I hope Bill and Linda are tuned in.

Steve,

Did you ever get around to reviewing Children of Men?

We need solid research, but assuming it pans out, it will interesting to see what happens with Steve Levitt’s abortion/crime nexus when the cell phone data are taken into account.

“Mussolini was a Marxist heretic”

Zeev Sternhell’s “The Birth of Fascist Ideology” is an interesting study:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5306.html

“Experts often debate the factors in student achievement. Many point to teacher quality, others to parental involvement and others to economic and cultural issues.”

And there are NO OTHER FACTORS. Capisce?

“We’re all part of one tribe. The black tribe. The human tribe.”

I’m pretty sure that’s two tribes.

The Fumento article that Glaivester links to above includes this passage:

“German anthropologist Kurt Falk reported in the 1920s that bisexuality was almost universal among the male populations of African tribes he studied. Medical records also show that African men who insist they’re straighter than the proverbial arrow often suffer transmissible anorectal diseases.”

I wonder if the African-American “down-low” subculture could turn out to have roots in Africa?

For a skeptical take on the HIV-circumcision connection, see John Hawks

Concerned,

You write:

“Purposely breeding children via artificial insemination, as in the case of lesbians, or hiring a womb like a meat locker, as in the case of gay males, creates a child that has no legal or quotidien relationship with one parent.”

What about good old-fashioned adoption? I bet that lesbian marriages will prove beneficial to orphaned and abandoned children in need of homes.

Concerned,

I read your question. My point is that the example you give overlooks commonplace adoption, where the harm of separation from one’s biological parents (if such a harm exists, which I question) has already taken place.

When adopting parents play no purposeful role in initiating the separation of adoptive children from their biological parents (i.e., when that event has already occured), such adoptive parents most likely act to the benefit of the children they adopt. Since there are already many, many children who need homes, it seems that the emergence of SSM (by which I mean mostly lesbian SSM) could have the offsetting benefit of placing more already-abandoned children in caring homes.

I take it that your view is that extending the marriage franchise will more likely have the long-term effect of steering gay couples toward new breeding technologies, with unknown social consequences. This is indeed possible. I’m not too worried about it, but it’s possible. And it will be interesting.

What seems certain, though, is that for those many children who are already lingering in foster care, a sudden increase in the number of prospective adoptive families is good.

Steve,

I know you don’t have cable, but you should really make a point of seeing (and writing about) the above-mentioned documentary, (“Hard Times at Douglass High,” I believe). It’s a sad and telling indictment of NCLB and the blindly conceited assumptions being pushed by Ms. Gates. I missed the first half-hour, but one thing I noticed was the apparent absence of any vocational classes in the entire high school carriculum. Students are simply coralled into a dead-end.

Unmarried people are disproportionately young. Any idea how the gap holds when you look at married versus unmarried people limited to a particular age group, say people under 35?

One good thing about Obamanomics is the word, “Obamanomics.” It’s just fun to say.

Regarding Gates-Gate, I agree with Truth in every particular. By all available evidence it appears that: 1. the incident was not racially motivated, and 2. Gates should not have been arrested. So close the books. I look forward to the day when the whole imbroglio is but another vague recollection. Shouldn't take long.

But Steve's tic about how the "death penalty can deter witness-murdering" is more interesting. It seems to me that there's strong intuitive reason to suspect the opposite might turn out to be true — that the death penalty could increase witness killing, since the killing of witnesses provides a last-resort high-risk strategy for those who have already committed a capital offense to elude capture and avoid the possible consequence of being killed by the state. Is there evidence in either direction?

Wow. I'm surprised — and delighted — by this one, Steve. Szukalski and Warhol are among my favorite artists, yet I don't know that I've ever put them in the same thought.

Since no one has mentioned it, I'll throw in my vote for Taxi Driver — er, I mean, "Observe and Report." Film of the year, hands down. Jody Hill's body of work poses a promising response/reaction to the winky-wink trend that Agnostic rightly targets in his pop-cult curmudgeonry. Hill uses "meta" tropes to subvert the same. His work is wonderfully dark and comical yet deeply sincere.

It would be interesting to breed strictly for intelligence. Intelligence in dogs has largely been a side-effect of task-orientied breeding, but I don't know that it's ever been at the center of a breeding plan.

To my way of thinking, cloning yourself is arrogant and inconsiderate, but only in the same sense that passing on your genes through sexual reproduction is arrogant and inconsiderate. I'm always amused at how antinatalist sentiment becomes acceptable when the means of procreation differs from the norm. Neither clones nor lottery produced babes asked to be created, so why not leave them to nihil? They'll end up there soon enough, anyway.

http://ninebandedbooks.com/?p=292

“These protestors against the Democrats…”

WRONG. That is exactly what all of the pundits get wrong about the current political sentiment in America. It should read, “These protestors against incumbents…”

It finally is time to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think Ron Paul would agree to be un-elected if it meant throwing every last “bum” out of Congress. The mainstream media know this and won’t print it, and the rest of the media won’t print it because they either are fearful or don’t comprehend the current alienation of such a large percentage of the American public.

Co-option of the “Tea Party” movement will not work because there is no such “Tea Party.” Rather, there are millions upon millions of pissed-off Americans who want to get corrupt politicians out of the seats they now hold. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Washington.

Steve,

I'm surprised you don't make more of the fact that Chua's study of market dominant minorities is as HBD-blind as her parenting advice. In the first instance she may be bowing to intellectual decorum, but everything we know about behavior genetics should cast suspicion on the genuinely cruel child-rearing techniques that defends as "effective." Threatening to burn a child's cherished toys because that child falls short of perfection is unconscionable behavior, and there is zero evidence that it serves any greater purpose. Ms. Chua may or may not be aware of the researches of David C. Rowe, Judith Rich Harris and others, but parents considering her nurture-assumptionist tips should have an opportunity to hear the full story.

Steve:

I see that a commenter already mentioned Fran Lebowitz, whose remarks on this subject are incisive. Let me echo that and suggest that you check out the documentary, "Public Speaking."

The "Linda" example is fair, but sort of pointless.

The other one really bugs me. If you're going to introduce these biographical (which is to say, empirical) details into the mix, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that those details are statistically relevant, as they surely are. What if all you knew was that one of the 100 was, say, female? Still a 30% chance she's an engineer and not a lawyer? The problem is, it's no longer an abstract question.

Kahneman would make a terrible bookie.

I find it curious that Roissy has yet to comment on the show. Maybe he's moonlighting as a script consultant.

In her 1994/1997 article, "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" — the one that was signed by 52 academics in the heat of the Bell Curve wars — Gottfredson writes:

"The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks."

Unless the underlying data have changed significantly in the years intervening, my guess is that she simply misspoke in the documentary when she claimed that the Hispanic average was around 80. All of the major data I've seen support the "midway" observation. Someone should ask her to clarify.

Steve,

You seem content to deride Caplan for engaging in dorm room sophistry and asking "childish" questions, but citizenism is clearly an ethical proposition and as such it invites critique and delineation. The fiduciary obligation analogy is at least imprecise (as you concede), and I fail to see how repeatedly citing the preamble to the Constitution (or nodding vaguely toward Aristotle and Ben Franklin) adds to a discussion that fundamentally concerns moral obligation. It isn't so difficult to envision (or locate) real-word examples where a bias favoring present citizens (or present family members) diminishes human welfare on net, and if that much is true it seems entirely reasonable to inquire as to why such an ethos is good. If the answer is that the alternative would ultimately and always prove worse, then you need to show your work. If the answer is that human nature is incompatible with universal morality, then it seems especially useful to consider the limits and potential negative consequences of localist morality, if only to minimize the foreseeable downside.

Steve Sailer,

Do you happen to have a link for the overlooked serial killer story?

No comment on modern breeding, but I would like to opine that the SWPL-ization of bully-breed ownership should be embraced as a positive development. It is a cliche to note that the temperamental problems associated with Pit bull type breeds are largely the result of irresponsible and psychopathic owners, and to the large extent that this is true, the best remedy is to lessen the public notoriety of such breeds. The animal welfare movement has been good in this regard, and I hope the trend continues until the thugs lose interest.

I use GR every day. It's the best of its kind, and it's one of the few web tools that I would be willing to pay for. The argument that social media provide the same service is ludicrous. I'll switch to another reader, but the news is … unwelcome.

By the way, Steve, I hope you will consider following West Hunter's lead and doing annual eBooks of your postings here.

Richard Jewell.

"TN Coates is the Hootie and the Blowfish of punditry."

Just don't call him 'Flip' or 'Coy.'

I'll cast another vote for Bryan Caplan, at least on the immigration front. I, too, find him frustrating for the usual reasons.

If Steve has an articulate foil on the HBD front, I'll bookmark it.

Also, Sister Y is working on her book. I am her publisher.

Steve,

In line with your observations here, I think "Behind the Candelabra" (the Liberace flick) flirts with subversive themes concerning gay culture, narcissism, and maybe even same-sex marriage. I enjoyed the movie for the usual reasons, but when it was over I couldn't shake the sense that Soderbergh had gotten away with something.

I know one person who was a victim of Knockout Game, but her hospitalization didn't result in a criminological data point. I suspect that's true in many cases that are not recorded and posted online; victims are treated and released or they come to and never mention what happened.

The author of the Slate article claims that all is anecdote, that no hard data support the claim that this is a racially motivated trend. My question is: Is there any research at all? Surveys of urban populations (victims and perps) would be a start.

They recently put out a commemorative facsimile reprint of the premiere issue and it was fascinating to read in 2013. Mary McCarthy's review of The Naked Lunch (as it was known back then) is so smart and incisive and exciting with nary a lit-crit cliche.

I think Chicago's has the edge partly because of earlier exposure to Canadian broadcasts of SCTV and Monty Python.

@Andrew
“The current narrative from the left is that you are either white (oppressor) or not white (oppressed).”

I think that’s an oversimplification. There has long been awareness in Race Studies and Sociology that race is socially constructed, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybridity

You also touch on another prominent theory, where some races and ethnicities have ‘become’ white:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies

I think with the oppressor vs. oppressed division you’re referring to racial politics, where both some whites and blacks (for example) have found advantages from emphasizing differences and pushing the narrative of clear racial categories. A classic example is the trend in American politics where waves of immigrant groups such as Irish and Italians formed political blocks and gained power over their community. In that case a strong racial/ethnic identity results in political power and in my understanding Whiteness studies scholars see that as an initial phase, which is followed by assimilation (America as a ‘melting pot’).

“the antics of dweeby startup guys and haughty venture capitalists—Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg even show up …”

What does this even mean? I thought Mossberg was always considered cool. How can you be Jewish and dweeby?

After reading your latest piece I went back and reread your previous piece, where you introduce the portmanteau “Covidiot”, which, while clever, was insulting to people who think as I do.

I found it impossible to untangle your opening postulate,

“In particular, imputing garden variety government evils to conspiracies is based on the following faulty premise…”,

…with it statements negated by a following (NOT), but I think I deciphered what you were driving at, in subsequent paragraphs. You state

“Clearly, conspiracy thinking is not congruent with a view of government as fundamentally antagonistic to the welfare of the individual and civil society, a position held by a good number of libertarians and conservatives.”

…without offering any coherent argument at all. Indeed one would suppose that if you did believe that

“government as fundamentally antagonistic to the welfare of the individual and civil society”

you would rationally presume agents of government would indeed conspire to achieve their own ends, regardless of the consequences to individual and civil society. You go on to say

“But from the fact that the State is engaged in this power grab—it doesn’t follow that COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, isn’t lethal.”

…yet you provide no evidence that anyone is claiming the COVID is not lethal simply because they believe that the state is engaged in a power grab. I have read dozens of articles various thinkers and have watched numerous videos by epidemiologists, in addition to going to the CDC site and pulling their official case and fatality numbers. And in virtually every case the consensus is that the numbers don’t match the projections. On that basis the lethality of infection to any random individual is rationally questioned. No one is saying it is not lethal to some. But when one steps back and looks at the draconian measures taken worldwide, thinking people cannot help but ask how such a thing could take place on such a grand scale with such rapidity. Couple that with such stellar investigative research as has been provided by Whitney Webb, Ron Unz and others, along with the obvious controlled demolition of the economy at the very time that the massive fiat bubble was starting to implode and rational people start to connect the dots and question this patterns they are seeing.

“Again, the State consolidates power reflexively—a little bit here; a little bit there—and often in response to a real threat, rather than intentionally. Its agents are opportunistic predators, rather than grand conspirators.”

While I agree that the state is an opportunistic predator, to say that they do not engage in grand conspiracy is the height of naivety. Research the entry of the US into Spanish American War, FDR and his conspiracy to get us into WWII, the Gulf of Tonkin; and the granddaddy of all conspiracies, the WTC demolitions. (And if you are throwing up your hands and dismissing the WTC as some fringe kook belief, but have not taken the time to review the available evidence, then you are not the thinker you purport to be)

“Suppose you act in accordance with these conspiracy convictions. You throw caution to the wind. And then you get infected.”

“Who’s stupid now?”

And suppose the actual overall mortality rate turns out to be the same as a bad flu, as the latest data seem to suggest, yet you destroy thousands of businesses and jobs, cause many people to die who cannot get elective treatment that they may have gotten or cancer screening they missed out on, or committed suicide because their livelihood has been taken from them overnight, not to mention the dramatic shifting of the overton window so far toward totalitarianism.

Who’s the Covidiot?

Consider this a follow up to the comment I recently posted on your previous article “Coronavirus and Conspiracy: Don’t be A ‘Covidiot’”.

You seem to have taken to insulting those who have a differing opinion than you. First we were called “Covidiots” and now we are “tinny ideologues”. What a great way to build a readership. I have been reading your columns for 15 years or so, but I am beginning to wonder why.

You listed three statements that are anathema to you. The second one I’ll grant you is cringe worthy, however you failed to make your case as to why the others should be considered anathema.

“Each and every individual is or could be, inadvertently, harboring a weapon of mass destruction. Yes, a WMD—for how many men and women have died and will still die because of the inadvertent actions of the coronavirus-carrying Index Patients,during the “seeding events”?”

This is clearly the most histrionic statement I have ever read from you in 15 years. It’s laughably covidiotic. You are saying a virus that — if the stated cause of morbidity is accurate, which is far from certain — is running a fatality rate roughly that of a bad flu season, is akin to nuclear weapons. I think the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would gladly rather risk going to the store during COVID, without a mask, then the incineration that they ultimately suffered.

People live their entire lives running the risk of infection from others. It’s called life. Most of us have always practiced social distancing when we, or others we know, are ill. Still we get sick. I myself have had the mumps, measles and chickenpox, all of which have been the focus a pandemic at one time or another. Why is this one different? You like to quote some dude in NYC who is right in the thick of it. Too bad for him. Why should that cause anyone here in Ohio to lose their job? Tens of thousands die on the highways each year because of other people. Should we mandate only one car per ¼ mile so as to mitigate the possibility of an accident? Of course we don’t. We each decide what risk we are willing to accept. If you don’t like me walking around without a mask these days then stay home.

This should be a no brainer for a “paleo-libertarian”.

Since when are blacks “indigenous” to America? Or “browns” for that matter? All colors are indigenous except white. I couldn’t make it past that because the author is demonstrably not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Clearly you have never had Georgia peaches. We get them once or twice a year here in Ohio from the peach truck. And yea, they don’t last long because they ripen and spoil quick. But they are the most flavorful peaches you can get anywhere. So, all is not lost yet.

How is possible that “ The first white slave sales document was drawn up in 1612,…” while at the same time “ There were countless shipments of these doomed children to America for perhaps 300 years, …”?

Are you saying white slaves were sent to america until 1912?
Doesn’t sound very plausible to me.

Interesting review. However, I would take issue with the use of “capture and enslavement” with reference to the jewish, or any european for that matter, involvement in the slave trade. While there were undoubtedly a few Africans that were “enslaved” by whites (including jews) the vast majority were enslaved by rival African tribes and subsequently sold (or “traded”, hence the slave trade).
It’s ludicrous to think that whites could muster the resources necessary to penetrate a hostile African bush in order to capture anywhere near the number of Africans that were traded.

It may seem pedantic, but most blacks are woefully unaware of this fact. It’s important to recognize that their own people were doing most of the enslaving. The jews, and others, were just buying wholesale from them and selling retail to the colonies.

Sir Richard Francis Burtons 2 volumes on Gelele of the Dahome provides great details on the dealings of this slavocracy.

https://burtoniana.org/books/1864-A%20Mission%20to%20Gelele%20King%20of%20Dahome/index.htm

“If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.
If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.
If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?
If homosexuality is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others ‘ sphincters?
If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?
If homosexuality ‘love’ is a pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?
If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?
Degenerates and liberals will take you on a wild chase through fallacious logic and appeals to emotion, but at the end of the day, the truth has always been our very first thought as children when we saw gays.
ERROR.” – Anon, 05/30/15

I’d like to learn more about this perspective because it absolutely does feel like the Ukraine is a shredder used to press Slavic men into service and then feed them into the shredder.

Coupled with Zionist whispers about having another Jewish homeland in Ukraine and thing start to make sense.