Sudoplatov. He claims that cooperation of Oppenheimer with Soviets
    was not in the form of direct transfer of technical info.
    Oppenheimer was too valuable to Moscow for risking him in that manner.
    But Oppenheimer, according to Sudoplatov, helped to hire to Los Alamos
    the people (sill extremely capable technically), who actually were transferring info,
    and when they were coming under suspicion, O. insisted on keeping them
    in Manhattan Project.
    Sill in USSR, I read the book "Lawrence and Oppenheimer", in English.
    The book was mostly about E. Teller versus Oppenheimer,
    and reading it, I felt to be on Teller's side
    (who was I to make such judgement, but still ...)
    I have no independent sources to confirm or to refute statements by Sudoplatov.

    Immigrant from the former USSR,

    Thanks for the refernces. I concur with Sudoplatov’s beliefs.

    While Wheeler never publicly questioned Oppenheimer’s loyalty, I would not be surprised if he privately thought otherwise. This is based on the fact that his public mistrust (relatively mild) of Oppenheimer was so much at variance with his otherwise nonconfrontational public utterances.

    And just in passing, your response is just one more example of the UR being a treasure trove of information.

    Read More
  56. JackOH says:

    Thanks to all for your comments on Wheeler. I suggested years ago in a note to a local university official that Wheeler’s life and career could be an exemplar for young people, a source of civic pride, and that a high school science teacher ought to be persuaded to champion Wheeler’s memory. His boyhood home has been demolished, but some sort of marker, firmly secured against theft, would be a good starter, I suggested.

    Well, nothing happened. So I’m going to give it another try when I get a burst of energy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Mr. JackOH:
    When you will be ready to take new steps
    in memoriam of John Wheeler, please let me know,
    e.g. through John Derbyshire. He probably knows how to reach me.
    I would like to contribute. I owe it to him.
    I.f.f.U.
  57. @JackOH
    Thanks to all for your comments on Wheeler. I suggested years ago in a note to a local university official that Wheeler's life and career could be an exemplar for young people, a source of civic pride, and that a high school science teacher ought to be persuaded to champion Wheeler's memory. His boyhood home has been demolished, but some sort of marker, firmly secured against theft, would be a good starter, I suggested.

    Well, nothing happened. So I'm going to give it another try when I get a burst of energy.

    Dear Mr. JackOH:
    When you will be ready to take new steps
    in memoriam of John Wheeler, please let me know,
    e.g. through John Derbyshire. He probably knows how to reach me.
    I would like to contribute. I owe it to him.
    I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Dear Immigrant from former USSR,

    I too would like to contribute if and when the possibility arises. I too owe it to him.

    Wheeler and Teller were true American patriots. (I believe that Wheeler once said that he agreed with Teller's motives although he sometimes had qualms about how Teller went about doing things. On the other hand I've never had problems with either Teller's motivation or courses of actions.)

    DH

  58. dfordoom says: • Website
    @eD
    This is an interesting point.

    The two biggest British strategic mistakes were the complete mishandling of the "July Crisis" that lead to World War I in 1914 (just about any other course of action would have worked out better), and, in second place, the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1914.

    The mishandling of the July Crisis was primarily due to the Foreign Secretary at the time, Edward Grey. Grey had a third class degree in jurisprudence from Balliol College, Oxford, at one point having been expelled. The PM at the time, Asquith, who let Grey run foreign policy, also had a degree (Wikipedia doesn't say how how) in jurisprudence from Balliol College.

    With Munich, the PM, Neville Chamberlain, took the lead. Chamberlain attended college in Birmingham briefly but never graduated. His Foreign Secretary, Edward Wood, Lord Halifax, though, was a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. So there is an Oxford connection after all.

    For contrast, neither Winston Churchill or David Lloyd George were (civilian) university graduates, though Churchill graduated from a military academy after having a horrible academic career.

    To be fair, of this group only Halifax, Eden, and Cameron really excelled academically. Eden actually was a very good Foreign Secretary and Halifax's overall record is not bad. The Cameron government wasn't as disastrous as that of Asquith, Chamberlain, or Eden, or Blair, but you wonder why he was considered so promising in his youth.

    The two biggest British strategic mistakes were the complete mishandling of the “July Crisis” that lead to World War I in 1914 (just about any other course of action would have worked out better), and, in second place, the Munich agreement with Hitler

    Surely the biggest British strategic mistake was the guarantee to Poland in 1939.

    Read More
  59. Miro23 says:

    Derbyshire emphasizes the differences but it’s the middle ground that defines societies.

    When Hilary Clinton said “That’s not us” , she was claiming to represent the social middle ground, and it’s the middle ground that gets one party or another elected. Extremes of left, right or whatever seem to be instinctively rejected and the fact that Trump was elected interestingly seems to show that the middle ground is shifting.

    So it’s fair to ask what’s wrong with the liberal consensus to cause so many “middle ground” voters to change sides.

    Answer probably being all the points that Trump has been repeating since he declared his candidacy, plus the point that he reaches out to Blacks, Jews, legal immigrants, the military, women, the unemployed, the middle class, viewing them as fellow Americans rather than “class representatives”. Unity rather than division, and he’s not going to brand any group as “Deplorable”.

    It’s true that he’s not a friend of outsourcers, Wall St zero interest raters or SJW activists but he knows that they are elite endorsed activists with no general following, so they’re vulnerable, particularly if they’re blocked from lobbying.

    The question seems to be whether Trump can succeed in persuading enough Americans to redefine themselves as “American First” rather than “Class Victims” and in fact recast the middle ground, despite having every Special Interest trying to block him.

    Read More
  60. Dan Hayes says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Mr. JackOH:
    When you will be ready to take new steps
    in memoriam of John Wheeler, please let me know,
    e.g. through John Derbyshire. He probably knows how to reach me.
    I would like to contribute. I owe it to him.
    I.f.f.U.

    Dear Immigrant from former USSR,

    I too would like to contribute if and when the possibility arises. I too owe it to him.

    Wheeler and Teller were true American patriots. (I believe that Wheeler once said that he agreed with Teller’s motives although he sometimes had qualms about how Teller went about doing things. On the other hand I’ve never had problems with either Teller’s motivation or courses of actions.)

    DH

    Read More
  61. @Dan Hayes
    Dear Immigrant from former USSR,

    I too would like to contribute if and when the possibility arises. I too owe it to him.

    Wheeler and Teller were true American patriots. (I believe that Wheeler once said that he agreed with Teller's motives although he sometimes had qualms about how Teller went about doing things. On the other hand I've never had problems with either Teller's motivation or courses of actions.)

    DH

    Acknowledged reading with gratitude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Thanks, IffUSSR, and to all repliers to my mention of Prof. Wheeler. Your good comments have given me much food for thought about this extraordinary man who, it seems to me, deserves recognition in a town he claimed as home.

    About a decade after Wheeler left my area, Kitty Dallet and her husband, Joe, were Communist Party activists leafleting at factory gates within sight of where Wheeler's parents had worked as librarians. Joe actually ran for mayor and placed a distant fourth or fifth. He was killed in Spain. Kitty moved on and later married Dr. Robert Oppenheimer of Manhattan Project fame.
  62. dfordoom says: • Website
    @eD
    This is an interesting point.

    The two biggest British strategic mistakes were the complete mishandling of the "July Crisis" that lead to World War I in 1914 (just about any other course of action would have worked out better), and, in second place, the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1914.

    The mishandling of the July Crisis was primarily due to the Foreign Secretary at the time, Edward Grey. Grey had a third class degree in jurisprudence from Balliol College, Oxford, at one point having been expelled. The PM at the time, Asquith, who let Grey run foreign policy, also had a degree (Wikipedia doesn't say how how) in jurisprudence from Balliol College.

    With Munich, the PM, Neville Chamberlain, took the lead. Chamberlain attended college in Birmingham briefly but never graduated. His Foreign Secretary, Edward Wood, Lord Halifax, though, was a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. So there is an Oxford connection after all.

    For contrast, neither Winston Churchill or David Lloyd George were (civilian) university graduates, though Churchill graduated from a military academy after having a horrible academic career.

    To be fair, of this group only Halifax, Eden, and Cameron really excelled academically. Eden actually was a very good Foreign Secretary and Halifax's overall record is not bad. The Cameron government wasn't as disastrous as that of Asquith, Chamberlain, or Eden, or Blair, but you wonder why he was considered so promising in his youth.

    The two biggest British strategic mistakes were the complete mishandling of the “July Crisis” that lead to World War I in 1914 (just about any other course of action would have worked out better)

    In fact the big mistake was getting dragged into the Entente in the first place.

    Read More
  63. JackOH says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Acknowledged reading with gratitude.

    Thanks, IffUSSR, and to all repliers to my mention of Prof. Wheeler. Your good comments have given me much food for thought about this extraordinary man who, it seems to me, deserves recognition in a town he claimed as home.

    About a decade after Wheeler left my area, Kitty Dallet and her husband, Joe, were Communist Party activists leafleting at factory gates within sight of where Wheeler’s parents had worked as librarians. Joe actually ran for mayor and placed a distant fourth or fifth. He was killed in Spain. Kitty moved on and later married Dr. Robert Oppenheimer of Manhattan Project fame.

    Read More
  64. What a twist with Kitty. R. Oppenheimer was her fourth (and terminal) husband, with whom she had two children. I just learned about it from

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer

    Best to all. Out.

    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 Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering