The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Nixon and Moynihan on Race and IQ–Know the Truth–Don’t Admit It!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
moynihan1-jumbo-509x372

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Oval Office tape of Richard Nixon and Pat Moynihan posted on YouTube and recently noted by Steve Sailer has both men saying that they know the truth about IQ and race–but can never admit it. And look what happened as a result. VDARE.com’s position: the truth shall set us free.

Moynihan had sent Nixon Richard Herrnstein’s September 1971 Atlantic article “I.Q.”[PDF, 18 pp.]. Nixon told Moynihan: “Nobody on my staff even knows I read the goddamn thing,” to which Moynihan replies “Good!”

Nixon went on, regarding ”this Herrnstein stuff”:

Nixon: “Nobody must know we’re thinking about it, and if we do find out it’s correct, we must never tell anybody.”

Moynihan: “I’m afraid that’s the case.”

Nixon: “I’ve reluctantly concluded, based at least on the evidence presently before me –and I don’t base it on any scientific evidence—that what Herrnstein says, and what was said earlier by [Arthur] Jensen, and so forth, is very close to the truth.”[MP3]

What both Herrnstein and Jensen were saying—and being pilloried for—was that you can’t close an IQ gap that’s hereditary by Head Start and free school breakfast s. Jensen’s famous 1969 Harvard Educational Review article was called How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? [PDF]

The answer, then and since is “Not much.”

In the course of this conversation, Nixon also reveals that he’s read the September 1971 Commentary article “The Limits Of Social Policy” by Nathan Glazer—all of which made him better informed about the intellectual arguments about race, IQ, and welfare than almost all subsequent Presidents.

At the point where the YouTube clip picks up below, Nixon is talking about the fact that Democrat Edmund Muskie had told reporter Frank Reynolds in a TV interview that a ticket with a black Vice-President would lose in 1972.

Nixon had piously criticized him for saying that. But in this clip, Nixon says that, even if private polls showed that a black (or a Catholic or a Jew) would have negative effects on the ticket, no one is supposed to say that.

Now, I remember the Muskie/Nixon controversy, because William F. Buckley wrote a column about it:

Concerning Senator Muskie’s observation, for which Senator McGovern has given him hell— that there would be little point in putting a black Vice President on his ticket, inasmuch as both of them would proceed to lose— a few observations.

  1. President Nixon’s retort that Senator Muskie had “libeled ” the American people is both disingenuous and misleading. Disingenuous because we have all been told that when Henry Cabot Lodge, running for Vice President on Richard Nixon’s ticket in 1960, promised somebody somewhere that if Mr. Nixon were elected he would name a Negro to the Cabinet, Candidate Nixon almost fainted. And no wonder.

Senator Muskie’s Gaffe, September 28, 1971.

You can hear Nixon defending disingenuousness above–because Nixon famously had his conversations taped.

But how many Republicans and Democrats are having the same kind of conversation that we don’t know about?

More from the Buckley column on general prejudice against black politicians:

The most frequently cited data intended to ” document” American racial bias as it touches on politics are inconclusive. Congressman Dellums—and others— cite the presence in Congress of a mere thirteen black members of the House, and on e Senator. Why shouldn’t there be—he asks—fifty black Congressmen, and ten Senators, reflecting the population figures?

Because, a) although there are 22 million blacks, the black population does not in fact exceed the white population in any single state, or in any single city except Washington, D. C., and Newark, New Jersey, and our political system is based on the single-member district, winner-take-all principle

Once again, 1971 turns out to be a long time ago. There are now 19 black majority cities (Atlanta, New Orleans, Baltimore, Cleveland). But this is due to decade upon decade of black crime causing white flight. The population of Detroit, when blacks were a minority in 1970, was 1,514,063. In 2010, it was 713,777–but they’re represented in Congress by a black woman.

Nixon’s deciding for political reasons not to allude–from the Oval Office–to the raw facts of race and IQ, or the equally raw facts about race and politics, is one thing. But Moynihan refusing to do so as an academic and public intellectual is another kettle of ethical fish.

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a man who would frequently say something sensible about politics, and then quickly back, or possibly stumble, away. For example, the 1965 Moynihan Report (The Negro Family: The Case For National Action) couldn`t be written today.

When a book of Moynihan’s letters was reviewed by Steven Hayward at Claremont in 2011, I blogged about it, because what you get in a book of letters, like what you get from the Nixon tape above, are the things Moynihan was afraid to say in public:

As one would expect, Moynihan is more candid in private communications about certain delicate points than he chose to be in his speeches and published articles. In the 1970s, for example, Moynihan wrote publicly, “Liberalism faltered when it turned out it could not cope with truth,” and contended the new political culture of the Left “rewarded the articulation of moral purpose more than the achievement of practical good.” In his letters he was more accusatory, writing to E.J. Dionne in 1991, “The liberal project began to fail when it began to lie. That was the mid sixties…the rot set in and has continued since.”

Moynihan had raw personal reasons for feeling this way. As an assistant secretary of labor, he wrote the famous report in 1965 on the looming crisis of the black family. Both he and the report quickly became the objects of remarkably strident attacks that marked the beginning of political correctness—the willful, often enforced closing of minds to inconvenient topics and perspectives. (The denunciations grew louder four years later when Moynihan`s “benign neglect” memo to Nixon was leaked to the press. It argued, quite sensibly, “We may need a period in which Negro progress continues and racial rhetoric fades.”[PDF]) The author of the “Moynihan Report” noted in 1985 that because of the firestorm it occasioned, “a twenty year silence commenced in which almost no one worked on the subject [of race].” In another letter to an old colleague he added, “We have paid a fearful price for what American scholars in those years decided not to learn about.”

Standing Pat, Claremont Review of Books, April 18, 2011 [PDF]. [Links and emphasis added.]

ORDER IT NOW

We’re still paying that “fearful price.” We’re paying for in terms of social policies, which, being based on the assumption of equality of intelligence, affect the victims of “reverse discrimination,” and we’re paying for it in terms of how much affirmative action quotas cost businesses.

But Mr. Nixon’s Republican Party has also being paying for it in terms of how misguided “diversity outreach” and unelectable black Republican candidates affect party politics.

Pat Buchanan knew better on the political front—see his latest book on the Nixon White House, which led Joe Klein to call him “The First Trumpist” in the New York Times.

How much Trump knows about this stuff is something we can’t know—partly because it would cause riots.

But if public intellectuals and GOP politicians don’t get wise, it’s not going to be “morning in America”—but terrible night.

James Fulford [Email him] is a writer and editor for VDARE.com.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: IQ, Race/IQ, VDare Archives 
The Race/IQ Series
Hide 55 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Hubbub says:

    But if public intellectuals and GOP politicians don’t get wise, it’s not going to be “morning in America”—but terrible night.

    A long, long, terrible night, indeed. I fear it will come to pass because of this cowardice to face what is fact with fiction.

    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/nixon-and-moynihan-on-race-and-iq-know-the-truth-dont-admit-it/#comment-1869000
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Floda says:

    Nixon was a wise man and a good president. He certainly understood the Bell Curve issues.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. unit472 says:

    And yet Head Start and other boondoogles are funded year after year. $ 6 billion for Head Start alone even though everyone knows hiring low IQ black women to mentor low IQ black children is a waste of time and money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. I mentioned this on one of Steve’s threads, but I don’t really see what the big social danger is in being honest about race and intelligence. Truth be told, it isn’t an issue that gets most people hot under the collar (especially among less educated types who are prone to anti-social violence). Working class whites males aren’t suddenly going to start beating up vulnerable black people because they have a slightly lower average IQ than whites. If they were that way inclined they would already be persecuting people with obviously low IQs (like the mentally disabled).

    From a social safety perspective, the only really serious race research issue is race-related differences in anti-social behaviour. Talking about crime does get working class people worked up and talk radio buzzing, and perhaps crime and race research issues do need to be handled cautiously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @lucidian
    The social danger is not in admitting the differences, the social danger is in denying them. We are at such a dangerous place now. Caused by decades of denial. Denial pushes the infection below the surface, where it festers. We need to lance this boil. But there are so many sheltered, well-intentioned whites who want blacks to be equal, so they can feel less guilty about their own success. I am related to several of them. This is what prevents an honest conversation from happening.
    , @Avery
    {...but I don’t really see what the big social danger is in being honest about race and intelligence. }

    The social danger is that it will 'legitimize' the complete ostracization of Blacks from the rest of American society, the job market in particular.
    Then you have 10s of millions of Americans with no job prospects, no hope for future, nothing.

    Whatever problems there are now with broken Black families, crimes committed by young Black men, etc will become tenfold worse.

    There are 40+ million Black Americans.
    What happens next if you completely socially separate them from the rest of Americans: I don't know, but it won't be anything good.

    When people have nothing to lose and no hope - lots of bad things happen. And the rest of America will get sucked in one way or another.

    , @mukat
    LOL

    Must be nice in your world with no Jews in the media, academia, C-suite, legislature, civil service, NGOs, Davos set, Bohemian Grove...

    Back here in our world there is a real social danger in being honest. Ask Steve Sailer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. dearieme says:

    Moynihan has a cloying manner towards Nixon. Was he one of those people who kiss upwards and kick downwards?

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    As Henry Kissinger said regarding Vietnam, only Ivy League academics can possibly believe that the Oval Office is the type of psychological environment where it is amenable to go right up and bluntly chew out the President. The Nixon White House in particular, reflecting the idiosyncrasies of the current occupant, was a place where you needed to know how to play Nixon's various games.

    I don't like it either, but I'm not going to blame Moynihan for being smart enough to know that and to value getting policy accomplished first and foremost.

    (Ironically, as Dick Reeves pointed out, Nixon was actually one of our more "open to criticism" Presidents... strictly provided that criticism was on paper. If it were on paper, he'd be extremely candid about what he did wrong and what he should do in the future, making detailed notes and comments.

    Contradicting him verbally or refusing to pander to his petty mind games or biases, however, was a sure way of getting frozen out from power, as everybody learned early on. That was part of what made Watergate possible.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    How much Trump knows about this stuff is something we can’t know—partly because it would cause riots

    Everybody that matters know all what’s to be known about “that stuff”.
    Not only on the matter of black & white, but also all the other races, from those of average IQ = 115, 106, down to the 80-90 interval.

    I mean, even observing a crowded multi-racial dating site shows you each race has a cognitive tier of its.

    A self-less governing class would say nothing about such truths, but base their decisions and policies on these truths.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Well, as far as I’m concerned all this stuff with concepts like “Negro family” and “black crime” is just as much bullshit as the obvious liberal bullshit. The other side of the same coin.

    The only way to deal with the problems caused by poverty is to completely ignore the ‘racial’ angle.

    A crime is a crime, a family is a family, and bringing ‘races’ into it is a huge mistake. But of course the powers that be would rather talk about ‘race’ than about good jobs and living wage for everyone…

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    I don't see Asians using poverty as an excuse to commit crimes.
    , @MarkinLA
    Yeah, we would all like to deal with problems without the political angle. How far do you think that will go? Do you really think we would be talking about overcrowded jail and unfair sentences if all the drug convictions were white males?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. RW says:

    I remember Buchanan writing that he was the one who gave Nixon this article. He’s quoted saying this here: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920104&slug=1468491

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Fulford
    Thanks for pointing that out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. lucidian says:
    @unpc downunder
    I mentioned this on one of Steve's threads, but I don't really see what the big social danger is in being honest about race and intelligence. Truth be told, it isn't an issue that gets most people hot under the collar (especially among less educated types who are prone to anti-social violence). Working class whites males aren't suddenly going to start beating up vulnerable black people because they have a slightly lower average IQ than whites. If they were that way inclined they would already be persecuting people with obviously low IQs (like the mentally disabled).

    From a social safety perspective, the only really serious race research issue is race-related differences in anti-social behaviour. Talking about crime does get working class people worked up and talk radio buzzing, and perhaps crime and race research issues do need to be handled cautiously.

    The social danger is not in admitting the differences, the social danger is in denying them. We are at such a dangerous place now. Caused by decades of denial. Denial pushes the infection below the surface, where it festers. We need to lance this boil. But there are so many sheltered, well-intentioned whites who want blacks to be equal, so they can feel less guilty about their own success. I am related to several of them. This is what prevents an honest conversation from happening.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    true, the deceptions used to deny reality created more problems for Blacks in America.. We waste billions of dollars on worthless programs. Since Blacks continue to lag behind whites, they now blame racism and it creates more anger and resentment, resulting in more riots and violence which ends up hurting black neighborhoods. It is self defeating. They need to stop blaming whites and racism for their problems.

    we spent money and changed our education system to help raise the self esteem of Blacks (despite no evidence that they had lower self esteem than whites). Now African Americans have the highest self esteem of any racial group in America (maybe they always did). Not a coincidence that criminals have higher self esteem than non-criminals. Maybe we should try the reverse this , lower their self esteem so it is lower than whites, down to the Chinese level. Asians do better in America than whites, despite the higher self esteem of whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Avery says:
    @unpc downunder
    I mentioned this on one of Steve's threads, but I don't really see what the big social danger is in being honest about race and intelligence. Truth be told, it isn't an issue that gets most people hot under the collar (especially among less educated types who are prone to anti-social violence). Working class whites males aren't suddenly going to start beating up vulnerable black people because they have a slightly lower average IQ than whites. If they were that way inclined they would already be persecuting people with obviously low IQs (like the mentally disabled).

    From a social safety perspective, the only really serious race research issue is race-related differences in anti-social behaviour. Talking about crime does get working class people worked up and talk radio buzzing, and perhaps crime and race research issues do need to be handled cautiously.

    {…but I don’t really see what the big social danger is in being honest about race and intelligence. }

    The social danger is that it will ‘legitimize’ the complete ostracization of Blacks from the rest of American society, the job market in particular.
    Then you have 10s of millions of Americans with no job prospects, no hope for future, nothing.

    Whatever problems there are now with broken Black families, crimes committed by young Black men, etc will become tenfold worse.

    There are 40+ million Black Americans.
    What happens next if you completely socially separate them from the rest of Americans: I don’t know, but it won’t be anything good.

    When people have nothing to lose and no hope – lots of bad things happen. And the rest of America will get sucked in one way or another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    You're assuming white society wants to segregate black people, and its only denial of HBD realities that is stopping them from doing so. If white society wanted to segregate black people their would still be segregation laws (which were steadily repealed during a period when elites did believe in race differences in IQ). I'll refer back to my real world example of the mentally disabled. Western countries go to great lengths to make sure the mentally disabled can participate in mainstream society, even though it's obvious the mentally disabled have low IQs. Unless there is a radical change in social views its very unlikely they are going to shun a particular racial group just because they have a lower average IQ.
    , @MarkinLA
    The problem is that the blacks who aren't causing trouble and don't want any part of it will circle the wagons for the segment of the black population giving them the bad name. If they would kick the bad apples to the curb, some progress might be made.
    , @Travis
    yet American leaders were honest about race until about 1959...and Blacks fared better from 1900-1959 than after 1960. Blacks had less disfunction when it was assumed by most that they were less intelligent than whites. Blacks had less disfunction when they were barred from serving in WWII, when segregation was allowed in most southern states. But I highly doubt that Americans will reintroduce segregation when science confirms that on average Blacks have lower IQs, because the science also indicates that many Blacks will still be smarter than the average Caucasian.

    When Blacks were assumed to be inferior and treated as inferior to whites, excluded form our military, schools , neighborhoods etc..yet they had lower levels of unemployment than today, lower rates of illegitimate births, lower levels of criminality. Maybe a return to honesty will help address these fundamental issues with Blacks today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It won’t happen. Either way we’re screwed. The dye was cast 400 years ago but we still had the opportunity to resolve the consequences resulting from “The Peculiar Institution” (slavery) as relatively recently as 150 years ago. Nothing was done. Now we’re stuck with a problem which, like health care financing, may well have no resolution at this point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    You are correct. We should have repatriated our obsolete "farm equipment" back to its "continent of origin"...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Jim says:

    A stable democracy cannot long exist in a highly diverse society. What a highly diverse society requires is an authoritarian rule like that of the Ottoman Empire or Tito’s Yugoslavia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    That's not... entirely true. I won't deny that ethnic homogeneity does have its uses for a developing nation, as South Korea should prove, but it isn't necessary. Just look at Israel or Switzerland. Granted, they are very small nations, but they are highly successful democracies.

    On a bigger, less developed scale, Brazil, India and Indonesia all have some immense problems-and in the case of latter, increasing problems that are regrettably tied in with the fall of the New Order in 1998-but nevertheless, they are functional, if corrupt and messy democracies that have made massive improvements in the lot of their people over the past few decades. And while Singapore isn't a democracy, neither is it a Tito-style dictatorship, either-Singaporeans can go abroad without inference, the Internet isn't censored as it is in China, you are allowed to have indoor assemblies without a permit, etc. Same with the Hapsburg realm, which survived in one form or another for several centuries, and developed into a rudimentary constitutional monarchical state, complete with a Parliament, by the late 1800s.

    However, I will say this: you do need some form of uniting culture or ideal or the like that ensures social cohesion, rather than the multicultural boilerplate that only ensures each faction feels aggrieved. Most non-bien pensant people have an emotional need to belong to something more satisfying than (to use a Soviet anti-Semitic term, meant here literally) the rootless cosmopolitanism fetishized (and aggressively pushed, at least on whites) by our elites. Meanwhile, as Lee Kwan Yew knew very well, using ethnic politics as an ansatz for actual social and economic reform and improvement is a highly irresponsible game that could have messy, bloody consequences. Especially in a time of increasingly economic inequality and stratification. To say nothing of social alienation, especially among young, unattached males who see no future.

    You also have to keep in mind that normal humans can only take so much change at once. The Western elite have forgotten this rule over the past few decades out of a mix of greed and ideological hubris, engaging in social experiments regarding tribalism, economics, gender, etc, without precedent in history. Merkel's decision of 2015 was the culmination of it all.

    , @Truth
    It has existed here since 1614.
    , @dearieme
    Except Switzerland, obvs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. But if public intellectuals and GOP politicians don’t get wise, it’s not going to be “morning in America”—but terrible night.

    People do not seem to understand the denial of human nature is not intellectual, it is psychological, like the denial of a person clinging to self destructive behavior because facing the truth is too painful.

    Facing the truth about our predicament involves all sorts of painful truths about our inability to control the world and the future. All sorts of people from all over the political spectrum think things will be solved if only we do this, that, or the other – none of them true. If the problem is overshoot and crowding, what can we do?

    When the “ruling class” finally wakes up to the fact that the world is beyond their control, and begins to act accordingly, things will get even more interesting. Will they attempt a “controlled burn” or will we just burn?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. RW says:

    It’s often been pointed out that many of Nixon’s domestic policies were leftwing: proposing national subsidised healthcare, negative income tax for the poor; expanded food stamps; affirmative action; started the EPA; big on consumer issues; he even imposed wage and price controls in 1971; father of affirmative action too. Now we can add: dissembling about race, education and IQ.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden, Bill Jones
    • Replies: @another fred

    It’s often been pointed out that many of Nixon’s domestic policies were leftwing:
     
    Don't forget closing the gold window and "We're all Keynesians now!"
    , @nebulafox
    I've always thought that this reflected the post-Reagan version of US conservatism rather than the actual historical definition of the term: Otto von Bismarck made the world's functioning welfare state, which the conservative social marketeers of the 1950s (Adenauer, De Gaulle) improved on in Europe. Theodore Roosevelt launched the Square Deal. Eisenhower's policies were outright protectionist. That didn't mean they weren't conservative in the literal sense of the term. When you think of actually conserving things like national culture or order, having social programs to nullify the appeal of radicals to the working class and restraining the appetites of the corporate sector is a very smart thing to do. Even Henry Ford noticed that in order to profit from making cars, his employees had to have money to pay for them and time to drive them.

    Nixon, too, was deeply conservative in the old-fashioned sense of the word: his primary goal (apart from winning elections) was to preserve state order, fight for US interests and a generally stable balance of power abroad, and in a US fashion, emphasize the role of local authorities over federal bureaucrats. Besides, you also have to consider political tactics and Nixon's uber-pragmatism-if the cost of getting 4 conservatives on the Supreme Court was the EPA, that's a smart deal.

    It also must be remembered that Nixon grew up in a working class family (unlike JFK and like LBJ, he actually experienced the Depression at its worst) and lost two brothers and a father to stupid, preventable diseases. Hardly a wonder that he wasn't very enthusiastic about the unthinking free market fetishism that began to dominate the Republican Party in the 1990s. He also was a very reclusive, highly "self-loathing intellectual personality" who didn't feel comfortable in Wall Street's finance oriented world in the mid-60s when he was in the wilderness.

    I'd sum Nixon up as a Hamiltonian in the head, a Jacksonian in the soul, and above all, highly determined to make his mark in foreign policy rather than domestic policy, like a Disraeli figure. Nixon himself openly identified as a "Disraeli conservative" in one November 1972 interview and was influenced by Blake's biography of the British PM. Note his choice of Kissinger, an open admirer of European conservative statesmen like Metternich and Bismarck.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Agent76 says:

    While on this topic of *IQ* this is a good read. MAY 12, 2017 This 12-Year-Old Surpasses Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking In IQ Test

    Most of us get elated at getting full marks in class and keep boasting of it for years. But here is a girl who hasn’t stepped into her teens yet but has made India and UK proud by achieving a rare score at Mensa’s IQ test. Let’s know more this girl.

    http://www.sooziq.com/72544/this-12-year-old-surpasses-albert-einstein-stephen-hawking-in-iq-test/#ixzz4gsY0QnNh

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    While on this topic of *IQ* this is a good read

     

    Hey, I'm going to do you one better, why don't we do both topics TOGETHER!

    http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/year-old-carson-huey-you-to-graduate-with-physics-degree/article_463721ac-3695-11e7-bb54-9b40717f4ca2.html
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You link to a bit of flummery by someone who knows next to nothing about IQ testing. Undoubtedly the girl has a high IQ and, indeed, her talent is very much rarer than the article suggests. More like 0.01 per cent of people in thd world might have her cognitive anility. "1 per cent" is just crass ignorance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, as far as I'm concerned all this stuff with concepts like "Negro family" and "black crime" is just as much bullshit as the obvious liberal bullshit. The other side of the same coin.

    The only way to deal with the problems caused by poverty is to completely ignore the 'racial' angle.

    A crime is a crime, a family is a family, and bringing 'races' into it is a huge mistake. But of course the powers that be would rather talk about 'race' than about good jobs and living wage for everyone...

    I don’t see Asians using poverty as an excuse to commit crimes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @RW
    It's often been pointed out that many of Nixon's domestic policies were leftwing: proposing national subsidised healthcare, negative income tax for the poor; expanded food stamps; affirmative action; started the EPA; big on consumer issues; he even imposed wage and price controls in 1971; father of affirmative action too. Now we can add: dissembling about race, education and IQ.

    It’s often been pointed out that many of Nixon’s domestic policies were leftwing:

    Don’t forget closing the gold window and “We’re all Keynesians now!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. mukat says:
    @unpc downunder
    I mentioned this on one of Steve's threads, but I don't really see what the big social danger is in being honest about race and intelligence. Truth be told, it isn't an issue that gets most people hot under the collar (especially among less educated types who are prone to anti-social violence). Working class whites males aren't suddenly going to start beating up vulnerable black people because they have a slightly lower average IQ than whites. If they were that way inclined they would already be persecuting people with obviously low IQs (like the mentally disabled).

    From a social safety perspective, the only really serious race research issue is race-related differences in anti-social behaviour. Talking about crime does get working class people worked up and talk radio buzzing, and perhaps crime and race research issues do need to be handled cautiously.

    LOL

    Must be nice in your world with no Jews in the media, academia, C-suite, legislature, civil service, NGOs, Davos set, Bohemian Grove…

    Back here in our world there is a real social danger in being honest. Ask Steve Sailer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    Just because you are a cynical person doesn't mean everyone else is. Most liberals genuinely believe their own BS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. anarchyst says:
    @anonymous
    It won't happen. Either way we're screwed. The dye was cast 400 years ago but we still had the opportunity to resolve the consequences resulting from "The Peculiar Institution" (slavery) as relatively recently as 150 years ago. Nothing was done. Now we're stuck with a problem which, like health care financing, may well have no resolution at this point.

    You are correct. We should have repatriated our obsolete “farm equipment” back to its “continent of origin”…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. nebulafox says:
    @dearieme
    Moynihan has a cloying manner towards Nixon. Was he one of those people who kiss upwards and kick downwards?

    As Henry Kissinger said regarding Vietnam, only Ivy League academics can possibly believe that the Oval Office is the type of psychological environment where it is amenable to go right up and bluntly chew out the President. The Nixon White House in particular, reflecting the idiosyncrasies of the current occupant, was a place where you needed to know how to play Nixon’s various games.

    I don’t like it either, but I’m not going to blame Moynihan for being smart enough to know that and to value getting policy accomplished first and foremost.

    (Ironically, as Dick Reeves pointed out, Nixon was actually one of our more “open to criticism” Presidents… strictly provided that criticism was on paper. If it were on paper, he’d be extremely candid about what he did wrong and what he should do in the future, making detailed notes and comments.

    Contradicting him verbally or refusing to pander to his petty mind games or biases, however, was a sure way of getting frozen out from power, as everybody learned early on. That was part of what made Watergate possible.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. nebulafox says:
    @RW
    It's often been pointed out that many of Nixon's domestic policies were leftwing: proposing national subsidised healthcare, negative income tax for the poor; expanded food stamps; affirmative action; started the EPA; big on consumer issues; he even imposed wage and price controls in 1971; father of affirmative action too. Now we can add: dissembling about race, education and IQ.

    I’ve always thought that this reflected the post-Reagan version of US conservatism rather than the actual historical definition of the term: Otto von Bismarck made the world’s functioning welfare state, which the conservative social marketeers of the 1950s (Adenauer, De Gaulle) improved on in Europe. Theodore Roosevelt launched the Square Deal. Eisenhower’s policies were outright protectionist. That didn’t mean they weren’t conservative in the literal sense of the term. When you think of actually conserving things like national culture or order, having social programs to nullify the appeal of radicals to the working class and restraining the appetites of the corporate sector is a very smart thing to do. Even Henry Ford noticed that in order to profit from making cars, his employees had to have money to pay for them and time to drive them.

    Nixon, too, was deeply conservative in the old-fashioned sense of the word: his primary goal (apart from winning elections) was to preserve state order, fight for US interests and a generally stable balance of power abroad, and in a US fashion, emphasize the role of local authorities over federal bureaucrats. Besides, you also have to consider political tactics and Nixon’s uber-pragmatism-if the cost of getting 4 conservatives on the Supreme Court was the EPA, that’s a smart deal.

    It also must be remembered that Nixon grew up in a working class family (unlike JFK and like LBJ, he actually experienced the Depression at its worst) and lost two brothers and a father to stupid, preventable diseases. Hardly a wonder that he wasn’t very enthusiastic about the unthinking free market fetishism that began to dominate the Republican Party in the 1990s. He also was a very reclusive, highly “self-loathing intellectual personality” who didn’t feel comfortable in Wall Street’s finance oriented world in the mid-60s when he was in the wilderness.

    I’d sum Nixon up as a Hamiltonian in the head, a Jacksonian in the soul, and above all, highly determined to make his mark in foreign policy rather than domestic policy, like a Disraeli figure. Nixon himself openly identified as a “Disraeli conservative” in one November 1972 interview and was influenced by Blake’s biography of the British PM. Note his choice of Kissinger, an open admirer of European conservative statesmen like Metternich and Bismarck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. nebulafox says:
    @Jim
    A stable democracy cannot long exist in a highly diverse society. What a highly diverse society requires is an authoritarian rule like that of the Ottoman Empire or Tito's Yugoslavia.

    That’s not… entirely true. I won’t deny that ethnic homogeneity does have its uses for a developing nation, as South Korea should prove, but it isn’t necessary. Just look at Israel or Switzerland. Granted, they are very small nations, but they are highly successful democracies.

    On a bigger, less developed scale, Brazil, India and Indonesia all have some immense problems-and in the case of latter, increasing problems that are regrettably tied in with the fall of the New Order in 1998-but nevertheless, they are functional, if corrupt and messy democracies that have made massive improvements in the lot of their people over the past few decades. And while Singapore isn’t a democracy, neither is it a Tito-style dictatorship, either-Singaporeans can go abroad without inference, the Internet isn’t censored as it is in China, you are allowed to have indoor assemblies without a permit, etc. Same with the Hapsburg realm, which survived in one form or another for several centuries, and developed into a rudimentary constitutional monarchical state, complete with a Parliament, by the late 1800s.

    However, I will say this: you do need some form of uniting culture or ideal or the like that ensures social cohesion, rather than the multicultural boilerplate that only ensures each faction feels aggrieved. Most non-bien pensant people have an emotional need to belong to something more satisfying than (to use a Soviet anti-Semitic term, meant here literally) the rootless cosmopolitanism fetishized (and aggressively pushed, at least on whites) by our elites. Meanwhile, as Lee Kwan Yew knew very well, using ethnic politics as an ansatz for actual social and economic reform and improvement is a highly irresponsible game that could have messy, bloody consequences. Especially in a time of increasingly economic inequality and stratification. To say nothing of social alienation, especially among young, unattached males who see no future.

    You also have to keep in mind that normal humans can only take so much change at once. The Western elite have forgotten this rule over the past few decades out of a mix of greed and ideological hubris, engaging in social experiments regarding tribalism, economics, gender, etc, without precedent in history. Merkel’s decision of 2015 was the culmination of it all.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Jim
    Israel is a profoundly polarized and bitterly divided society whose future stability depends on a strong Jewish majority and a willingness to apply very brutal measures to the Arab population. Also the extent to which it is a democracy is highly questionable since a large number of the individuals under Israeli rule have no democratic rights. Israel is basically a helot society.

    Switzerland works because the different components of the population have their own areas where they are the overwhelmingly dominant population. The France, German and Italian Swiss despise each other but they are intelligent enough to have worked out an arrangement of coexistence involving not interfering into each others affairs. It should be noted that as late as about 1850 the Swiss were fighting violently among themselves. Also the degree of differences among the components of the Swiss population are much less than say between American whites, mestizos and blacks.
    , @Jim
    Indonesia is hardly a model of multicultural harmony. Approximately 100,000 ethnic Chinese were killed in the anti-Chinese riots around 1960. There was also bloody violence directed at the Chinese in the 1990's. I seriously doubt Indonesia's long term stability. It's internal history since independence has been marked by various episodes of extreme violence.
    , @Corvinus
    "However, I will say this: you do need some form of uniting culture or ideal or the like that ensures social cohesion..."

    Which we generally have in the United States.

    "rather than the multicultural boilerplate that only ensures each faction feels aggrieved."

    Assuming that each race and/or ethnicity is disgruntled.

    "the rootless cosmopolitanism fetishized (and aggressively pushed, at least on whites) by our elites."

    No, our cosmopolitan society is the result of the masses intermingling and intermixing, not some experiment or policy developed by "elites".

    "Meanwhile, as Lee Kwan Yew knew very well, using ethnic politics as an ansatz for actual social and economic reform and improvement is a highly irresponsible game that could have messy, bloody consequences."

    Could is the operative word.

    "To say nothing of social alienation, especially among young, unattached males who see no future."

    Then they should read Gorilla Mindset. It will change their life. Besides, I thought that playing the victim was only a non-white trait.

    "The Western elite have forgotten this rule over the past few decades out of a mix of greed and ideological hubris, engaging in social experiments regarding tribalism, economics, gender, etc, without precedent in history."

    Let us assume that this "Western elite" is the source of our problems. How do you propose dealing with their machinations? Exact courses of action, please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. nsa says:

    Has anyone mentioned yet that Moynihan gave a name to the policy resulting from his investigation into the foibles of afros: BENIGN NEGLECT? The kosher media went ballistic….only The Bell Curve has resulted in a similar outpouring of bile and hatred…..accused of everything from alcoholism to cannibalism. Thereafter, Dannie Pat was extremely damaged goods and not welcome in polite company…….especially in his home state of JY.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    In that memo, Moynihan (rightly) pointed out that given the race riots and hyper-tension of the previous 5 years, the issue could use a "cool down" period in which reforms such as affirrmative action and the like could be quietly implemented and social tensions defused. It was hardly racist by any sane metric, but it was enough to set his reputation on fire.

    The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”-Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

    Moynihan was the last of a breed: Burkean, old-style liberal Democrats that revered the New Deal and respected the necessity of the welfare state and an interventionist government, but also revered the nuclear family, patriotism, personal choices and freedom, etc, and valued culture equally. Though a personal dove on Vietnam, Moynihan was solidly anti-Communist and was absolutely appalled (from an intellectual perspective as much as anything else) by the PC groupthink that dominated the New Left and academia in the 1960s. That's why he left Cambridge to go serve a man that was the akin to the political anti-Christ for the Harvard faculty during the 1950s and 1960s. He was a maverick, proposing to increase self-sufficiency in a practical rather than ideological manner.

    (I should add that Burke himself would be absolutely appalled at the Randist, often flatly sociopathic bent of today's so-called "conservatives", Ryan, McConnell and their ilk. What is conservative about prioritizing corporate welfare and profits over the stability and well-being of a nation-state? Matter of fact, what is conservative about compulsive Wilsonian intervention abroad at the expense of the balance of power and American interests?)

    He was an incredibly intriguing figure who brought out something of the intellectual, more contemplative side in Nixon-it's a shame he didn't last longer in the administration thanks to the rising influence of the Colson types. I still remember his comment in 1974 when Nixon resigned, when he was serving as ambassador to India, on how three Presidents had been deposed in that terrible decade-one by bullet, one by abdication, and one by scandal.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. nebulafox says:
    @nsa
    Has anyone mentioned yet that Moynihan gave a name to the policy resulting from his investigation into the foibles of afros: BENIGN NEGLECT? The kosher media went ballistic....only The Bell Curve has resulted in a similar outpouring of bile and hatred.....accused of everything from alcoholism to cannibalism. Thereafter, Dannie Pat was extremely damaged goods and not welcome in polite company.......especially in his home state of JY.

    In that memo, Moynihan (rightly) pointed out that given the race riots and hyper-tension of the previous 5 years, the issue could use a “cool down” period in which reforms such as affirrmative action and the like could be quietly implemented and social tensions defused. It was hardly racist by any sane metric, but it was enough to set his reputation on fire.

    The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”-Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

    Moynihan was the last of a breed: Burkean, old-style liberal Democrats that revered the New Deal and respected the necessity of the welfare state and an interventionist government, but also revered the nuclear family, patriotism, personal choices and freedom, etc, and valued culture equally. Though a personal dove on Vietnam, Moynihan was solidly anti-Communist and was absolutely appalled (from an intellectual perspective as much as anything else) by the PC groupthink that dominated the New Left and academia in the 1960s. That’s why he left Cambridge to go serve a man that was the akin to the political anti-Christ for the Harvard faculty during the 1950s and 1960s. He was a maverick, proposing to increase self-sufficiency in a practical rather than ideological manner.

    (I should add that Burke himself would be absolutely appalled at the Randist, often flatly sociopathic bent of today’s so-called “conservatives”, Ryan, McConnell and their ilk. What is conservative about prioritizing corporate welfare and profits over the stability and well-being of a nation-state? Matter of fact, what is conservative about compulsive Wilsonian intervention abroad at the expense of the balance of power and American interests?)

    He was an incredibly intriguing figure who brought out something of the intellectual, more contemplative side in Nixon-it’s a shame he didn’t last longer in the administration thanks to the rising influence of the Colson types. I still remember his comment in 1974 when Nixon resigned, when he was serving as ambassador to India, on how three Presidents had been deposed in that terrible decade-one by bullet, one by abdication, and one by scandal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Truth says:
    @Agent76
    While on this topic of *IQ* this is a good read. MAY 12, 2017 This 12-Year-Old Surpasses Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking In IQ Test

    Most of us get elated at getting full marks in class and keep boasting of it for years. But here is a girl who hasn’t stepped into her teens yet but has made India and UK proud by achieving a rare score at Mensa’s IQ test. Let’s know more this girl.

    http://www.sooziq.com/72544/this-12-year-old-surpasses-albert-einstein-stephen-hawking-in-iq-test/#ixzz4gsY0QnNh

    While on this topic of *IQ* this is a good read

    Hey, I’m going to do you one better, why don’t we do both topics TOGETHER!

    http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/year-old-carson-huey-you-to-graduate-with-physics-degree/article_463721ac-3695-11e7-bb54-9b40717f4ca2.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Truth says:
    @Jim
    A stable democracy cannot long exist in a highly diverse society. What a highly diverse society requires is an authoritarian rule like that of the Ottoman Empire or Tito's Yugoslavia.

    It has existed here since 1614.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Sam J. says:

    Nixon was a great man. I think some of the blame for his fall during Watergate was his working Man approach to loyalty to the gang that got him in the mess. They were his people, even if they screwed up, so he had to look after them. If he were one of the elites he would have hung them out to dry at the first peep that it was a problem.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Jim says:
    @nebulafox
    That's not... entirely true. I won't deny that ethnic homogeneity does have its uses for a developing nation, as South Korea should prove, but it isn't necessary. Just look at Israel or Switzerland. Granted, they are very small nations, but they are highly successful democracies.

    On a bigger, less developed scale, Brazil, India and Indonesia all have some immense problems-and in the case of latter, increasing problems that are regrettably tied in with the fall of the New Order in 1998-but nevertheless, they are functional, if corrupt and messy democracies that have made massive improvements in the lot of their people over the past few decades. And while Singapore isn't a democracy, neither is it a Tito-style dictatorship, either-Singaporeans can go abroad without inference, the Internet isn't censored as it is in China, you are allowed to have indoor assemblies without a permit, etc. Same with the Hapsburg realm, which survived in one form or another for several centuries, and developed into a rudimentary constitutional monarchical state, complete with a Parliament, by the late 1800s.

    However, I will say this: you do need some form of uniting culture or ideal or the like that ensures social cohesion, rather than the multicultural boilerplate that only ensures each faction feels aggrieved. Most non-bien pensant people have an emotional need to belong to something more satisfying than (to use a Soviet anti-Semitic term, meant here literally) the rootless cosmopolitanism fetishized (and aggressively pushed, at least on whites) by our elites. Meanwhile, as Lee Kwan Yew knew very well, using ethnic politics as an ansatz for actual social and economic reform and improvement is a highly irresponsible game that could have messy, bloody consequences. Especially in a time of increasingly economic inequality and stratification. To say nothing of social alienation, especially among young, unattached males who see no future.

    You also have to keep in mind that normal humans can only take so much change at once. The Western elite have forgotten this rule over the past few decades out of a mix of greed and ideological hubris, engaging in social experiments regarding tribalism, economics, gender, etc, without precedent in history. Merkel's decision of 2015 was the culmination of it all.

    Israel is a profoundly polarized and bitterly divided society whose future stability depends on a strong Jewish majority and a willingness to apply very brutal measures to the Arab population. Also the extent to which it is a democracy is highly questionable since a large number of the individuals under Israeli rule have no democratic rights. Israel is basically a helot society.

    Switzerland works because the different components of the population have their own areas where they are the overwhelmingly dominant population. The France, German and Italian Swiss despise each other but they are intelligent enough to have worked out an arrangement of coexistence involving not interfering into each others affairs. It should be noted that as late as about 1850 the Swiss were fighting violently among themselves. Also the degree of differences among the components of the Swiss population are much less than say between American whites, mestizos and blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    From my limited knowledge of Switzerland's government structure, it works basically the same way the United States (plural term) worked prior to 1861-1865. That is, a highly de-centralized government structure with each state making and living under its own set of rules and laws as determined by local popular opinion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. dearieme says:
    @Jim
    A stable democracy cannot long exist in a highly diverse society. What a highly diverse society requires is an authoritarian rule like that of the Ottoman Empire or Tito's Yugoslavia.

    Except Switzerland, obvs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Jim says:
    @nebulafox
    That's not... entirely true. I won't deny that ethnic homogeneity does have its uses for a developing nation, as South Korea should prove, but it isn't necessary. Just look at Israel or Switzerland. Granted, they are very small nations, but they are highly successful democracies.

    On a bigger, less developed scale, Brazil, India and Indonesia all have some immense problems-and in the case of latter, increasing problems that are regrettably tied in with the fall of the New Order in 1998-but nevertheless, they are functional, if corrupt and messy democracies that have made massive improvements in the lot of their people over the past few decades. And while Singapore isn't a democracy, neither is it a Tito-style dictatorship, either-Singaporeans can go abroad without inference, the Internet isn't censored as it is in China, you are allowed to have indoor assemblies without a permit, etc. Same with the Hapsburg realm, which survived in one form or another for several centuries, and developed into a rudimentary constitutional monarchical state, complete with a Parliament, by the late 1800s.

    However, I will say this: you do need some form of uniting culture or ideal or the like that ensures social cohesion, rather than the multicultural boilerplate that only ensures each faction feels aggrieved. Most non-bien pensant people have an emotional need to belong to something more satisfying than (to use a Soviet anti-Semitic term, meant here literally) the rootless cosmopolitanism fetishized (and aggressively pushed, at least on whites) by our elites. Meanwhile, as Lee Kwan Yew knew very well, using ethnic politics as an ansatz for actual social and economic reform and improvement is a highly irresponsible game that could have messy, bloody consequences. Especially in a time of increasingly economic inequality and stratification. To say nothing of social alienation, especially among young, unattached males who see no future.

    You also have to keep in mind that normal humans can only take so much change at once. The Western elite have forgotten this rule over the past few decades out of a mix of greed and ideological hubris, engaging in social experiments regarding tribalism, economics, gender, etc, without precedent in history. Merkel's decision of 2015 was the culmination of it all.

    Indonesia is hardly a model of multicultural harmony. Approximately 100,000 ethnic Chinese were killed in the anti-Chinese riots around 1960. There was also bloody violence directed at the Chinese in the 1990′s. I seriously doubt Indonesia’s long term stability. It’s internal history since independence has been marked by various episodes of extreme violence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    "Israel is a profoundly polarized and bitterly divided society whose future stability depends on a strong Jewish majority and a willingness to apply very brutal measures to the Arab population. Also the extent to which it is a democracy is highly questionable since a large number of the individuals under Israeli rule have no democratic rights. Israel is basically a helot society."

    So... Hamas does not control Gaza? The PA does not have at least some authority in the West Bank?

    I'm no AIPAC shill, am highly critical of the GOP tendency to confuse Israel with the 51st state, and I consider Bibi Netanyahu shady on a good day. But it's not Israel's fault that the PA finds conflict with them to be easier than actually competently governing, and that the Palestinians refuse to accept that in any realistic peace deal in the forseeable future, there's going to be no right of return or Jerusalem given that Israel has "won" the military conflict on the ground in just about every practical sense. If we actually want to see an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the quickest and most painless way to do it would be for the Palestinians to accept that no one is going to come to their rescue anytime soon for reasons I elaborated in a different thread-if that happens, everybody can then focus on concessions that the Israelis might actually make elsewhere. Even the Saudis have accepted the Israelis as a necessary evil in the region...

    As for Israel being a functioning democracy, Israel's coalition politics are fractious, but stable enough. There is a worrying trend about the ultra-Orthodox birthrate, given that they and the Russians are inevitably the hardliners on the Palestinian question, but it works.

    "Indonesia is hardly a model of multicultural harmony. Approximately 100,000 ethnic Chinese were killed in the anti-Chinese riots around 1960. There was also bloody violence directed at the Chinese in the 1990′s."

    I'm very aware of the pogroms against the Chinese. I said it was a *functioning democracy*, corrupt and messy as it is, not a multicultural wonderland. That's not anywhere near as high a bar as you see in the West, yet also represents a significant improvement from the 1960s.

    India's Sikhs got it hard in the 1980s in bloody ethnic pogroms, has dealt myriad communal conflicts and terrorist movements, and has a government so prone to corruption that the Soviets (and by the 1970s, the CPSU itself was quickly becoming more involved with the blossoming new Russian criminal underground) found it to be friendlier hunting ground than fellow Communist countries like Vietnam or China. Does that make India not a democracy?

    "I seriously doubt Indonesia’s long term stability. It’s internal history since independence has been marked by various episodes of extreme violence."

    As do I: the recent conviction of Jakarta's governor confirms a worrying post-New Order trend with Islamism, and it is not a coincidence you occasionally see open nostalgia for Suharto among older Indonesians. Saudi money, as elsewhere in the Muslim World, has had a very noxious exacerbating influence over the past couple of decades, but while it isn't PC to say so, Indonesia has dealt with radical Islam before, in the 1950s.

    That being said, shari'a law spreading all over the archipelago is unlikely, given that Indonesia's religious minorities tend to be pretty powerful, unlike, say, the Egyptian Copts-apart from the obvious example of the Chinese, the Hindu Balinese control over the half tourist trade and the Catholic Massakarese are disproportionately represented in the military, which maintains the Suharto-era distrust for political Islam and separatism. I think you are more likely to see a situation like that of the 1950s, with Darul Islam launching insurgencies and bombings a la Pakistan becoming more commonplace.

    , @gcochran
    The estimates of deaths in Indonesia's 1965 unpleasantness range from 500,000 on up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. nebulafox says:
    @Jim
    Indonesia is hardly a model of multicultural harmony. Approximately 100,000 ethnic Chinese were killed in the anti-Chinese riots around 1960. There was also bloody violence directed at the Chinese in the 1990's. I seriously doubt Indonesia's long term stability. It's internal history since independence has been marked by various episodes of extreme violence.

    “Israel is a profoundly polarized and bitterly divided society whose future stability depends on a strong Jewish majority and a willingness to apply very brutal measures to the Arab population. Also the extent to which it is a democracy is highly questionable since a large number of the individuals under Israeli rule have no democratic rights. Israel is basically a helot society.”

    So… Hamas does not control Gaza? The PA does not have at least some authority in the West Bank?

    I’m no AIPAC shill, am highly critical of the GOP tendency to confuse Israel with the 51st state, and I consider Bibi Netanyahu shady on a good day. But it’s not Israel’s fault that the PA finds conflict with them to be easier than actually competently governing, and that the Palestinians refuse to accept that in any realistic peace deal in the forseeable future, there’s going to be no right of return or Jerusalem given that Israel has “won” the military conflict on the ground in just about every practical sense. If we actually want to see an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the quickest and most painless way to do it would be for the Palestinians to accept that no one is going to come to their rescue anytime soon for reasons I elaborated in a different thread-if that happens, everybody can then focus on concessions that the Israelis might actually make elsewhere. Even the Saudis have accepted the Israelis as a necessary evil in the region…

    As for Israel being a functioning democracy, Israel’s coalition politics are fractious, but stable enough. There is a worrying trend about the ultra-Orthodox birthrate, given that they and the Russians are inevitably the hardliners on the Palestinian question, but it works.

    “Indonesia is hardly a model of multicultural harmony. Approximately 100,000 ethnic Chinese were killed in the anti-Chinese riots around 1960. There was also bloody violence directed at the Chinese in the 1990′s.”

    I’m very aware of the pogroms against the Chinese. I said it was a *functioning democracy*, corrupt and messy as it is, not a multicultural wonderland. That’s not anywhere near as high a bar as you see in the West, yet also represents a significant improvement from the 1960s.

    India’s Sikhs got it hard in the 1980s in bloody ethnic pogroms, has dealt myriad communal conflicts and terrorist movements, and has a government so prone to corruption that the Soviets (and by the 1970s, the CPSU itself was quickly becoming more involved with the blossoming new Russian criminal underground) found it to be friendlier hunting ground than fellow Communist countries like Vietnam or China. Does that make India not a democracy?

    “I seriously doubt Indonesia’s long term stability. It’s internal history since independence has been marked by various episodes of extreme violence.”

    As do I: the recent conviction of Jakarta’s governor confirms a worrying post-New Order trend with Islamism, and it is not a coincidence you occasionally see open nostalgia for Suharto among older Indonesians. Saudi money, as elsewhere in the Muslim World, has had a very noxious exacerbating influence over the past couple of decades, but while it isn’t PC to say so, Indonesia has dealt with radical Islam before, in the 1950s.

    That being said, shari’a law spreading all over the archipelago is unlikely, given that Indonesia’s religious minorities tend to be pretty powerful, unlike, say, the Egyptian Copts-apart from the obvious example of the Chinese, the Hindu Balinese control over the half tourist trade and the Catholic Massakarese are disproportionately represented in the military, which maintains the Suharto-era distrust for political Islam and separatism. I think you are more likely to see a situation like that of the 1950s, with Darul Islam launching insurgencies and bombings a la Pakistan becoming more commonplace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @mukat
    LOL

    Must be nice in your world with no Jews in the media, academia, C-suite, legislature, civil service, NGOs, Davos set, Bohemian Grove...

    Back here in our world there is a real social danger in being honest. Ask Steve Sailer.

    Just because you are a cynical person doesn’t mean everyone else is. Most liberals genuinely believe their own BS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. MarkinLA says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, as far as I'm concerned all this stuff with concepts like "Negro family" and "black crime" is just as much bullshit as the obvious liberal bullshit. The other side of the same coin.

    The only way to deal with the problems caused by poverty is to completely ignore the 'racial' angle.

    A crime is a crime, a family is a family, and bringing 'races' into it is a huge mistake. But of course the powers that be would rather talk about 'race' than about good jobs and living wage for everyone...

    Yeah, we would all like to deal with problems without the political angle. How far do you think that will go? Do you really think we would be talking about overcrowded jail and unfair sentences if all the drug convictions were white males?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Yeah, we would all like to deal with problems without the political angle.
     
    I think framing societal problems as 'race'-related is exactly a way to avoid the political angle. And in fact not just to avoid it, but to make sure it can never materialize, as the lower orders get preoccupied with fighting among themselves. Creating meaningless conflicts between the 'whites' and the 'blacks' and whatever other groups they invent, so that the elites could exploit them all with impunity. Convincing them to hate their neighbors, not their bosses. In fact, convincing them to love their bosses for 'defending' them, in this fake conflict, against their neighbors. A sad excuse for politics...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Avery
    {...but I don’t really see what the big social danger is in being honest about race and intelligence. }

    The social danger is that it will 'legitimize' the complete ostracization of Blacks from the rest of American society, the job market in particular.
    Then you have 10s of millions of Americans with no job prospects, no hope for future, nothing.

    Whatever problems there are now with broken Black families, crimes committed by young Black men, etc will become tenfold worse.

    There are 40+ million Black Americans.
    What happens next if you completely socially separate them from the rest of Americans: I don't know, but it won't be anything good.

    When people have nothing to lose and no hope - lots of bad things happen. And the rest of America will get sucked in one way or another.

    You’re assuming white society wants to segregate black people, and its only denial of HBD realities that is stopping them from doing so. If white society wanted to segregate black people their would still be segregation laws (which were steadily repealed during a period when elites did believe in race differences in IQ). I’ll refer back to my real world example of the mentally disabled. Western countries go to great lengths to make sure the mentally disabled can participate in mainstream society, even though it’s obvious the mentally disabled have low IQs. Unless there is a radical change in social views its very unlikely they are going to shun a particular racial group just because they have a lower average IQ.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "they are going to shun a particular racial group just because they have a lower average IQ."

    No, it's because thet are eight times more likely to commit violent crimes: Murder, rape, robbery.
    And 5 times more likely to be parasites of the taxpayer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. MarkinLA says:
    @Avery
    {...but I don’t really see what the big social danger is in being honest about race and intelligence. }

    The social danger is that it will 'legitimize' the complete ostracization of Blacks from the rest of American society, the job market in particular.
    Then you have 10s of millions of Americans with no job prospects, no hope for future, nothing.

    Whatever problems there are now with broken Black families, crimes committed by young Black men, etc will become tenfold worse.

    There are 40+ million Black Americans.
    What happens next if you completely socially separate them from the rest of Americans: I don't know, but it won't be anything good.

    When people have nothing to lose and no hope - lots of bad things happen. And the rest of America will get sucked in one way or another.

    The problem is that the blacks who aren’t causing trouble and don’t want any part of it will circle the wagons for the segment of the black population giving them the bad name. If they would kick the bad apples to the curb, some progress might be made.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    The problem is that most blacks that are managing ok have relatives that aren't managing ok.

    For example Roland Martin, a black cable news personality, has for years taken care of his 4 neices whose parents were hooked on drugs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @RW
    I remember Buchanan writing that he was the one who gave Nixon this article. He's quoted saying this here: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920104&slug=1468491

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Travis says:
    @Avery
    {...but I don’t really see what the big social danger is in being honest about race and intelligence. }

    The social danger is that it will 'legitimize' the complete ostracization of Blacks from the rest of American society, the job market in particular.
    Then you have 10s of millions of Americans with no job prospects, no hope for future, nothing.

    Whatever problems there are now with broken Black families, crimes committed by young Black men, etc will become tenfold worse.

    There are 40+ million Black Americans.
    What happens next if you completely socially separate them from the rest of Americans: I don't know, but it won't be anything good.

    When people have nothing to lose and no hope - lots of bad things happen. And the rest of America will get sucked in one way or another.

    yet American leaders were honest about race until about 1959…and Blacks fared better from 1900-1959 than after 1960. Blacks had less disfunction when it was assumed by most that they were less intelligent than whites. Blacks had less disfunction when they were barred from serving in WWII, when segregation was allowed in most southern states. But I highly doubt that Americans will reintroduce segregation when science confirms that on average Blacks have lower IQs, because the science also indicates that many Blacks will still be smarter than the average Caucasian.

    When Blacks were assumed to be inferior and treated as inferior to whites, excluded form our military, schools , neighborhoods etc..yet they had lower levels of unemployment than today, lower rates of illegitimate births, lower levels of criminality. Maybe a return to honesty will help address these fundamental issues with Blacks today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    I think you just found it – “Nom de Plume” – pretty catchy actually. And sticks to the anonymous theme.
     
    "Many" doesn't mean much. You have to talk in stats to understand and convey the issue. If you think that way, the entire Federal employee job program (in which I am a contractor) is built on pretending Little Engine that Can't (and these do come in various colors and percentages), really can, and should be paid and elevated accordingly before even reaching the goals.
    , @Corvinus
    "yet American leaders were honest about race until about 1959…and Blacks fared better from 1900-1959 than after 1960."

    Not quite. Remember this was an era of Jim Crow, which demonstrated clear disadvantages for blacks in the legal and educational system.

    "Blacks had less disfunction when it was assumed by most that they were less intelligent than whites."

    Dysfunction.

    "Blacks had less disfunction when they were barred from serving in WWII, when segregation was allowed in most southern states."

    Blame southrons. They couldn't even abide by "separate but equal" as mandated by the Justices in the Plessy case. In employment, in schools, in public accommodations, in the legal system...clear violations. Furthermore, there were southern white people who desired to exercise their freedom of association to interact with and have relationships with black people, but were prohibited by the law. Fortunately, those southrons were put in their place, and law and order was re-established. Indeed, there will never be segregation.

    "When Blacks were assumed to be inferior and treated as inferior to whites, excluded form our military, schools , neighborhoods etc..yet they had lower levels of unemployment than today, lower rates of illegitimate births, lower levels of criminality."

    Sources?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Travis says:
    @lucidian
    The social danger is not in admitting the differences, the social danger is in denying them. We are at such a dangerous place now. Caused by decades of denial. Denial pushes the infection below the surface, where it festers. We need to lance this boil. But there are so many sheltered, well-intentioned whites who want blacks to be equal, so they can feel less guilty about their own success. I am related to several of them. This is what prevents an honest conversation from happening.

    true, the deceptions used to deny reality created more problems for Blacks in America.. We waste billions of dollars on worthless programs. Since Blacks continue to lag behind whites, they now blame racism and it creates more anger and resentment, resulting in more riots and violence which ends up hurting black neighborhoods. It is self defeating. They need to stop blaming whites and racism for their problems.

    we spent money and changed our education system to help raise the self esteem of Blacks (despite no evidence that they had lower self esteem than whites). Now African Americans have the highest self esteem of any racial group in America (maybe they always did). Not a coincidence that criminals have higher self esteem than non-criminals. Maybe we should try the reverse this , lower their self esteem so it is lower than whites, down to the Chinese level. Asians do better in America than whites, despite the higher self esteem of whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @MarkinLA
    Yeah, we would all like to deal with problems without the political angle. How far do you think that will go? Do you really think we would be talking about overcrowded jail and unfair sentences if all the drug convictions were white males?

    Yeah, we would all like to deal with problems without the political angle.

    I think framing societal problems as ‘race’-related is exactly a way to avoid the political angle. And in fact not just to avoid it, but to make sure it can never materialize, as the lower orders get preoccupied with fighting among themselves. Creating meaningless conflicts between the ‘whites’ and the ‘blacks’ and whatever other groups they invent, so that the elites could exploit them all with impunity. Convincing them to hate their neighbors, not their bosses. In fact, convincing them to love their bosses for ‘defending’ them, in this fake conflict, against their neighbors. A sad excuse for politics…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Agent76
    While on this topic of *IQ* this is a good read. MAY 12, 2017 This 12-Year-Old Surpasses Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking In IQ Test

    Most of us get elated at getting full marks in class and keep boasting of it for years. But here is a girl who hasn’t stepped into her teens yet but has made India and UK proud by achieving a rare score at Mensa’s IQ test. Let’s know more this girl.

    http://www.sooziq.com/72544/this-12-year-old-surpasses-albert-einstein-stephen-hawking-in-iq-test/#ixzz4gsY0QnNh

    You link to a bit of flummery by someone who knows next to nothing about IQ testing. Undoubtedly the girl has a high IQ and, indeed, her talent is very much rarer than the article suggests. More like 0.01 per cent of people in thd world might have her cognitive anility. “1 per cent” is just crass ignorance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Travis
    yet American leaders were honest about race until about 1959...and Blacks fared better from 1900-1959 than after 1960. Blacks had less disfunction when it was assumed by most that they were less intelligent than whites. Blacks had less disfunction when they were barred from serving in WWII, when segregation was allowed in most southern states. But I highly doubt that Americans will reintroduce segregation when science confirms that on average Blacks have lower IQs, because the science also indicates that many Blacks will still be smarter than the average Caucasian.

    When Blacks were assumed to be inferior and treated as inferior to whites, excluded form our military, schools , neighborhoods etc..yet they had lower levels of unemployment than today, lower rates of illegitimate births, lower levels of criminality. Maybe a return to honesty will help address these fundamental issues with Blacks today.

    I think you just found it – “Nom de Plume” – pretty catchy actually. And sticks to the anonymous theme.

    “Many” doesn’t mean much. You have to talk in stats to understand and convey the issue. If you think that way, the entire Federal employee job program (in which I am a contractor) is built on pretending Little Engine that Can’t (and these do come in various colors and percentages), really can, and should be paid and elevated accordingly before even reaching the goals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Corvinus says:
    @nebulafox
    That's not... entirely true. I won't deny that ethnic homogeneity does have its uses for a developing nation, as South Korea should prove, but it isn't necessary. Just look at Israel or Switzerland. Granted, they are very small nations, but they are highly successful democracies.

    On a bigger, less developed scale, Brazil, India and Indonesia all have some immense problems-and in the case of latter, increasing problems that are regrettably tied in with the fall of the New Order in 1998-but nevertheless, they are functional, if corrupt and messy democracies that have made massive improvements in the lot of their people over the past few decades. And while Singapore isn't a democracy, neither is it a Tito-style dictatorship, either-Singaporeans can go abroad without inference, the Internet isn't censored as it is in China, you are allowed to have indoor assemblies without a permit, etc. Same with the Hapsburg realm, which survived in one form or another for several centuries, and developed into a rudimentary constitutional monarchical state, complete with a Parliament, by the late 1800s.

    However, I will say this: you do need some form of uniting culture or ideal or the like that ensures social cohesion, rather than the multicultural boilerplate that only ensures each faction feels aggrieved. Most non-bien pensant people have an emotional need to belong to something more satisfying than (to use a Soviet anti-Semitic term, meant here literally) the rootless cosmopolitanism fetishized (and aggressively pushed, at least on whites) by our elites. Meanwhile, as Lee Kwan Yew knew very well, using ethnic politics as an ansatz for actual social and economic reform and improvement is a highly irresponsible game that could have messy, bloody consequences. Especially in a time of increasingly economic inequality and stratification. To say nothing of social alienation, especially among young, unattached males who see no future.

    You also have to keep in mind that normal humans can only take so much change at once. The Western elite have forgotten this rule over the past few decades out of a mix of greed and ideological hubris, engaging in social experiments regarding tribalism, economics, gender, etc, without precedent in history. Merkel's decision of 2015 was the culmination of it all.

    “However, I will say this: you do need some form of uniting culture or ideal or the like that ensures social cohesion…”

    Which we generally have in the United States.

    “rather than the multicultural boilerplate that only ensures each faction feels aggrieved.”

    Assuming that each race and/or ethnicity is disgruntled.

    “the rootless cosmopolitanism fetishized (and aggressively pushed, at least on whites) by our elites.”

    No, our cosmopolitan society is the result of the masses intermingling and intermixing, not some experiment or policy developed by “elites”.

    “Meanwhile, as Lee Kwan Yew knew very well, using ethnic politics as an ansatz for actual social and economic reform and improvement is a highly irresponsible game that could have messy, bloody consequences.”

    Could is the operative word.

    “To say nothing of social alienation, especially among young, unattached males who see no future.”

    Then they should read Gorilla Mindset. It will change their life. Besides, I thought that playing the victim was only a non-white trait.

    “The Western elite have forgotten this rule over the past few decades out of a mix of greed and ideological hubris, engaging in social experiments regarding tribalism, economics, gender, etc, without precedent in history.”

    Let us assume that this “Western elite” is the source of our problems. How do you propose dealing with their machinations? Exact courses of action, please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    "Which we generally have in the United States."

    I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to the past 25 years in the United States, and what current trends (economic and social) are pointing to.

    "Assuming that each race and/or ethnicity is disgruntled."

    They don't all need to be. The Hungarians were more or less satisfied after the Ausgleich, and the Bosnian Muslims were so well assimilated into the Haspburg Empire, they fought as hard as any German or Magyar regiment for the Empire in WWI. The Balinese weren't particularly annoyed in Indonesia in 1998, nor were all the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia involved in the genocide that overtook the former country in the 1990s in part due to the post-Tito Communists choosing to ignore serious fiscal problems in favor of playing identity politics.

    "Could is the operative word."

    Right-let's play ethnic games in a society whose government is facing increasing fiscal problems and is suffering from unprecedented levels of social stratification and inequality, rather than actually doing something to fix the problems. Let's let that go on as more and more jobs are taken away by automation, as ties many people have to other human beings increasing fray further and many drop out of society. What could possibly go wrong?

    I suppose there is an "optimistic" case to be had here, if we can keep the ethnic games in check and avoid violence: what Tyler Cowen suggests will happen. We basically become another Brazil, just larger and with nuclear weapons. Brazil is nowhere near as nasty of a place as people on Unz often suggest, given the effect that things like Bolsa Familia have had over the past 15 years. Such a society could end up being stable if you find a way to dull the proles full-time with video games and porn, which I'm skeptical about given American expectations, but let's suggest it for the sake of argument. It would work out OK for our cognitive elite, although it won't be as pleasant even for them as they guess, considering that in Brazil, those that are well-off need to watch their backs constantly. If enough social programs are passed, we may even make conditions tolerable. But I don't think that vision of America, with a cognitive elite and a mass of service class serfs below them with little chance of advancement and yeoman independence, if a comfortable life, was what Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers had in mind when envisioning a society free of the constants of the Old World.

    "Then they should read Gorilla Mindset. It will change their life. Besides, I thought that playing the victim was only a non-white trait."

    Who said anything about victims? This is merely a social reality to come: and something you are probably going to see with young men of all races.

    I doubt that any amount of self-help books are going to erase basic masculine impulses, which tend to be rather amenable to violence when you are dealing with a mass semi-employed male underclass, especially since for those in the Damned in our increasing Saved and Damned society, marriage and having a family is on its way out. I'm pretty sure some unscrupulous billionaire will eventually realize that there are a lot of guys who'd happily volunteer for a paramilitary, for his own political purposes, rather than go work a job with no benefits at Wal-Mart or for some HR drone.

    As a side note, Trump is the first non-politician billionaire to seek the Presidency. He won't be the last. I wonder if eventually you will see aspiring oligarchs sparring off against each other as Congress protests feebly, not terribly unlike 1990s Russia.

    "Let us assume that this “Western elite” is the source of our problems. How do you propose dealing with their machinations? Exact courses of action, please."

    Replace them, of course. Our bipartisan elite's track record over the past 16 years should, by any sane metric, forever bar them from power, yet there they are still. And for that, the American people have no one but themselves to blame: a parasitic elite is only possible if they are allowed to grow in the first place.

    A good 1st step would be increased civic engagement and electing new people to Congress on an explicit populist platform of grassroots reform. Build coalitions across the left and right over common issues-an example would be agreeing that one cannot practically improve the American welfare state and have unchecked immigration at the same time, and agreeing that throwing gasoline onto the fire that is the automation of jobs isn't a wise idea. Throw protests against any new form of intervention in the Middle East and make clear any Congressman who supports that loses his job. You can apply that course to continued abuse of H1B visas, supporting the War on Drugs or the increasing dual-track justice system, health-care, whatever issue you like that you can get a mass of people behind. Yadda, yadda, yadda. The Internet raises all sorts of possibilities, good and bad. Just as someone might drift to an extremist group on the Internet, they might also drift to a group that concretely does some good.

    Above all, getting people involved in a positive political group may give them some sort of purpose in life they don't have otherwise, and contact with other human beings that they might not otherwise encounter, which is great in and of itself.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Corvinus says:
    @Travis
    yet American leaders were honest about race until about 1959...and Blacks fared better from 1900-1959 than after 1960. Blacks had less disfunction when it was assumed by most that they were less intelligent than whites. Blacks had less disfunction when they were barred from serving in WWII, when segregation was allowed in most southern states. But I highly doubt that Americans will reintroduce segregation when science confirms that on average Blacks have lower IQs, because the science also indicates that many Blacks will still be smarter than the average Caucasian.

    When Blacks were assumed to be inferior and treated as inferior to whites, excluded form our military, schools , neighborhoods etc..yet they had lower levels of unemployment than today, lower rates of illegitimate births, lower levels of criminality. Maybe a return to honesty will help address these fundamental issues with Blacks today.

    “yet American leaders were honest about race until about 1959…and Blacks fared better from 1900-1959 than after 1960.”

    Not quite. Remember this was an era of Jim Crow, which demonstrated clear disadvantages for blacks in the legal and educational system.

    “Blacks had less disfunction when it was assumed by most that they were less intelligent than whites.”

    Dysfunction.

    “Blacks had less disfunction when they were barred from serving in WWII, when segregation was allowed in most southern states.”

    Blame southrons. They couldn’t even abide by “separate but equal” as mandated by the Justices in the Plessy case. In employment, in schools, in public accommodations, in the legal system…clear violations. Furthermore, there were southern white people who desired to exercise their freedom of association to interact with and have relationships with black people, but were prohibited by the law. Fortunately, those southrons were put in their place, and law and order was re-established. Indeed, there will never be segregation.

    “When Blacks were assumed to be inferior and treated as inferior to whites, excluded form our military, schools , neighborhoods etc..yet they had lower levels of unemployment than today, lower rates of illegitimate births, lower levels of criminality.”

    Sources?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. nebulafox says:
    @Corvinus
    "However, I will say this: you do need some form of uniting culture or ideal or the like that ensures social cohesion..."

    Which we generally have in the United States.

    "rather than the multicultural boilerplate that only ensures each faction feels aggrieved."

    Assuming that each race and/or ethnicity is disgruntled.

    "the rootless cosmopolitanism fetishized (and aggressively pushed, at least on whites) by our elites."

    No, our cosmopolitan society is the result of the masses intermingling and intermixing, not some experiment or policy developed by "elites".

    "Meanwhile, as Lee Kwan Yew knew very well, using ethnic politics as an ansatz for actual social and economic reform and improvement is a highly irresponsible game that could have messy, bloody consequences."

    Could is the operative word.

    "To say nothing of social alienation, especially among young, unattached males who see no future."

    Then they should read Gorilla Mindset. It will change their life. Besides, I thought that playing the victim was only a non-white trait.

    "The Western elite have forgotten this rule over the past few decades out of a mix of greed and ideological hubris, engaging in social experiments regarding tribalism, economics, gender, etc, without precedent in history."

    Let us assume that this "Western elite" is the source of our problems. How do you propose dealing with their machinations? Exact courses of action, please.

    “Which we generally have in the United States.”

    I’m guessing you haven’t been paying attention to the past 25 years in the United States, and what current trends (economic and social) are pointing to.

    “Assuming that each race and/or ethnicity is disgruntled.”

    They don’t all need to be. The Hungarians were more or less satisfied after the Ausgleich, and the Bosnian Muslims were so well assimilated into the Haspburg Empire, they fought as hard as any German or Magyar regiment for the Empire in WWI. The Balinese weren’t particularly annoyed in Indonesia in 1998, nor were all the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia involved in the genocide that overtook the former country in the 1990s in part due to the post-Tito Communists choosing to ignore serious fiscal problems in favor of playing identity politics.

    “Could is the operative word.”

    Right-let’s play ethnic games in a society whose government is facing increasing fiscal problems and is suffering from unprecedented levels of social stratification and inequality, rather than actually doing something to fix the problems. Let’s let that go on as more and more jobs are taken away by automation, as ties many people have to other human beings increasing fray further and many drop out of society. What could possibly go wrong?

    I suppose there is an “optimistic” case to be had here, if we can keep the ethnic games in check and avoid violence: what Tyler Cowen suggests will happen. We basically become another Brazil, just larger and with nuclear weapons. Brazil is nowhere near as nasty of a place as people on Unz often suggest, given the effect that things like Bolsa Familia have had over the past 15 years. Such a society could end up being stable if you find a way to dull the proles full-time with video games and porn, which I’m skeptical about given American expectations, but let’s suggest it for the sake of argument. It would work out OK for our cognitive elite, although it won’t be as pleasant even for them as they guess, considering that in Brazil, those that are well-off need to watch their backs constantly. If enough social programs are passed, we may even make conditions tolerable. But I don’t think that vision of America, with a cognitive elite and a mass of service class serfs below them with little chance of advancement and yeoman independence, if a comfortable life, was what Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers had in mind when envisioning a society free of the constants of the Old World.

    “Then they should read Gorilla Mindset. It will change their life. Besides, I thought that playing the victim was only a non-white trait.”

    Who said anything about victims? This is merely a social reality to come: and something you are probably going to see with young men of all races.

    I doubt that any amount of self-help books are going to erase basic masculine impulses, which tend to be rather amenable to violence when you are dealing with a mass semi-employed male underclass, especially since for those in the Damned in our increasing Saved and Damned society, marriage and having a family is on its way out. I’m pretty sure some unscrupulous billionaire will eventually realize that there are a lot of guys who’d happily volunteer for a paramilitary, for his own political purposes, rather than go work a job with no benefits at Wal-Mart or for some HR drone.

    As a side note, Trump is the first non-politician billionaire to seek the Presidency. He won’t be the last. I wonder if eventually you will see aspiring oligarchs sparring off against each other as Congress protests feebly, not terribly unlike 1990s Russia.

    “Let us assume that this “Western elite” is the source of our problems. How do you propose dealing with their machinations? Exact courses of action, please.”

    Replace them, of course. Our bipartisan elite’s track record over the past 16 years should, by any sane metric, forever bar them from power, yet there they are still. And for that, the American people have no one but themselves to blame: a parasitic elite is only possible if they are allowed to grow in the first place.

    A good 1st step would be increased civic engagement and electing new people to Congress on an explicit populist platform of grassroots reform. Build coalitions across the left and right over common issues-an example would be agreeing that one cannot practically improve the American welfare state and have unchecked immigration at the same time, and agreeing that throwing gasoline onto the fire that is the automation of jobs isn’t a wise idea. Throw protests against any new form of intervention in the Middle East and make clear any Congressman who supports that loses his job. You can apply that course to continued abuse of H1B visas, supporting the War on Drugs or the increasing dual-track justice system, health-care, whatever issue you like that you can get a mass of people behind. Yadda, yadda, yadda. The Internet raises all sorts of possibilities, good and bad. Just as someone might drift to an extremist group on the Internet, they might also drift to a group that concretely does some good.

    Above all, getting people involved in a positive political group may give them some sort of purpose in life they don’t have otherwise, and contact with other human beings that they might not otherwise encounter, which is great in and of itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I’m guessing you haven’t been paying attention to the past 25 years in the United States, and what current trends (economic and social) are pointing to."

    Some whites aren't happy that other whites embrace diversity, and there are other whites who don't care.

    'Let’s let that go on as more and more jobs are taken away by automation..."

    The wave of the future. Business owners have the liberty to do what they want with their property. I suggest people deal with this fact that machines will make stuff more than people.

    "as ties many people have to other human beings increasing fray further and many drop out of society."

    Don't be so overdramatic. Some people are "leaving" society, but most are adapting.

    "We basically become another Brazil, just larger and with nuclear weapons."

    America is not going to become Brazil. White people will still be in charge.

    "Such a society could end up being stable if you find a way to dull the proles full-time with video games and porn, which I’m skeptical about given American expectations"

    You lack faith in the ability of white people to survive and thrive. Again, I suggest reading Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life.

    "But I don’t think that vision of America, with a cognitive elite and a mass of service class serfs below them with little chance of advancement and yeoman independence, if a comfortable life, was what Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers had in mind when envisioning a society free of the constants of the Old World."

    Kemosabe, today's "service class serfs" are making a great life for themselves. You are being overly negative.

    "I doubt that any amount of self-help books are going to erase basic masculine impulses, which tend to be rather amenable to violence when you are dealing with a mass semi-employed male underclass, especially since for those in the Damned in our increasing Saved and Damned society, marriage and having a family is on its way out."

    Assuming that this mass semi-employed male underclass will turn into Hulks and destroy everything in their path. Too many science fiction books being read will cloud your judgement.

    "I’m pretty sure some unscrupulous billionaire will eventually realize that there are a lot of guys who’d happily volunteer for a paramilitary, for his own political purposes, rather than go work a job with no benefits at Wal-Mart or for some HR drone."

    And I'm fairly certain that you have a wild imagination.

    "I wonder if eventually you will see aspiring oligarchs sparring off against each other as Congress protests feebly, not terribly unlike 1990s Russia."

    No, it was rare, given there were two historically bad candidates, and the lesser of two evils was chosen.

    "Replace them, of course."

    How? Be specific.

    "Our bipartisan elite’s track record over the past 16 years should, by any sane metric, forever bar them from power, yet there they are still. And for that, the American people have no one but themselves to blame: a parasitic elite is only possible if they are allowed to grow in the first place."

    Are you one of those Americans who is to blame? And how do you propose limiting a person's ability to become educated, earn money, and gain status by their own individual efforts, which essentially is the path to elitism? How do you interfere with basic human freedom?

    "A good 1st step would be increased civic engagement and electing new people to Congress on an explicit populist platform of grassroots reform."

    Excellent. Are you running for office?

    "Build coalitions across the left and right over common issues-an example would be agreeing that one cannot practically improve the American welfare state and have unchecked immigration at the same time..."

    That would be a moderate stance, something I wholly endorse. Except conservatives call those who propose such measures "cucks".

    "and agreeing that throwing gasoline onto the fire that is the automation of jobs isn’t a wise idea."

    Again, that is the decision left to the corporation, not us. It's about profits.

    "Throw protests against any new form of intervention in the Middle East and make clear any Congressman who supports that loses his job."

    Pie in the sky idea.
    , @iffen
    Too bad that out of all the ideas that the original commies got wrong, one of them had to be the idea that given the chance the proles would overrun the libraries, museums and concert halls.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Corvinus says:
    @nebulafox
    "Which we generally have in the United States."

    I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to the past 25 years in the United States, and what current trends (economic and social) are pointing to.

    "Assuming that each race and/or ethnicity is disgruntled."

    They don't all need to be. The Hungarians were more or less satisfied after the Ausgleich, and the Bosnian Muslims were so well assimilated into the Haspburg Empire, they fought as hard as any German or Magyar regiment for the Empire in WWI. The Balinese weren't particularly annoyed in Indonesia in 1998, nor were all the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia involved in the genocide that overtook the former country in the 1990s in part due to the post-Tito Communists choosing to ignore serious fiscal problems in favor of playing identity politics.

    "Could is the operative word."

    Right-let's play ethnic games in a society whose government is facing increasing fiscal problems and is suffering from unprecedented levels of social stratification and inequality, rather than actually doing something to fix the problems. Let's let that go on as more and more jobs are taken away by automation, as ties many people have to other human beings increasing fray further and many drop out of society. What could possibly go wrong?

    I suppose there is an "optimistic" case to be had here, if we can keep the ethnic games in check and avoid violence: what Tyler Cowen suggests will happen. We basically become another Brazil, just larger and with nuclear weapons. Brazil is nowhere near as nasty of a place as people on Unz often suggest, given the effect that things like Bolsa Familia have had over the past 15 years. Such a society could end up being stable if you find a way to dull the proles full-time with video games and porn, which I'm skeptical about given American expectations, but let's suggest it for the sake of argument. It would work out OK for our cognitive elite, although it won't be as pleasant even for them as they guess, considering that in Brazil, those that are well-off need to watch their backs constantly. If enough social programs are passed, we may even make conditions tolerable. But I don't think that vision of America, with a cognitive elite and a mass of service class serfs below them with little chance of advancement and yeoman independence, if a comfortable life, was what Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers had in mind when envisioning a society free of the constants of the Old World.

    "Then they should read Gorilla Mindset. It will change their life. Besides, I thought that playing the victim was only a non-white trait."

    Who said anything about victims? This is merely a social reality to come: and something you are probably going to see with young men of all races.

    I doubt that any amount of self-help books are going to erase basic masculine impulses, which tend to be rather amenable to violence when you are dealing with a mass semi-employed male underclass, especially since for those in the Damned in our increasing Saved and Damned society, marriage and having a family is on its way out. I'm pretty sure some unscrupulous billionaire will eventually realize that there are a lot of guys who'd happily volunteer for a paramilitary, for his own political purposes, rather than go work a job with no benefits at Wal-Mart or for some HR drone.

    As a side note, Trump is the first non-politician billionaire to seek the Presidency. He won't be the last. I wonder if eventually you will see aspiring oligarchs sparring off against each other as Congress protests feebly, not terribly unlike 1990s Russia.

    "Let us assume that this “Western elite” is the source of our problems. How do you propose dealing with their machinations? Exact courses of action, please."

    Replace them, of course. Our bipartisan elite's track record over the past 16 years should, by any sane metric, forever bar them from power, yet there they are still. And for that, the American people have no one but themselves to blame: a parasitic elite is only possible if they are allowed to grow in the first place.

    A good 1st step would be increased civic engagement and electing new people to Congress on an explicit populist platform of grassroots reform. Build coalitions across the left and right over common issues-an example would be agreeing that one cannot practically improve the American welfare state and have unchecked immigration at the same time, and agreeing that throwing gasoline onto the fire that is the automation of jobs isn't a wise idea. Throw protests against any new form of intervention in the Middle East and make clear any Congressman who supports that loses his job. You can apply that course to continued abuse of H1B visas, supporting the War on Drugs or the increasing dual-track justice system, health-care, whatever issue you like that you can get a mass of people behind. Yadda, yadda, yadda. The Internet raises all sorts of possibilities, good and bad. Just as someone might drift to an extremist group on the Internet, they might also drift to a group that concretely does some good.

    Above all, getting people involved in a positive political group may give them some sort of purpose in life they don't have otherwise, and contact with other human beings that they might not otherwise encounter, which is great in and of itself.

    “I’m guessing you haven’t been paying attention to the past 25 years in the United States, and what current trends (economic and social) are pointing to.”

    Some whites aren’t happy that other whites embrace diversity, and there are other whites who don’t care.

    ‘Let’s let that go on as more and more jobs are taken away by automation…”

    The wave of the future. Business owners have the liberty to do what they want with their property. I suggest people deal with this fact that machines will make stuff more than people.

    “as ties many people have to other human beings increasing fray further and many drop out of society.”

    Don’t be so overdramatic. Some people are “leaving” society, but most are adapting.

    “We basically become another Brazil, just larger and with nuclear weapons.”

    America is not going to become Brazil. White people will still be in charge.

    “Such a society could end up being stable if you find a way to dull the proles full-time with video games and porn, which I’m skeptical about given American expectations”

    You lack faith in the ability of white people to survive and thrive. Again, I suggest reading Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life.

    “But I don’t think that vision of America, with a cognitive elite and a mass of service class serfs below them with little chance of advancement and yeoman independence, if a comfortable life, was what Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers had in mind when envisioning a society free of the constants of the Old World.”

    Kemosabe, today’s “service class serfs” are making a great life for themselves. You are being overly negative.

    “I doubt that any amount of self-help books are going to erase basic masculine impulses, which tend to be rather amenable to violence when you are dealing with a mass semi-employed male underclass, especially since for those in the Damned in our increasing Saved and Damned society, marriage and having a family is on its way out.”

    Assuming that this mass semi-employed male underclass will turn into Hulks and destroy everything in their path. Too many science fiction books being read will cloud your judgement.

    “I’m pretty sure some unscrupulous billionaire will eventually realize that there are a lot of guys who’d happily volunteer for a paramilitary, for his own political purposes, rather than go work a job with no benefits at Wal-Mart or for some HR drone.”

    And I’m fairly certain that you have a wild imagination.

    “I wonder if eventually you will see aspiring oligarchs sparring off against each other as Congress protests feebly, not terribly unlike 1990s Russia.”

    No, it was rare, given there were two historically bad candidates, and the lesser of two evils was chosen.

    “Replace them, of course.”

    How? Be specific.

    “Our bipartisan elite’s track record over the past 16 years should, by any sane metric, forever bar them from power, yet there they are still. And for that, the American people have no one but themselves to blame: a parasitic elite is only possible if they are allowed to grow in the first place.”

    Are you one of those Americans who is to blame? And how do you propose limiting a person’s ability to become educated, earn money, and gain status by their own individual efforts, which essentially is the path to elitism? How do you interfere with basic human freedom?

    “A good 1st step would be increased civic engagement and electing new people to Congress on an explicit populist platform of grassroots reform.”

    Excellent. Are you running for office?

    “Build coalitions across the left and right over common issues-an example would be agreeing that one cannot practically improve the American welfare state and have unchecked immigration at the same time…”

    That would be a moderate stance, something I wholly endorse. Except conservatives call those who propose such measures “cucks”.

    “and agreeing that throwing gasoline onto the fire that is the automation of jobs isn’t a wise idea.”

    Again, that is the decision left to the corporation, not us. It’s about profits.

    “Throw protests against any new form of intervention in the Middle East and make clear any Congressman who supports that loses his job.”

    Pie in the sky idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    "Some whites aren’t happy that other whites embrace diversity, and there are other whites who don’t care."

    Eh, no, unless your world view is summed up by Vox, the immense changes that have occurred in American society over the past 25 years aren't that farcically simple. I'm getting pretty tired of this, so I'll point you to these links.

    http://zenpundit.com/?p=45677

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/ (This guy has a bunch...)

    "The wave of the future. Business owners have the liberty to do what they want with their property. I suggest people deal with this fact that machines will make stuff more than people."

    "Let them eat cake."

    "Don’t be so overdramatic. Some people are “leaving” society, but most are adapting."

    And not for the better.

    "America is not going to become Brazil. White people will still be in charge."


    What a profoundly idiotic statement. Have you been to Brazil? Great food, great sun, beautiful language, a young and upcoming tech sector, and absolutely gorgeous women. But if you think racial inequality and power imbalances are bad in the United States, trust me, you don't ever want to go to Brazil.

    "You lack faith in the ability of white people to survive and thrive."

    Who said anything about white people? This is affecting most of America.

    "Again, I suggest reading Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life."

    OK.

    "Kemosabe, today’s “service class serfs” are making a great life for themselves. You are being overly negative."

    Unless we're talking about someone who just escaped rural El Salvador, considering modern underemployment, wage/benefit decline, declining social ties and feelings of happiness, etc, I'd say that the lot of average Americans, broadly speaking, has declined a tad over the past few decades. That doesn't seem to be a particularly controversial fact to state, pseudo-Randist insanity in the GOP aside.

    I actually would like for the majority of Americans to have more prospects than what Tyler Cowen's vision predicts, strangely enough. If you don't, fine, but not everybody agrees.


    "Assuming that this mass semi-employed male underclass will turn into Hulks and destroy everything in their path. Too many science fiction books being read will cloud your judgement."

    Well, when you study some history, you will learn that, generally speaking, societies with a lot of underemployed single young men without much in the way prospects have to do something with them. Different societies have tried different things: exporting them to colonies, sending them to fight wars, improving their economic prospects, locking them up in jail, varied approaches. Those that let the problem fester, refusing to deal with it, usually suffered rather negative consequences.

    "And I’m fairly certain that you have a wild imagination."

    Why? Why won't some other billionaire (who, given the bar that is to be crossed, is probably going to be much more clever and hard-working than The Donald, regardless of political orientation) do what Trump did? It wouldn't be hard. Zuckerberg is already looking ahead to that future.

    If Sulla could cross the Rubicon...

    "Excellent. Are you running for office?"

    Prohibited by law from doing so due to age. Maybe someday, more likely I do something that more befits my introverted temprement. Your inability to truly contradict my points and your resolving to petty innuendo is duly noted.

    "That would be a moderate stance, something I wholly endorse. Except conservatives call those who propose such measures “cucks”."

    a) Hey, if Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader could manage to agree on that, it can happen. The old post-1992 Left/Right divide is going to become increasingly irrelevant over the following decades, I wager.

    b) Generally speaking, what term would you use to describe those who suggest wasting trillions of dollars on dumb wars of choice, prioritizing corporate welfare and profits over societal stability, and prioritizing illegal immigrants and foreign donors over the citizens of the United States are? There's also the fact that there are prominent liberals who insist that the laws of supply and demand apply in Mexico, but not the US, but...

    "Again, that is the decision left to the corporation, not us. It’s about profits."

    Or maybe the government could... enforce E-Verify, raise the minimum wage/benefits, and decimate the H1-B visa program, if we elect the right people into office? Won't get rid of automation, but it at least ceases to make a bad situation worse.

    Maybe, better yet, we could actually limit the influence that corporations wound up about short-term profits have on public policy and curb their rampant abuses of the American people, as Theodore Roosevelt once did?

    "Pie in the sky idea."

    Well, do you have a better one? Until you do, stop sneering at those who are actually intellectually capable of proposing basic ideas.

    Goodbye. I've looked at you talking to PhysicistDave, and I can deduce that you aren't worth my time.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. nebulafox says:
    @Corvinus
    "I’m guessing you haven’t been paying attention to the past 25 years in the United States, and what current trends (economic and social) are pointing to."

    Some whites aren't happy that other whites embrace diversity, and there are other whites who don't care.

    'Let’s let that go on as more and more jobs are taken away by automation..."

    The wave of the future. Business owners have the liberty to do what they want with their property. I suggest people deal with this fact that machines will make stuff more than people.

    "as ties many people have to other human beings increasing fray further and many drop out of society."

    Don't be so overdramatic. Some people are "leaving" society, but most are adapting.

    "We basically become another Brazil, just larger and with nuclear weapons."

    America is not going to become Brazil. White people will still be in charge.

    "Such a society could end up being stable if you find a way to dull the proles full-time with video games and porn, which I’m skeptical about given American expectations"

    You lack faith in the ability of white people to survive and thrive. Again, I suggest reading Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life.

    "But I don’t think that vision of America, with a cognitive elite and a mass of service class serfs below them with little chance of advancement and yeoman independence, if a comfortable life, was what Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers had in mind when envisioning a society free of the constants of the Old World."

    Kemosabe, today's "service class serfs" are making a great life for themselves. You are being overly negative.

    "I doubt that any amount of self-help books are going to erase basic masculine impulses, which tend to be rather amenable to violence when you are dealing with a mass semi-employed male underclass, especially since for those in the Damned in our increasing Saved and Damned society, marriage and having a family is on its way out."

    Assuming that this mass semi-employed male underclass will turn into Hulks and destroy everything in their path. Too many science fiction books being read will cloud your judgement.

    "I’m pretty sure some unscrupulous billionaire will eventually realize that there are a lot of guys who’d happily volunteer for a paramilitary, for his own political purposes, rather than go work a job with no benefits at Wal-Mart or for some HR drone."

    And I'm fairly certain that you have a wild imagination.

    "I wonder if eventually you will see aspiring oligarchs sparring off against each other as Congress protests feebly, not terribly unlike 1990s Russia."

    No, it was rare, given there were two historically bad candidates, and the lesser of two evils was chosen.

    "Replace them, of course."

    How? Be specific.

    "Our bipartisan elite’s track record over the past 16 years should, by any sane metric, forever bar them from power, yet there they are still. And for that, the American people have no one but themselves to blame: a parasitic elite is only possible if they are allowed to grow in the first place."

    Are you one of those Americans who is to blame? And how do you propose limiting a person's ability to become educated, earn money, and gain status by their own individual efforts, which essentially is the path to elitism? How do you interfere with basic human freedom?

    "A good 1st step would be increased civic engagement and electing new people to Congress on an explicit populist platform of grassroots reform."

    Excellent. Are you running for office?

    "Build coalitions across the left and right over common issues-an example would be agreeing that one cannot practically improve the American welfare state and have unchecked immigration at the same time..."

    That would be a moderate stance, something I wholly endorse. Except conservatives call those who propose such measures "cucks".

    "and agreeing that throwing gasoline onto the fire that is the automation of jobs isn’t a wise idea."

    Again, that is the decision left to the corporation, not us. It's about profits.

    "Throw protests against any new form of intervention in the Middle East and make clear any Congressman who supports that loses his job."

    Pie in the sky idea.

    “Some whites aren’t happy that other whites embrace diversity, and there are other whites who don’t care.”

    Eh, no, unless your world view is summed up by Vox, the immense changes that have occurred in American society over the past 25 years aren’t that farcically simple. I’m getting pretty tired of this, so I’ll point you to these links.

    http://zenpundit.com/?p=45677

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/ (This guy has a bunch…)

    “The wave of the future. Business owners have the liberty to do what they want with their property. I suggest people deal with this fact that machines will make stuff more than people.”

    “Let them eat cake.”

    “Don’t be so overdramatic. Some people are “leaving” society, but most are adapting.”

    And not for the better.

    “America is not going to become Brazil. White people will still be in charge.”

    What a profoundly idiotic statement. Have you been to Brazil? Great food, great sun, beautiful language, a young and upcoming tech sector, and absolutely gorgeous women. But if you think racial inequality and power imbalances are bad in the United States, trust me, you don’t ever want to go to Brazil.

    “You lack faith in the ability of white people to survive and thrive.”

    Who said anything about white people? This is affecting most of America.

    “Again, I suggest reading Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life.”

    OK.

    “Kemosabe, today’s “service class serfs” are making a great life for themselves. You are being overly negative.”

    Unless we’re talking about someone who just escaped rural El Salvador, considering modern underemployment, wage/benefit decline, declining social ties and feelings of happiness, etc, I’d say that the lot of average Americans, broadly speaking, has declined a tad over the past few decades. That doesn’t seem to be a particularly controversial fact to state, pseudo-Randist insanity in the GOP aside.

    I actually would like for the majority of Americans to have more prospects than what Tyler Cowen’s vision predicts, strangely enough. If you don’t, fine, but not everybody agrees.

    “Assuming that this mass semi-employed male underclass will turn into Hulks and destroy everything in their path. Too many science fiction books being read will cloud your judgement.”

    Well, when you study some history, you will learn that, generally speaking, societies with a lot of underemployed single young men without much in the way prospects have to do something with them. Different societies have tried different things: exporting them to colonies, sending them to fight wars, improving their economic prospects, locking them up in jail, varied approaches. Those that let the problem fester, refusing to deal with it, usually suffered rather negative consequences.

    “And I’m fairly certain that you have a wild imagination.”

    Why? Why won’t some other billionaire (who, given the bar that is to be crossed, is probably going to be much more clever and hard-working than The Donald, regardless of political orientation) do what Trump did? It wouldn’t be hard. Zuckerberg is already looking ahead to that future.

    If Sulla could cross the Rubicon…

    “Excellent. Are you running for office?”

    Prohibited by law from doing so due to age. Maybe someday, more likely I do something that more befits my introverted temprement. Your inability to truly contradict my points and your resolving to petty innuendo is duly noted.

    “That would be a moderate stance, something I wholly endorse. Except conservatives call those who propose such measures “cucks”.”

    a) Hey, if Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader could manage to agree on that, it can happen. The old post-1992 Left/Right divide is going to become increasingly irrelevant over the following decades, I wager.

    b) Generally speaking, what term would you use to describe those who suggest wasting trillions of dollars on dumb wars of choice, prioritizing corporate welfare and profits over societal stability, and prioritizing illegal immigrants and foreign donors over the citizens of the United States are? There’s also the fact that there are prominent liberals who insist that the laws of supply and demand apply in Mexico, but not the US, but…

    “Again, that is the decision left to the corporation, not us. It’s about profits.”

    Or maybe the government could… enforce E-Verify, raise the minimum wage/benefits, and decimate the H1-B visa program, if we elect the right people into office? Won’t get rid of automation, but it at least ceases to make a bad situation worse.

    Maybe, better yet, we could actually limit the influence that corporations wound up about short-term profits have on public policy and curb their rampant abuses of the American people, as Theodore Roosevelt once did?

    “Pie in the sky idea.”

    Well, do you have a better one? Until you do, stop sneering at those who are actually intellectually capable of proposing basic ideas.

    Goodbye. I’ve looked at you talking to PhysicistDave, and I can deduce that you aren’t worth my time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    “What a profoundly idiotic statement. Have you been to Brazil? Great food, great sun, beautiful language, a young and upcoming tech sector, and absolutely gorgeous women. But if you think racial inequality and power imbalances are bad in the United States, trust me, you don’t ever want to go to Brazil.”

    I’ve been twice to Brazil. America is not remotely like it, nor will it likely turn into it.

    “Who said anything about white people? This is affecting most of America.”

    Now we’re talking.

    “Unless we’re talking about someone who just escaped rural El Salvador, considering modern underemployment, wage/benefit decline, declining social ties and feelings of happiness, etc, I’d say that the lot of average Americans, broadly speaking, has declined a tad over the past few decades.”

    This description is more apt than your “service class serfs” remark. Glad you could clarify.

    “I actually would like for the majority of Americans to have more prospects than what Tyler Cowen’s vision predicts, strangely enough.”

    Now we’re talking.

    “Well, when you study some history, you will learn that, generally speaking, societies with a lot of underemployed single young men without much in the way prospects have to do something with them. Different societies have tried different things: exporting them to colonies, sending them to fight wars, improving their economic prospects, locking them up in jail, varied approaches. Those that let the problem fester, refusing to deal with it, usually suffered rather negative consequences.”

    Past history, when borders and populations were shifting. Given that we live in a technologically based society, increasing numbers of young men are sadly opting out. Perhaps these men will rise up in anger and frustration, then again maybe not.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664684/Why-men-are-opting-out-of-life-and-escaping-into-digital-media.html

    “Why? Why won’t some other billionaire (who, given the bar that is to be crossed, is probably going to be much more clever and hard-working than The Donald, regardless of political orientation) do what Trump did? It wouldn’t be hard.”

    A modern day fight club. Looking today at the general young male population, pasty faced and laced with carbohydrates, it would have to take a hell of a man to harness the energy of this “sleeping giant” to do their bidding. I’ll wait for the sequel.

    “Prohibited by law from doing so due to age.”

    Not for state government.

    “Your inability to truly contradict my points and your resolving to petty innuendo is duly noted.”

    I see you are into dialectic. Duly noted.

    “Hey, if Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader could manage to agree on that, it can happen. “

    Exactly.

    “Generally speaking, what term would you use to describe those who suggest wasting trillions of dollars on dumb wars of choice, prioritizing corporate welfare and profits over societal stability, and prioritizing illegal immigrants and foreign donors over the citizens of the United States are?”

    I would say we nearly on the same page.

    “Or maybe the government could… enforce E-Verify, raise the minimum wage/benefits, and decimate the H1-B visa program, if we elect the right people into office?”

    Now you’re talking.

    “Maybe, better yet, we could actually limit the influence that corporations wound up about short-term profits have on public policy and curb their rampant abuses of the American people, as Theodore Roosevelt once did?”

    Exactly.

    “Goodbye. I’ve looked at you talking to PhysicistDave, and I can deduce that you aren’t worth my time.”

    I wouldn’t go by anything he says. Regardless, I look forward to your future posts. We are more alike than you think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. iffen says:
    @nebulafox
    "Which we generally have in the United States."

    I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to the past 25 years in the United States, and what current trends (economic and social) are pointing to.

    "Assuming that each race and/or ethnicity is disgruntled."

    They don't all need to be. The Hungarians were more or less satisfied after the Ausgleich, and the Bosnian Muslims were so well assimilated into the Haspburg Empire, they fought as hard as any German or Magyar regiment for the Empire in WWI. The Balinese weren't particularly annoyed in Indonesia in 1998, nor were all the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia involved in the genocide that overtook the former country in the 1990s in part due to the post-Tito Communists choosing to ignore serious fiscal problems in favor of playing identity politics.

    "Could is the operative word."

    Right-let's play ethnic games in a society whose government is facing increasing fiscal problems and is suffering from unprecedented levels of social stratification and inequality, rather than actually doing something to fix the problems. Let's let that go on as more and more jobs are taken away by automation, as ties many people have to other human beings increasing fray further and many drop out of society. What could possibly go wrong?

    I suppose there is an "optimistic" case to be had here, if we can keep the ethnic games in check and avoid violence: what Tyler Cowen suggests will happen. We basically become another Brazil, just larger and with nuclear weapons. Brazil is nowhere near as nasty of a place as people on Unz often suggest, given the effect that things like Bolsa Familia have had over the past 15 years. Such a society could end up being stable if you find a way to dull the proles full-time with video games and porn, which I'm skeptical about given American expectations, but let's suggest it for the sake of argument. It would work out OK for our cognitive elite, although it won't be as pleasant even for them as they guess, considering that in Brazil, those that are well-off need to watch their backs constantly. If enough social programs are passed, we may even make conditions tolerable. But I don't think that vision of America, with a cognitive elite and a mass of service class serfs below them with little chance of advancement and yeoman independence, if a comfortable life, was what Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers had in mind when envisioning a society free of the constants of the Old World.

    "Then they should read Gorilla Mindset. It will change their life. Besides, I thought that playing the victim was only a non-white trait."

    Who said anything about victims? This is merely a social reality to come: and something you are probably going to see with young men of all races.

    I doubt that any amount of self-help books are going to erase basic masculine impulses, which tend to be rather amenable to violence when you are dealing with a mass semi-employed male underclass, especially since for those in the Damned in our increasing Saved and Damned society, marriage and having a family is on its way out. I'm pretty sure some unscrupulous billionaire will eventually realize that there are a lot of guys who'd happily volunteer for a paramilitary, for his own political purposes, rather than go work a job with no benefits at Wal-Mart or for some HR drone.

    As a side note, Trump is the first non-politician billionaire to seek the Presidency. He won't be the last. I wonder if eventually you will see aspiring oligarchs sparring off against each other as Congress protests feebly, not terribly unlike 1990s Russia.

    "Let us assume that this “Western elite” is the source of our problems. How do you propose dealing with their machinations? Exact courses of action, please."

    Replace them, of course. Our bipartisan elite's track record over the past 16 years should, by any sane metric, forever bar them from power, yet there they are still. And for that, the American people have no one but themselves to blame: a parasitic elite is only possible if they are allowed to grow in the first place.

    A good 1st step would be increased civic engagement and electing new people to Congress on an explicit populist platform of grassroots reform. Build coalitions across the left and right over common issues-an example would be agreeing that one cannot practically improve the American welfare state and have unchecked immigration at the same time, and agreeing that throwing gasoline onto the fire that is the automation of jobs isn't a wise idea. Throw protests against any new form of intervention in the Middle East and make clear any Congressman who supports that loses his job. You can apply that course to continued abuse of H1B visas, supporting the War on Drugs or the increasing dual-track justice system, health-care, whatever issue you like that you can get a mass of people behind. Yadda, yadda, yadda. The Internet raises all sorts of possibilities, good and bad. Just as someone might drift to an extremist group on the Internet, they might also drift to a group that concretely does some good.

    Above all, getting people involved in a positive political group may give them some sort of purpose in life they don't have otherwise, and contact with other human beings that they might not otherwise encounter, which is great in and of itself.

    Too bad that out of all the ideas that the original commies got wrong, one of them had to be the idea that given the chance the proles would overrun the libraries, museums and concert halls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Corvinus says:
    @nebulafox
    "Some whites aren’t happy that other whites embrace diversity, and there are other whites who don’t care."

    Eh, no, unless your world view is summed up by Vox, the immense changes that have occurred in American society over the past 25 years aren't that farcically simple. I'm getting pretty tired of this, so I'll point you to these links.

    http://zenpundit.com/?p=45677

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/ (This guy has a bunch...)

    "The wave of the future. Business owners have the liberty to do what they want with their property. I suggest people deal with this fact that machines will make stuff more than people."

    "Let them eat cake."

    "Don’t be so overdramatic. Some people are “leaving” society, but most are adapting."

    And not for the better.

    "America is not going to become Brazil. White people will still be in charge."


    What a profoundly idiotic statement. Have you been to Brazil? Great food, great sun, beautiful language, a young and upcoming tech sector, and absolutely gorgeous women. But if you think racial inequality and power imbalances are bad in the United States, trust me, you don't ever want to go to Brazil.

    "You lack faith in the ability of white people to survive and thrive."

    Who said anything about white people? This is affecting most of America.

    "Again, I suggest reading Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life."

    OK.

    "Kemosabe, today’s “service class serfs” are making a great life for themselves. You are being overly negative."

    Unless we're talking about someone who just escaped rural El Salvador, considering modern underemployment, wage/benefit decline, declining social ties and feelings of happiness, etc, I'd say that the lot of average Americans, broadly speaking, has declined a tad over the past few decades. That doesn't seem to be a particularly controversial fact to state, pseudo-Randist insanity in the GOP aside.

    I actually would like for the majority of Americans to have more prospects than what Tyler Cowen's vision predicts, strangely enough. If you don't, fine, but not everybody agrees.


    "Assuming that this mass semi-employed male underclass will turn into Hulks and destroy everything in their path. Too many science fiction books being read will cloud your judgement."

    Well, when you study some history, you will learn that, generally speaking, societies with a lot of underemployed single young men without much in the way prospects have to do something with them. Different societies have tried different things: exporting them to colonies, sending them to fight wars, improving their economic prospects, locking them up in jail, varied approaches. Those that let the problem fester, refusing to deal with it, usually suffered rather negative consequences.

    "And I’m fairly certain that you have a wild imagination."

    Why? Why won't some other billionaire (who, given the bar that is to be crossed, is probably going to be much more clever and hard-working than The Donald, regardless of political orientation) do what Trump did? It wouldn't be hard. Zuckerberg is already looking ahead to that future.

    If Sulla could cross the Rubicon...

    "Excellent. Are you running for office?"

    Prohibited by law from doing so due to age. Maybe someday, more likely I do something that more befits my introverted temprement. Your inability to truly contradict my points and your resolving to petty innuendo is duly noted.

    "That would be a moderate stance, something I wholly endorse. Except conservatives call those who propose such measures “cucks”."

    a) Hey, if Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader could manage to agree on that, it can happen. The old post-1992 Left/Right divide is going to become increasingly irrelevant over the following decades, I wager.

    b) Generally speaking, what term would you use to describe those who suggest wasting trillions of dollars on dumb wars of choice, prioritizing corporate welfare and profits over societal stability, and prioritizing illegal immigrants and foreign donors over the citizens of the United States are? There's also the fact that there are prominent liberals who insist that the laws of supply and demand apply in Mexico, but not the US, but...

    "Again, that is the decision left to the corporation, not us. It’s about profits."

    Or maybe the government could... enforce E-Verify, raise the minimum wage/benefits, and decimate the H1-B visa program, if we elect the right people into office? Won't get rid of automation, but it at least ceases to make a bad situation worse.

    Maybe, better yet, we could actually limit the influence that corporations wound up about short-term profits have on public policy and curb their rampant abuses of the American people, as Theodore Roosevelt once did?

    "Pie in the sky idea."

    Well, do you have a better one? Until you do, stop sneering at those who are actually intellectually capable of proposing basic ideas.

    Goodbye. I've looked at you talking to PhysicistDave, and I can deduce that you aren't worth my time.

    “What a profoundly idiotic statement. Have you been to Brazil? Great food, great sun, beautiful language, a young and upcoming tech sector, and absolutely gorgeous women. But if you think racial inequality and power imbalances are bad in the United States, trust me, you don’t ever want to go to Brazil.”

    I’ve been twice to Brazil. America is not remotely like it, nor will it likely turn into it.

    “Who said anything about white people? This is affecting most of America.”

    Now we’re talking.

    “Unless we’re talking about someone who just escaped rural El Salvador, considering modern underemployment, wage/benefit decline, declining social ties and feelings of happiness, etc, I’d say that the lot of average Americans, broadly speaking, has declined a tad over the past few decades.”

    This description is more apt than your “service class serfs” remark. Glad you could clarify.

    “I actually would like for the majority of Americans to have more prospects than what Tyler Cowen’s vision predicts, strangely enough.”

    Now we’re talking.

    “Well, when you study some history, you will learn that, generally speaking, societies with a lot of underemployed single young men without much in the way prospects have to do something with them. Different societies have tried different things: exporting them to colonies, sending them to fight wars, improving their economic prospects, locking them up in jail, varied approaches. Those that let the problem fester, refusing to deal with it, usually suffered rather negative consequences.”

    Past history, when borders and populations were shifting. Given that we live in a technologically based society, increasing numbers of young men are sadly opting out. Perhaps these men will rise up in anger and frustration, then again maybe not.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664684/Why-men-are-opting-out-of-life-and-escaping-into-digital-media.html

    “Why? Why won’t some other billionaire (who, given the bar that is to be crossed, is probably going to be much more clever and hard-working than The Donald, regardless of political orientation) do what Trump did? It wouldn’t be hard.”

    A modern day fight club. Looking today at the general young male population, pasty faced and laced with carbohydrates, it would have to take a hell of a man to harness the energy of this “sleeping giant” to do their bidding. I’ll wait for the sequel.

    “Prohibited by law from doing so due to age.”

    Not for state government.

    “Your inability to truly contradict my points and your resolving to petty innuendo is duly noted.”

    I see you are into dialectic. Duly noted.

    “Hey, if Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader could manage to agree on that, it can happen. “

    Exactly.

    “Generally speaking, what term would you use to describe those who suggest wasting trillions of dollars on dumb wars of choice, prioritizing corporate welfare and profits over societal stability, and prioritizing illegal immigrants and foreign donors over the citizens of the United States are?”

    I would say we nearly on the same page.

    “Or maybe the government could… enforce E-Verify, raise the minimum wage/benefits, and decimate the H1-B visa program, if we elect the right people into office?”

    Now you’re talking.

    “Maybe, better yet, we could actually limit the influence that corporations wound up about short-term profits have on public policy and curb their rampant abuses of the American people, as Theodore Roosevelt once did?”

    Exactly.

    “Goodbye. I’ve looked at you talking to PhysicistDave, and I can deduce that you aren’t worth my time.”

    I wouldn’t go by anything he says. Regardless, I look forward to your future posts. We are more alike than you think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Ed says:
    @MarkinLA
    The problem is that the blacks who aren't causing trouble and don't want any part of it will circle the wagons for the segment of the black population giving them the bad name. If they would kick the bad apples to the curb, some progress might be made.

    The problem is that most blacks that are managing ok have relatives that aren’t managing ok.

    For example Roland Martin, a black cable news personality, has for years taken care of his 4 neices whose parents were hooked on drugs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @unpc downunder
    You're assuming white society wants to segregate black people, and its only denial of HBD realities that is stopping them from doing so. If white society wanted to segregate black people their would still be segregation laws (which were steadily repealed during a period when elites did believe in race differences in IQ). I'll refer back to my real world example of the mentally disabled. Western countries go to great lengths to make sure the mentally disabled can participate in mainstream society, even though it's obvious the mentally disabled have low IQs. Unless there is a radical change in social views its very unlikely they are going to shun a particular racial group just because they have a lower average IQ.

    “they are going to shun a particular racial group just because they have a lower average IQ.”

    No, it’s because thet are eight times more likely to commit violent crimes: Murder, rape, robbery.
    And 5 times more likely to be parasites of the taxpayer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. gcochran says:
    @Jim
    Indonesia is hardly a model of multicultural harmony. Approximately 100,000 ethnic Chinese were killed in the anti-Chinese riots around 1960. There was also bloody violence directed at the Chinese in the 1990's. I seriously doubt Indonesia's long term stability. It's internal history since independence has been marked by various episodes of extreme violence.

    The estimates of deaths in Indonesia’s 1965 unpleasantness range from 500,000 on up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Jim
    Israel is a profoundly polarized and bitterly divided society whose future stability depends on a strong Jewish majority and a willingness to apply very brutal measures to the Arab population. Also the extent to which it is a democracy is highly questionable since a large number of the individuals under Israeli rule have no democratic rights. Israel is basically a helot society.

    Switzerland works because the different components of the population have their own areas where they are the overwhelmingly dominant population. The France, German and Italian Swiss despise each other but they are intelligent enough to have worked out an arrangement of coexistence involving not interfering into each others affairs. It should be noted that as late as about 1850 the Swiss were fighting violently among themselves. Also the degree of differences among the components of the Swiss population are much less than say between American whites, mestizos and blacks.

    From my limited knowledge of Switzerland’s government structure, it works basically the same way the United States (plural term) worked prior to 1861-1865. That is, a highly de-centralized government structure with each state making and living under its own set of rules and laws as determined by local popular opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    True. What's (arguably) more important is that less than 1/3 of your taxes goes to the Swiss feds, with 2/3 of it collected and spent on the (more or less equally) cantonal and local levels. They way money is controlled is more or less indicative of how the power is distributed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Carroll Price
    From my limited knowledge of Switzerland's government structure, it works basically the same way the United States (plural term) worked prior to 1861-1865. That is, a highly de-centralized government structure with each state making and living under its own set of rules and laws as determined by local popular opinion.

    True. What’s (arguably) more important is that less than 1/3 of your taxes goes to the Swiss feds, with 2/3 of it collected and spent on the (more or less equally) cantonal and local levels. They way money is controlled is more or less indicative of how the power is distributed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. DJ says:

    WRT the policymakers’ denial of the black/white IQ gap, its logical conclusions for doing so were, and are, all too predictable. In the following, I think the late Lawrence Auster (he’s sorely missed,BTW) nailed it:

    Why the truth about black dysfunction is so important

    “Why do I focus so relentlessly on these endlessly repeated stories of the massive cover-up, followed by the massive exposure, of black criminality and black failure—which is, we should point out, failure by white standards? Beyond its immediate interest and obvious importance, the truthful communication about black dysfunction and violence also serves the larger purpose of this website, which is nothing less than to save the American nation.
    In my view, the greatest single factor driving whites to national suicide is their false guilt over black inferiority. Because whites believe—as modern liberalism has taught them to believe—that all groups have equal inherent abilities, they also believe that the actual inferiority of blacks in almost every area of accomplishment and behavior must be caused by something bad that the whites are invidiously doing to blacks, or by something good that whites are selfishly refusing to do for blacks. However expressed, it all comes down to the idea that black failure is caused by white racism—the transcendent sin of the modern world. And because black inferiority continues, and is even getting worse, the conclusion is that white racism is continuing, and is even getting worse.
    The final result of this woefully mistaken thought process is the paralyzing racial guilt which makes whites feel that they have no right to defend and preserve their civilization, no right to defend and preserve themselves, but that they must instead self-sacrificially open themselves to and empower, not only blacks, but all nonwhites. This self-sacrifice takes numerous forms, including denial of the truth of black anti-white violence, denial of the tyrannical and murderous reality of Islam, and unquestioning acceptance of the mass Third-World immigration that is steadily turning America into a non-European country in which whites and their civilization will be steadily weakened, dispossessed, and destroyed. Therefore, as I began saying in the mid 1990s, if whites could see the truth that blacks’ lesser intelligence and other lesser civilizational abilities are not whites’ fault but are inherent in blacks themselves, it could literally save the country, by freeing whites from their suicidal guilt.”

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019843.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. In my view, the greatest single factor driving whites to national suicide is their false guilt over black inferiority. Because whites believe—as modern liberalism has taught them to believe—that all groups have equal inherent abilities, they also believe that the actual inferiority of blacks in almost every area of accomplishment and behavior must be caused by something bad that the whites are invidiously doing to blacks, or by something good that whites are selfishly refusing to do for blacks.

    The white people of diversity feel no guilt whatsoever.

    White victim cult people blame the same people afro-blacks blame for their misfortunes: white straight healthy nonhispanic gentile Christian antifascist males.

    White victim cultists often label people embodying all oppressor attributes as being white supremacist or Nazi.

    There are lots of no-guilt white victim cultists:

    [MORE]

    White Women
    White Jewish
    White Queers
    White Muslims
    White Disabled
    White Hispanics
    White Military Veterans
    White National Socialist
    White Crony Capitalist
    White Zionist

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
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