And what’s with the strawman? Nobody is claiming that race is the cause of disease.

Yes, someone is claiming that. That is exactly what Steve Sailer and his confreres here are implying when they insist that race should be included in the risk assessment without explicitly admitting that race is there functioning as a proxy for other risk factors relevant in the development of heart disease, but that race itself is not a biological cause of heart disease; and it was precisely owning to confusion over this very specific point that the AHA decided to remove race as a risk factor in the development of the model in the first place. The stated goal was to avoid race-specific treatment decisions. In a world where physicians are increasingly mindless automatons applying decision trees to patients they may have never physically interacted with, this is probably for the best.

In case there are any lingering suspicions that the AHA has stopped acknowledging racial disparities in the prevalence of heart disease, we should be clear that the authors of the paper did not attempt to deny that nor even to downplay it:

It is well-documented that significantly higher incidence of CVD is present among certain racial and ethnic groups. Emerging data identify that social factors are the upstream drivers of this disproportionate CVD risk. In one analysis from the CARDIA study, excess risk for diabetes among Black individuals compared with White individuals was nearly completely attributed to differences in neighborhood, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and behavioral factors. In another analysis from the CARDIA study, similar findings were observed to explain the difference in racial disparities in premature CVD.

The authors had no qualms about identifying race as a proxy for, but not a cause of, disparities in the prevalence of heart disease. They specifically structured their argument such that disagreement with this point logically entails that the disputant is asserting that “race” is a biological cause of disease.

Ergo, that is exactly what Steve Sailer is claiming. And if Steve Sailer does not wish to be seen as claiming that, then maybe he needs to read the paper more carefully and reformulate his response.

It is pretty obvious from this exchange that Sailer and the Sailerites are not only wrong, but do not know what they are talking about, as I more or less described in my earlier comment, (which for some reason has been stuck in moderation since last night).

It’s not a good look to pretend to be obtuse about things which aren’t that difficult to understand. I don’t have any trouble understanding what the AHA means when they say they do not want to reify the concept of biological race. That’s fine; there are plenty of other indicators they could use without making reference to a sensitive, overly politicized topic.

Moreover, they are basically correct in what they are saying. Race is not a biological category. Race does not pertain to any particular organ or tissue or disease etiology. It is, in effect, medically meaningless. Race is more of a stylistic quality or a mode that applies to the organism as a whole. Even given the (correct) observation that some diseases tend to run more heavily in certain races, this does not of course mean that the cause of that disease is “race.” Race is neither a disease nor a cause of disease; it is simply an indicator of what sort of risks an individual might be exposed to. The disease itself—which is the fundamental topic of medical inquiry—has a much more prosaic etiology.

When Steve brings up things like this, it is not so much a symptom of a strange obsession within mainstream culture to insist that race is not a factor in anything, as it is a symptom of a strange obsession within HBD culture to insist that race is a factor in everything. It isn’t. Race, like personality and temperament, is a condition that might dispose people in certain directions, but it doesn’t simply dissolve every other cause into itself; and, like temperament, it is not conclusive. If you were trying to evaluate the linkage between temperament and heart disease, it may be interesting to ask people who had had heart attacks whether they get angry a lot, and you will probably even find some fascinating correlations. Nonetheless, anger is not medical diagnosis, and neither is race.

These comments are such the circular jerk. God created everything; evolutionary whateverism is an evidence-free observation-free troll going on two centuries now. Give it up, atheo-darwinists: you can’t produce a single observed instance of speciation.

Ukraine has >40 million people…

Had.

Jared Diamond specifically argues otherwise …

My, isn’t that sweet of him. What is your point, and why should I give a rat’s ass?

In order to catch horses you mean to keep, you would just need to round up the lost and hungry foals that had been abandoned by their mothers or orphaned. In fact, these are the only kind of horses that you would likely ever catch on foot. You could kill them eat them right away, but you might as well raise them and breed them. There is a path to domestication that is easier than hunting adult specimens.

It was the USA and its NATO companions who did Nord Stream. If they’re blaming Ukraine now, it’s because they know Ukraine is losing the war badly and they are getting ready to throw Ukraine under the bus.

We took the wild animals we found — primitive horse, wild cattle, et al — and bred them into usable forms.

I would suggest that given a few thousand more years, American Indians might have done the same.

Yes, all the evolutionists like to suggest that, but it is wrong. Because Darwinian evolution implicitly asserts that you can get from anywhere to anywhere else with the right selective pressure, it’s common to hear people blithely assume that any plant or animal could be domesticated “given a few thousand years.”

The truth is exactly the opposite. Most plants and animals are not amenable to domestication, and the relative few that are so have been with us since prehistory. There is no easy way to explain this as a chance result. Either the early humans were extremely lucky in their choice of farm companions, or something else is going on.

In short, the wild creatures domesticated themselves. We didn’t take them out of the wild, they came to us because they had some sort of intrinsic tendency to serve humanity. No all the kinds of creatures did this, nor even all the individuals within the kinds that did, but some select individuals were called to this. Only this can explain the rapid development of such deep and necessary symbiotic arrangements. It is the echoes of the dominion of Adam.

Nothing ever really goes extinct. What happens is that a genus sheds its connotations and reverts to a simpler expression-form. The dinosaurs, for example, are not extinct; it’s just that today we call them birds and iguanas, and they’ve lost some of their former glory.

Nothing could be more absurd than the idea that the Indians killed off all the megafauna by hunting them. As if a few thinly spread bands of humans could range all over the whole North American continent and somehow track down every last beast and kill it before the animals found somewhere to hide. Modern Europeans, with vastly superior numbers, industrial society, locomotives, firearms, poison, and a more-or-less deliberate policy of extermination, did not quite manage to kill off the bison, the coyote, or the wolf, so it’s unlikely that spear-chucking nomads on foot fared any better.

If you believe they did, try a little experiment. Try walking from the Seward Peninsula down to Boca Raton without making use of any roads, and then imagine yourself trying to chase down all the horses in that expanse (on foot). America is a gigantic place, full of mysterious mountain ranges, endless plains, impenetrable forests, uncrossable deserts, and wetlands that could swallow whole European nations without a trace. You will never find all the horses.

The decline of the megafauna cannot be explained by any crude material causes. It was simply the end of an age, the passing of one era into another. The greater beasts sleep in the day of man, but that day too has its limits of which we know not.

Most people can fairly quickly learn to use chopsticks to eat Chinese food, but they wouldn’t be much use for Thanksgiving dinner or desserts.

Funny story: I used to cook a lot of Asian food at home, and I ate with chopsticks so often that I unconsciously started using them even for my “American” meals, like steamed salmon filet and string beans. It’s interesting how it just sinks in.

By the way, I agree with you about mulattas being dateable. Some of them are strikingly good looking and they tend to make the most of their career and educational opportunities.

And white men, by and large, are probably the most cosmopolitan of spouses and are the least deterred by differences of race, ethnicity, or class. White men are thirsty; no matter what kind of woman you are, somewhere there is a white man who will put a ring on it. Concerns for race-purity aside, the white husband has always been a good opportunity for minority women to improve their prospects. I still maintain that if you really want to solve America’s black problem, the best thing for it is white man/black woman miscegenation. Mulatto children with white fathers in the home are not a problem for society.

It’s all the genes.

Then why did the genes–which, in the nature of the case, you must have gotten from your parents—not propel them to be anything more than working class in a dying, mostly dead, coal town?

Simple regression here would indicate that it’s not “all the genes.”

What it is, is being in position to take advantage of the benefits offered by a matured, complex society. Without getting plugged into the system at the right time of your life, in the right ways, and not needing to expend Herculean efforts to do it and burning yourself out, you will not enjoy the charmed outcome. And the process of plugging in is largely a function of what other people do, or have done, for you. If nobody gives you a leg up, you get stuck lumping coal no matter how smart you are.

One of the biggest fallacies of the gene people is this idea that social success is the result of some inherent good quality in the successful person. It’s not. Social success does not equal intelligence, hard work, talent, or “genes.” It is a quality all its own that can exist independently of those other things, and the chief determinant of it is the Iron Law of Oligarchy: those with power will use their power to preserve their power, mostly for themselves and their own children.

But there is, in juridically ordered societies, usually some social mobility and some opportunity for those looking to join the oligarchy from outside, and in our society one of those narrow gates is called “good schools.” That is why people fight so hard to get into them, despite their educational benefits being rather dubious and difficult to quantity.

There was a time in America when those narrow gates were forced open a bit wider, so that the children of the working class could still hope to get through. But that day has drawn to a close, and the hope of the younger people is dwindling out like a candle in a cave.

If you ever hear the animadversion “Okay, Boomer,” that’s what it means.

I want to say one word to you. Just one word:

No energy left to say more?

Yes, indeed. I certainly take your point and I don’t mean to be argumentative, but I would respectfully submit that such things fall under the category of secondary importance.

Things which are merely things—i.e. all artifacts, tools, implements, utensils, machines, instruments, furnishings, etc.—are not really new, since they exist as permanent possibilities of matter. What’s new is the will that puts them to use.

We know that wind instruments and strings and horns and drums have existed basically forever, since before recorded history even. Yet the particular will that worked up these ancient devices into the unique instruments of a baroque orchestral suite was something particular to Western man in a certain place and time. And again, the idea of mixing electrical engineering with the generation, amplification, and recording of sound was an innovation of Western industrial societies, but it remains—for all its technical sophistication—simply a peculiar type of handicraft.

We are speaking to each other over the internet, which is an immensely complicated medium for performing the simple task of communication. But that which I have to say, which is the real essence of the matter, could be just as well said in person.

The tragedy of Western man and the enormous effort he has devoted to the development of his technology, is the fact that in last analysis technology remains merely a means, and means can be dispensed with.

This “Did so-and-so invent such-and-such?” stuff is all so tiresome.

Look, there is nothing new under the sun. Everything has been done before, absolutely everything. There are only a finite number of ways you can put tones together and still retain musicality, and this scope reduces even further when you operate from a suite containing the same instruments, the same scales, the same musical notation, and the same schools.

What really marks the difference between one composer and the next, or one era and the next, or once civilization and the next, is what ends they pursue with the means that are available to all, and this becomes their distinction and shows forth their personality. The details of technique as such are of very secondary importance. What you’re calling “African-American music” here is simply techniques taken from the classical repertoire and adapted to serve as dance music in speakeasies and whatnot. So, unless Beethoven actually had that end in mind, then no, he didn’t invent it, no matter how similar it sounds.

So, what exactly is the strategy? There doesn’t seem to be one. If you read the actual White House press release, all it says is that the administration wants to continue to work with community leaders to develop a strategy.

In other words, this is a nothingburger. The announcement is pure decoration with no substance. There is never going to be a strategy. At best it will be used simply as an excuse to cancel overzealous Deplorables who think it’s their Christian duty to support political Zionism.

But it will also very much anger AIPAC, who are the ones really steering US policy on this subject. It’s strange how this administration continues to find new and inventive ways to shoot itself in the foot.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a faction within the Deep State that was genuinely interested in pivoting away from Israel. I wrote about the transformation of the Left yesterday at The Z-Blog.

Supply and Demand

That’s kind of the point, though. I understand that the “supply” of top tier baseball talent is restricted, but I don’t understand why there’s so much “demand” for it.

For me personally, you couldn’t pay me to bother wasting a weekend watching sportsball unless we were talking some serious coin. In my universe there is actually negative demand for this stuff.

And that’s just watching it on television; forget about actually going to games. Right now in this country, there are thousands upon thousands of people who will load themselves into cars, planes, and RVs tomorrow and travel across the country to go see a college freaking football game, and many millions more who would willingly do so if they had the chance. That is just absurd. Even if you gave me an all-expenses-paid trip to one of these monstrosities, I’d tell you to keep it and leave me alone. The fact that there are people who are actually paying handsomely to subject themselves to that kind of torture is something I’ll never understand.

There are also many subtle-but-pervasive effects of the Panic that are hard to graph and which do not lend themselves to easy one-liner narratives.

I’ll take a stab at a one-liner, Hail: The Covid Panic broke the social compact.

When the government tells people they cannot work or earn a living, or see their relatives, or leave their house, or receive care from their doctor, or send their children to school, then the government makes people feel as if they are in the condition of repressed slaves with no rights and no value. It’s only natural that they will try to take revenge and get back at the government in other ways.

Some will take revenge upon society as a whole (i.e. “work from home”).

Some will take revenge upon others (theft, violence, ignoring traffic rules).

Some will take revenge upon themselves (drugs and alcohol, suicide).

The true monstrousness of the Covid Panic has yet to be grasped even by those of us who saw it for what it was. The anger and the tears are overwhelming. The question now is one of calling those responsible to justice.

You are entirely right, but you won’t get much credit for that around here.

We are now in the opening rounds of a long overdue wage/price spiral that is necessary to monetize the existing debts. We’ve had the “price” side over the last year or so, as the pandemic-era stimulus flooded into consumer spending. Now, as the recent UAW strikes bear witness, we are starting to see the “wage” side catch up, but wages are far behind and have a long way to go before they catch up with prices.

I enjoyed my poutine. But it, like a big bowl of chili, was just not the best thing to eat before 10 hours of driving the next day.

You find Indian women attractive?

Yes, I do, very much so.

Not all of them, of course. Every corner of the world has its hot women and its not-so-hot women. But when Indian women are hot, they are particularly striking. Not all South Asian women are beautiful, but the most beautiful women I’ve ever seen were South Asian.

I’m always surprised when I see that people have strong, negative opinions about poutine. I mean, doesn’t everybody have some version of this dish? Isn’t poutine basically just the “refrigerator casserole” you would make out of assorted leftovers when you’re hungry and don’t feel like cooking? I’ve eaten “poutine” a thousand times in my life without ever consciously setting out to make it.

Poutine is good, rib-sticking, working class food, and anybody who turns their nose up at it is not okay in my book.

All of Central/South America needs a radical upgrade, as does South Asia.

Mexican women fairly bad? Persian women only decent?

I don’t understand why any of this was necessary. Print-on-Demand publishing is extremely easy these days. If Steve wanted to publish an anthology, it would have required little more effort than copying and pasting. The hassle of finding a publisher is so 20th century.

Then there is the suspicion, which I think will be borne out as fact eventually, that a lot of the deaths were iatrogenic or down to the hysteria itself: from shoving sick people into nursing homes (thank you Mario Cuomo, Richard Levine, and others), isolating old people to the point that they just died of despair, aggressive use of ventillators (even when they were not needed) and Remdesivir, mislabeling the cause of death (i.e. “COVID victims” who died in motorcycle accidents), etc.

Incidentally, there is speculation that a lot of the deaths during the Spanish Influenza were iatrogenic too: one treatment for it was massive doses of aspirin, which can cause bleeding in the lungs and fluid build-up.

Thanks for the endorsement.

I said all that above, but apparently nobody is reading my comments.

And, of course, Dumbo. How could I forget him?

That’s it, I’m never naming names again. So much for my Oscar speech.

I new I was going to forget someone, that’s why I hesitate to name names. I am sorry.

I also should mention Kratoklastes. He had Covid right from the beginning, although I disagree with him on his atheism.

BTW, I think the raw US deaths data makes 2020 look more like 1918 than the other flus.

An unknown (but certainly large) number of “Covid” deaths were actually ventilator deaths, loneliness deaths, lockdown deaths, general iatrogenic malfeasance deaths (including deaths from the vaccine), deaths of neglect, deaths of despair, and “deaths with” that had nothing to do with Covid.

This why Africa did not have a hard hitting Covid pandemic. Africa is too poor and remote for the kind of pseudo-medical theatrics that the Western nations engaged in. Consequently, Africa mounted very little Covid response. No response equals no pandemic.

Interestingly, there is a hypothesis out there that the 1918 flu pandemic was a similar such iatrogenic nightmare caused by the over-administration of a novel drug at the time—aspirin. The profiles of 1918 flu victims do not square with any other known influenza risk groups, i.e. young, healthy people dying of pulmonary edemas. Hitherto, this has been blamed on some unusual aspect of the virus itself, but it actually is much better explained by widespread aspirin overdose.

The Covid pandemic may have taught us much more about what really happened in 1918 than we knew before.

After all, if Steve Sailer can run the hundred yard dash in two seconds less than I can, this isn’t somehow iniquitous; it’s just a physical fact.

That isn’t the wrong word she’s using, though. That’s a different wrong word.

Iniquity: Means evil or grossely immoral.

Inequity: Means disproportionately divided, unfair.

Inequality: Means difference in kind or degree, not equal.

The word she should be using is “inequality.”

Lately, Leftists have taken to using the word “inequity” (or its cognates) when what they really mean is “inequality.” True to form, a whole slew of midwit commentators on the Right have read all kinds of farfetched meanings and strategies into the Leftist use of this word, as if it were the vanguard of some sinister agenda. Actually, it’s much simpler than that; it’s just Leftists being stupid. It’s using an uncommon word that sounds like it might be the synonym of a more common word, only snazzier and cooler, when really it has a different meaning altogether.

It’s like the people who say “penultimate” when they should say “ultimate” (penultimate means second to last).

It’s like the people who say “tankard” when they mean “tank” (a tankard is beer mug).

It’s like the people who say “begs the question” when they mean “raises the question” (begging the question is the logical fallacy of assuming the truth of the thing to be proven).

I really hate this kind of stuff. It’s bad enough when people do this in the first place, but it’s doubly bad when others who should know better just accept the implication that the Leftists have a method to their madness and spend all their time trying to unravel it, instead of just realizing that the Leftists are idiots.

Why did the Pro-Panic coalition triumph in 2020? We have had three years and more to think about this. I don’t know,

I was basically a class war. The Laptop Class was giving a big FU to the dirty fingernails class. I don’t mean to oversimplify things, but that’s what it was.

My grandmother hadn’t even had her first period at 16.

What, did she tell you that over Sunday supper some time? Did your grandfather lead off the conversation?

“Hey Murgatroyd, how’s the beaver doing? Why don’t you tell us all about your age of menarche. I’ll get the cider ready.”

I appreciate your kind words, Hail.

You were one of the few—one of the very few—commenters who always wrote straight during the Covid nightmare. It was you, Almost Missouri, Mike Tre, and myself who never lost our heads in that horrible time. As a result, I always look forward to a “Hail” post with a high degree of anticipation. I was a bit disappointed by that one, is all.

What are you, Steve Sailer’s freaking PR rep? Is he paying you for this?

You used to write interesting things here back in the Covid days, when you were rightly taking Steve to task for his utterly worthless commentary on that subject. Now you’re just wall-to-wall Steve Sailer boosterism. This kind of sycophancy earns the admiration of nobody.

It’s the gay equivalent of men wanting to screw 16 year old girls.

The hell it is. A 16-year-old girl is a sexually mature female and if a sexually mature male has sex with her, they are fulfilling the intent of nature even if nothing else. Male-on-male sodomy is unnatural for men of any age, for any reason, and when practiced with a 16-year-old, also corrupts the youth.

There is no moral equivalence between these acts. No one on this side of politics ever should have given his endorsement to Milo.

I 100% agree and thank you. I was writing similar comments when the trial was going on (to what response you can well imagine).

My brief with the Right’s response to this whole unfortunate situation was that it doesn’t ultimately matter what killed George Floyd. Even if I’m dying of an overdose, that doesn’t give a police officer the right to pin me to the ground until I’m good and dead. Derek Chauvin, as a police officer, would have been trained in first aid and would have had a first aid kit in his car with naloxone in it. He could have attempted to render some type of aid. The way he handled the situation was inexcusable.

I also don’t want to hear about what a horrible human being George Floyd was, which I don’t dispute. Police officers have to be held to a higher standard. You know when you take that job that you will be dealing with a lot of human filth, and that resuscitating an overdosing junkie in your custody is one of the unsavory but necessary duties of a peace officer in a civilized society. The police are not remitted to perform public euthanasia, even if society would be better off without someone like Floyd.

What Derek Chauvin did was a crime. Even if it was a bit of a stretch for the murder statute, the optics were bad enough that a conviction was probably inevitable. It’s very unfortunate that this “played into the racial panic,” as you put it. In the interests of justice, it should be explained again and again that this was not a racially motivated murder. You are correct about that as well.

The larger high school would have more white students and would be able to offer more electives but the 2000 black students would act as a single clique whereas the white students would be divided up across several cliques.

Right. Neither in American ghettos nor back in Africa has it ever been known that black people divided into tribes or gangs that practiced violence against other blacks.

There’s a plethora of these neologisms flying around out there that I just don’t understand the meaning of, and “mansplaining” is one of them. I have no idea what that means.

Just like I do not know hardly any of the names that Men of Unz discuss and have such strong opinions about. Richard Hanania?

You have to belong to a certain class or mindset to have these things appear in your world as significant, and I don’t belong to it. I may have judgments about that class but I have no judgments within that class and I’m not really interested in learning the lingo. Sure, I could just look up what “mansplaining” means, but I still would never possess the term inwardly or be able to use it comfortably. It will remain forever foreign to me.

I will only add that, from an outsider’s perspective, it’s always a little amusing that the Men of Unz belong so fully to the very same culture they gripe about. When it comes to the Alt-Right or Dissident Right or whatever it’s called these days, every one of their complaints is actually a projection of a defect they are conscious of within themselves.

When they talk about other races being “tribal,” that is only their way of confessing that they themselves feel no strong ties to any community. Then they project their own personal sperginess onto the entire white race, deriding them for their “universalism” (often rather puzzlingly blamed on Christianity), while forgetting that this contrasts completely with that other supposed race-trait of European peoples, viz. a penchant for building high-trust, K-selected societies (also bizarrely blamed on Christianity). Since “high-trust societies” cannot practically exist without strong in-group preference (otherwise, why would you trust your neighbor if he was ready to extend the same loyalty to every jonnie-come-lately as to yourself?), there is no effective way to be both “high-trust” and “universal.” But no matter, contradictions aside, it’s all supposedly explained by HBD—although Christianity still suffices as a convenient whipping boy in certain moods, despite the fact that if you adhere strictly to the logic of HBD, it cannot be both.

That explains what HBD really is. When a spergy, disaffected white man, who has often played the fool in the past—either by failing with women or getting displaced by foreign workers or getting “mugged by reality” (they call this “taking the red pill”)—finds himself in need of a theory to resolve his cognitive dissonance, HBD appears to explain why the drummer he was following didn’t lead him to a better place. It also helps that HBD is rooted in a substratum of Darwinian evolutionary theory, since this serves as a convenient FU to the low-church evangelical Christianity he’s trying to distance himself from, which is the only form of Christianity he understands.

As a bonus, has anyone noticed that Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism is essentially just Sailer’s Law of Sailer Journalism projected onto females, i.e. “Come the revolution, I will be seen as better than I am seen now?” Just take a look at blurbs helpfully gathered by Hail.

I’m not interested in blaming others. We are all human after all, and weak. But this stuff needs to be seen for what it is.

The revealed preferences of the vast majority of people, even in the One Billion Americans Club, is for single-family housing with a yard for lebensraum.

I have to disagree with that. The suburban house is simply the least bad realistic option for most people, but it isn’t what they really want. America doesn’t provide many options other than the suburbs or renting an apartment in the crap-hole cities. We don’t build small, affordable homes and we don’t encourage homesteading or small farms. The average guy has no chance but to strive for that mortgage that beats him down for 30 years.

That’s very nice, thank you. I was not familiar with it.

I was looking for one of the most famous reclining nudes, and I could barely find a good, full copy!

I often run into that problem. It’s surprisingly hard to find good scans of classic artwork online. Likewise for PDFs. It frequently happens that I want to refresh my memory on a passage from some scholarly work, long out of copyright, that I read years ago, and I assume that there would be a PDF somewhere online that I could find with 3 or 4 searches, but finding one that isn’t paywalled is getting more and more difficult.

This didn’t used to be the case. But as I’ve said before, the internet is a case study in Gresham’s Law. The bad money drives out the good. In the age of counterfeit information, real truths are dearly purchased.

“And Kansas City is at Chicago tonight, or is it Chicago at Kansas City? Well, no matter as Kansas City leads in the eighth 4 to 4.”

— Jerry Coleman

This is sad. Just when I’m getting kind of interested in Thomist metaphysics, I get E. Michael Jones II as its leading exponent.

That’s a bit too far, Charlotte. My sympathies are with the Palestinians here, but I’ve made it clear many times that I do not blame the Jews for the ills of Western society. In fact, I’ve caught a lot of flak for not blaming them.

I find the whole JQ to be a farfetched and somewhat tedious red herring, and I don’t devote much thought to it. Please don’t let anything I’ve said put you off from exploring Thomism. If I’ve said anything that offends you, I am sorry.

I’d guess they would be less obviously self-beclowning. A good propagandist would be able to generate some sympathy, whereas Jack D generates none.

Jack D, running cover for globalist murderers on auto-approval while truth suffers the whim. I guess they don’t make dissident websites like they used to. Welcome to the new world of noticing.

And the incentive for future productivity boosting technologies–automated fast food joints, robo hotel room clearners, etc. etc.

Automation by itself does not increase productivity. It is energy inputs that increase productivity, and automation ought to be thought of rather as a way to capitalize those energy inputs than as a thing in itself. In a zero-sum game where more energy was not available, then automation would actually reduce productivity because it would replace a simple manual process by a complex Rube Goldberg contraption which itself would require more of the limited energy to produce.

This is the real answer to the question of why other peoples and civilizations did not have an Industrial Revolution, which is sometimes asked rhetorically to show forth the supposed superiority of the white race. It wasn’t because the white race was so darn superior, it was because other civilizations did not have vast energy surpluses that could be capitalized and therefore having an Industrial Revolution would have been highly inefficient. It would have been like devoting yourself to building a working automobile when you did not have a drivable road network to use it on.

Both the HBDers and the Washington Post are parsing the subject incorrectly when they equate race with biology and biology with DNA. There is another way to look at this which breaks free of that materialist paradigm and actually explains things correctly. You can see that the HBD argument and the nonbiological argument are simply two sides of the same coin when you analyze carefully what each side is saying.

Washington Post: “If race was real it would have to be biological, which means it would show up in the DNA. But all human beings are 99.99% genetically identical, which means that, biologically speaking at least, race is not a valid scientific term. Race may refer to a real quality according to certain definitions of race, but it isn’t biological.”

HBD: Race is real and biological, and real because it is biological. All biological differences reduce to differences in DNA, and that 0.01% difference is significant enough to determine the racial groupings of man, which are valid scientific terms.”

We need not accept the reductionism. There is a third way to approach the subject that neither side seems to have cognized, viz. “What if race is real and not biological?” To see why this is so, there are two reductions that need to be defeated: the reduction of race to biology and the reduction of biology to DNA. Let’s begin with the latter.

1. Biology cannot be reduced to DNA. There are more than enough examples from solid, laboratory biology to show that there is no one-to-one correspondence between genotype and phenotype. Genes can be altered without producing any phenotypic change (cf. the unusual karyotypes of many domesticated plants), and phenotypic change can occur in the absence of genetic changes (i.e. cloned animals are sometimes different in appearance and temperament from their genetically identical parents). Given the broad degree of genetic overlap amongst all life on Earth, many examples of which have already been cited in this thread (i.e. the 70% overlap between man and bananas), the prosaic explanation is that genetic differences are not very significant. It is not more explanatory to say that men and field mice share 95% of their DNA than it is to say that men and field mice are both animals made of flesh. We already know that; it doesn’t begin to encapsulate the essential differences between them.

2. Race cannot be reduced to biology.Once we demystify DNA and start to regard it as just another component of a body rather than the origin of that body, it becomes clear that nothing about the physical body (including its DNA) actually explains race. Rather, race is revealed in the body, including by the DNA. If being of the African race does not simply mean having black skin, then it does not simply mean having black DNA, either.

One thing I have learned from arguing with HBDers over the years is that they are much more fanatically committed to defending the proposition that “race is biological” than they are to defending the proposition that “race is real.” If you tell them race is real but not biological, they domn’t even want to hear about it even though it actually strengthens their own case.

And I forgot to add, the deliberate chaos at the border.

East Asians don’t seem to have much influence online at all.

The medium is the message, Steve. The Chinese repurposed their entire internet into a gigantic social credit system that the Western governments are meekly trying to imitate by having Joe Biden make personal phone calls to his political officers over in the Twitter salary group, telling them what not to publish. The East Asian influence over the medium far exceeds anything that most Westerners can even comprehend.

The other idea here, viz. the idea that Americans are becoming radicalized by reading Continental philosophy online, is something I just cannot see at all.

Protestantism, being unconstrained by traditional creedal or liturgical forms, is dependent on the power of individual personalities to shape the message. The great Protestant clergyman is above all a good speaker and/or a good writer and is able to captivate with his presence. The Protestant ministers of the past were the social media influencers of their day.

Now we have other influencers, but the spirit of old, mainline Protestantism has transferred itself to the new media without missing a beat. This explains both why contemporary Americans prefer to get their theology from TV hostesses, movie stars, and crooners, and why the clergymen of the past embraced the proto-Wokeness of abolitionism and suffrage.

It’s all the same thing, and it points to a Flaw in the American national character and the Enlightenment attitude that wants its religion personal, entertaining, and reformed.

Is Woke Really Past Its Peak?

Well, it’s certainly past its stage of novelty and naivete. We are no longer in Faust, Part One where it looks like the deal with the devil may not be so bad after all. The masks are off and the ugly face of Woke is apparent for all to see.

Between Covid, Ukraine, an incipient inflation and debt crisis, and now Gaza, the complete absurdity of American policy, both foreign and domestic, is no longer possible to ignore. The moments of clarity are coming with accelerating frequency. I believe most ordinary people are quite out of patience with this stuff and will make for the exits when they appear. “Woke” has no support on the ground and is entirely a function of official propaganda. That situation is not stable, and it will not last.

I completely agree. This sensible comment ought to be the final word to all the Jew-blamers strewn across the alt-internet, but unfortunately it won’t be.

They aren’t here looking for answers, they’re just here to complain.

Without a printing press everything has to be copied by hand, which is slow as heck.

The ancient world had printing presses, of a sort. Anything that needed to be mass-copied could be set in relief as a galley proof and pressed into tablets of wax or clay. This certainly wasn’t some unknown technology to them.

The bulk of the unimportant, everyday writing (i.e. the bills and stock quotes and ledgers that are needful at the moment but useless after the fact) was handled this way. It was only the important stuff that was written down and preserved on scrolls.

One of the problems with VDH is that he is a physically ugly man.

He has the physiognomy of a drunken old atheist—he looks like personified halitosis.

We also find that athletes from more socioeconomically diverse sports teams and from teams that have lower academic admissions thresholds have higher career outcomes than non-athletes.

There’s a clue hidden in that statement, but you have to infer it by contraposition.

A clearer picture would emerge if the study had controlled for parents’ alma mater and socioeconomic status. If it had, I think you would find it to be the case that, among all the students who make it to the Ivy League in the first place, the athletes are more likely to come from the families that are already well-networked, well-connected, and well off, rather than from the hardscrabble group that is still struggling to get into the upper class and is lucky just to be at the Ivies at all.

Ivy League athletes are your Thurston Howells, not your thirstin’ Howells.

Thus, you would expect them not only to land in a relatively sweet position, but also to have their eventual success far less negatively impacted by any prior lack of illustriousness, which comes forth in the study as “outperforming” their less-connected peers.

The kind of people spending massive bucks to travel to the Army-Navy game are pretty much affluent suburban dwelling academy grads,

This.

Anybody who is swipple enough to go to an out-of-town college football game is the kind of person who votes for this stuff in the first place, so screw them.

If you want to feel bad for someone, feel bad for the normal American citizens who are having their lives disrupted by endless immivasion.

Has there ever been a case of these race hustlers getting push back from “the community”?

In the current ideological regime, probably not. People respond predominantly to short-term incentives. If you want to know what most people will do most of the time, simply look to what is in their own immediate interest. The current sociological setup in America incentivizes victimology of every sort, and it certainly encourages blacks to continue playing the race card. This used to be (and ought to be) the primary criticism of Leftist social ideas.

It’s not as if people don’t see this. The blacks see it, too; don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. It’s just that human beings of all types—black, white, or whatever—have an immense ability to put up with misery and dysfunction around them when it is in their short-term interest to do so. It isn’t really that surprising. It’s much easier to complain and ask for handouts and to mythologize yourself as a victim than it is to do the gruelling work of rebuilding broken lives and broken neighborhoods, and punishing ne’re-do-wells.

The only way that human beings have ever been compelled to improve themselves is by closing off the escape hatch of victim mythology. No sympathy, no excuses; you will either behave or you will suffer the consequences. Once you turn off the free money and bring in the police, you’ll get the pushback you seek.

The only reason that White people achieved a relatively higher standard of civilized life is because they benefitted from century upon century of rigorous and manly Christianity that insisted that there were no excuses for sin. Forgiveness, yes, but not excuses, and forgiveness precisely because there were no excuses. Not because they are “ice people.” Not because they “have a low time preference.” Not because they are “K-selected rather than r-selected.” Not for any of these faggoty-ass, HBD cocksucking fantasy reasons. It’s because they were held to a higher standard. It’s because they were made to.

You will see improvement in blacks only when they are also held to a higher standard.

I’d guess most of the visitors here will like this article because they are already disposed to agree with it. However, if you were not so disposed, you would not find much of an argument here that will change your mind. It’s just a bunch of shallow sloganeering.

Jared Taylor is a clown, a showman, and a buffoon. The divergence between the quality of his actual written work and his reputation as a noble intellectual is about as broad as can be.

The more I read of HBDers, the less I want to make excuses for them. People like Jared Taylor and Steve Sailer make it extremely difficult to defend what is incidentally correct in their worldview (certainly not the fruit of their own intellectual efforts), such as the fact that racial politics in America is a farcical, illegal, unconstitutional grift. That much is true, but HBD does not add anything to that, and it detracts from the better arguments against it.

ABC’s 1995 Langoliers miniseries was a total crapfest, but fans of bad movies could savor the wretched CGI and marvel at the spectacle of Bronson Pinchot’s unhinged performance.

I marveled at the spectacle of Kimber Riddle’s glorious hooters, which was worth the price of admission for me.

The author referenced his (also pseudonymous) paper here. I like the analogy.
Cognitive Creationism Compared to Young-Earth Creationism

That analogy is one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever seen in my life, and its author is a smug moron.

The concept is actually much older than this paper. I’m quite certain that Michael Shermer did not coin the term unless he was using it back when I was in high school and first heard of it. But whatever its origins, it is revealing of the mental derangement and stupidity of those who continue to use it.

The problem with a term like “cognitive creationism” is that it implies that creationism has no substantive meaning whatsoever but only adjectival meaning. Whether you are a devotee of Young Earth Creationism or not—and I certainly am not—you should at least be able to agree that the term means something. It means that God created the heavens and the earth at a point roughly corresponding to the beginning of recorded history. The scoffers at “cognitive creationism” completely prescind from this clear and definite meaning and then proceed to define the word “creationism” purely functionally, as an adjective meaning the style of what they perceive to be the mental lapses of their opponents.

That isn’t what creationism means. It isn’t a style of thought, rigorous or otherwise. It is a theory about the origins of the universe. It cannot be used as an adjective that modifies a noun that refers to a psychological process. That is just verbal nonsense. It literally does not make any sense.

The people who speak gratingly like that reveal several things about themselves. First of all, they are so arrogant and dismissive of any claims not their own that they actually use the name of their opponents’ theory as a term of abuse. Secondly, they are such sloppy thinkers and show so little facility with language or logic that they can’t even perceive that they are making a glaring category mistake. Calling somebody a “cognitive creationist” because he believes in a tabula rasa theory of mind is like calling somebody who believes in innate ideas a “cognitive Pythagorean” because Descartes believed in innate ideas and Descartes was a mathematician like Pythagoras was.

You see how completely tortured and ridiculous this language is, like some sort of Aspergy version of cockney rhyme-slang. This is the sort of abysmally sloppy thinking that should never be tolerated in an academic setting, and the fact that these douchebags do not have the self-awareness to realize they are doing it shows you the true quality of their intellects.

This is pure, disgusting cope on Steve Sailer’s part. Yesterday was an historic day for America and anybody who hopes and strives for something better for their children ought to be just a little bit proud of themselves and proud of Matt Gaetz. The establishment in Washington has unleashed full-blown domestic terrorism against ordinary citizens for years, and Steve Sailer has gone along with it every step of the way. He supported the Covid Hygienic Tyranny. He promulgates the lies about Ukraine. He is silent on the political prosecution of Donald Trump. And now, when someone actually fights back and removes a lying Speaker for continuing to fund a disastrous and unjust war against Russia, all Steve Sailer can do is scoff at it.

I demand to know why anybody here is still supporting this charlatan.

The next guy will have to promise to full disclosure on J6 and closing the border in return for what the uniparty wants most — to fund the Ukraine war.

I am not trading funding for Ukraine in exchange for the border or J6, sorry. The Ukraine aid needs to end, period.

Cutting edge establishmentarianism.

I’m not one to dish out compliments like breath mints, but that’s really, really good.

Prime Noticer:

Everything you wrote is absolutely true, but I’m not sure how well it will be received here because it throws a monkey wrench into the commonly accepted HBD tropes about superior black athleticism. The fact of the matter is, Affirmative Action applies just as much in the NFL as it does elsewhere in America. You can be sure that the blacks playing NFL football have been held to lower standards and are delivering every bit as much of an inferior product as are most black doctors and black congressmen. After all, why on Earth wouldn’t this be the case? But the point is lost on HBDers.

The inferiority of the game has already been noticed. Almost a year ago I left a comment here in which I linked to Washington Post article asking why is there so much bad football in the NFL.

Why is there so much bad football in the NFL? (paywall-free link in the comment).

Nobody paid much attention to this when I posted it here the first time, and it certainly never got noticed by Sailer. Maybe we’ll have better luck this time.

I think they were most likely referring to a smooth and creamy texture, not to a color.

After all, the unctuous feel of oil is what’s desired in skin creams, hair conditioners, and lotions. The only people commenting on the color of oils are mechanics.

Ruining Musk doesn’t mean his companies go away. If there’s a plan it’s to force him out and take over his companies. Short of that it’s to force him to knuckle under.

It’s disingenuous to characterize it as either Nothing to See Here or an overly complex conspiracy theory (insinuating the former is sensible, the latter crazy). For one thing, how complex does it have to be for someone in the White House to strongly encourage harassment of Musk? Too many moving parts man! I mean, you’d have to make a few phone calls and insinuate to a few bug men what a takedown of Musk would do for their careers. This sort of thing has never happened before, I’m sure!

Have we learned nothing from their reaction to Trump?

I generally agree with the “no master plan” view, but that’s because what we’re up against isn’t so much a conspiracy as a culture. People don’t have to be told.

It’s interesting how dependent the Biden Administration is upon Elon Musk.

No one is dependent upon Elon Musk. They are dependent upon Musk’s companies and little Elon is in the way.

If you want to answer your own question, just understand that nationalization of Twitter/Tesla/SpaceX is the goal. If Elon wants to play ball that would be ideal, but if he doesn’t, then keep punishing him until he changes his mind or leaves.

Bill Gates took Option A and Jeff Bezos (probably) took Option B, so it’s worked before.

That was also Gore Vidal, not Noam Chomsky.

I think you are basically correct here.

It’s very difficult to make a conservative movie because the medium just doesn’t lend itself well to that sort of thing. Just like how in modern parliamentary democracies there is no truly conservative “party” because the whole parliamentary system and the party structure is a Leftist creation designed to serve Leftist aims.

If there was an explicitly conservative party that actually advocated pre-revolutionary throne and altar politics, it would not be taken seriously. It would be seen as a small cadre of anachronistic weirdos operating from the fringe. That’s why all the conservative parties of today are simply watered down versions of the liberal parties.

Similarly, explicitly conservative movies always seem a bit off. The story that the movie tells is always a liberal morality play. Whether the hero is “Alexander the Great” or “Navajo Code Talkers” or “Forrest Gump,” the underlying structure is always the same: The plucky young lad(s), beloved of the gods, believe in themselves, overcome the conservative fuddy-duddies, and save the day. The End.

The audiences expect this sort of thing and they won’t receive or understand anything else. They expect to see a morality play about an underdog making good. And this is also precisely the trope by which the Left controls the culture. All its propaganda is gear toward making cinematic underdogs out of minority groups. Now blacks are cinematic underdogs, gays are cinematic underdogs, trannies are cinematic underdogs, etc. And how are you supposed to feel about a cinematic underdog? You want him to win, of course!

I really don’t see any way of breaking free of this except to abandon this whole mode of storytelling. The Left has successfully hacked the tropes that motivate Western hearts and minds and there is no dislodging them from that anymore. The thing to remember is that it is better to be a victorious underdog than to watch one, and being one doesn’t feel anything like watching one. We need to suffer the fate of real heroes rather than watch operatic ones that entertain us.

I watched the trailer. Unfortunately, it’s even worse than what I was worrying about in my earlier (still unpublished) comment. This is no mere “paean to generic do-gooderism,” it’s a feminist screed.

This is not a conservative cultural production. It is the Left taking over and skin-suiting someone who should be a conservative icon and falsifying everything about here. Same as always.

Their next feature is a biopic of Mother Cabrini

St. Frances Xavier Cabrini would be a very intriguing and subversive subject, if the film is done faithfully. She was very much against the heresy of Americanism, i.e. the idea that freedom of religion and conscience are numbered among the natural rights of man. Her work, although expressed through caregiving and charitable missions, was fundamentally about keeping American Catholics within the fold and untainted by the Enlightenment ideals embodied in the nation’s founding.

This is very much what’s needed today, so it would be disappointing if the film ended up eliding all that and being just a paean to generic do-gooderism.

The best way to frame it is to point out that almost every religion – including the Jesus cult – explicitly and fervently disbelieves in all gods except their own, except for some very specific corner cases (usually hand-waving stuff where they ‘tolerate’, if the system of the time considers ‘tolerance’ to be a virtue)…

Atheists just extend that same principle.

This is absolute horseshit.

And considering that this is the biggest arrow the atheists have in their quiver—one they pull out and launch at every possible occasion—it really goes to show the intellectual bankruptcy of that strain of hubris.

Anybody who has actually thought about the subject for more than an hour would realize that there is another possibility, namely that perhaps all the various cults and churches throughout the world have the same dim recognition that there is something that transcends our temporal existence, but that this recognition greatly varies from place to place in its power and clarity, and that it is diffracted through the prism of human cultural differences and, of course, often darkened by human ignorance and human evil.

Furthermore, anybody who has bothered to learn the doctrines that Traditional Christianity actually teaches—considered apart from the nebulous fluff that they think it teaches—would know that this, in fact, is the official teaching of the Church, and not “explicit disbelief.” And this holds also for the other great religions that are mature enough to have a philosophical tradition associated with them. There is not one that teaches “explicit disbelief.”

Given this situation, the possibilities for “extending the principle” are two: syncretism through abstraction and synthesis, or selection by appeal to reason and special revelation. This does indeed open up another whole can of worms, where people must take a stand and disbelieve in certain explicit claims and explanations offered by others; however, this no more conduces to the idea that God does not exist than a debate between monarchists and republicans conduces to the idea that politics does not exist. On the contrary, the only reason they are debating is because politics exists.

Atheists simply have an inadequate grasp of the subject matter and their arguments amount to category mistakes.

As a Canadian I see this fuck-up as a blessing in disguise. It’s a “teachable moment”, as Obama would say.

I’m very curious to know how this ridiculous thing happened without any kind of vetting. Did no member of the parliament, or any of their numerous staff, do any research or raise any objection?

If not, it means that the Canadian government is at best the Keystone Kops, and the explanations just keep getting worse from there, for it means that they’ve been lying and dissimulating all along.

Thank you for taking the time to supply this interesting commentary. I really appreciate that and I’m sure there is something to this.

The internet is largely a case study in Gresham’s Law: the bad money drives out the good.

Since there seems to be no penalty for talking out your ass, people exaggerate as much as they can get away with. Everything is cheap and artificial, quality goods are hard to find and hard to verify, trust is punished and selfishness incentivized.

It’s not a healthy environment at all and it will amplify any character flaws people already have.

I’m not kidding when I say that if we want to save society, we need to find a way to turn the damn thing off.

LOL please. Reason obviously can’t prove God’s existence.

Of course it can. This is what The 5 Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas are about. The 5 Ways are well-enough known that anyone who has ever engaged seriously with theology or philosophy should be aware of them. But for some reason, many people just dismiss them as if they aren’t even there, including people of faith, which is quite bizarre.

(Which is fine by me. I am a man of faith myself – just more honest than usual about what this entails.)

If you want to be truly honest about what the faith entails, you would have to accept that God is knowable by reason, for the existence of God as verifiable by the natural reason alone is itself an article of the faith.

If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

First Vatican Council, 2.1

I often make fun of you, but this was very well-written.

I only have time for a brief reply at the moment, but just for the record, I do not deny heredity and I do not deny “race-realism.” I deny Darwinism and its associated theories such as allopatric speciation. Consequently, I also deny explanations that incorporate Darwinism into their operating system, such as HBD and evolutionary psychology.

I don’t think people are catching this nuance, so perhaps I need to explain it better.

Only a small handful of the smarter commenters here—I’m talking about people like res, for instance—actually have the chops to understand the claims of modern genetic science in their intended acceptations. To most everyone else, HBD is simply a cargo cult and Steve is their shaman.

Steve, by the way, is not one of the ones who understands the science, but he understands very well how to rock that headdress with great aplomb. Furthermore, just because the science can be understood correctly or incorrectly according to its author’s intentions, that does not mean that the science itself is correct absolutely, even when it is “understood” aright. My arguments against HBD have always been directed at this latter consideration; but, true to form, what I say is received by most people here as if I were simply attacking the drum circle.

As I’ve said before, I think it would be better if everyone admitted that HBD is not rigorously or really scientific. It is a sciency-sounding modern mythology that provides people with the moral license to vent their frustrations with contemporary racial politics. I share the frustrations, but I don’t like the mythology, which is dangerous for other, more important reasons—namely, in adhering to an explanatory paradigm based in Darwinism and materialism, HBD cuts its believers off from all real metaphysics and the life of the soul.

Pointing any of this out will earn you a lifetime of opprobrium here, which I’m sure you know.

Atheism as a firm, certain belief is actually quite midwitted, a simple, easy reaction to religious dogma.

True, but unfortunately, that’s also exactly what Deism is. Although the midwittedness of Deism is rendered even more incorrigible by its adherents’ smug conviction that they’re so much smarter than common religious people, which makes Deism a source of spiritual pride and one of the strongest redoubts of theological Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Enlightenment Deism properly so called, notwithstanding the broad and meandering definitions the term has taken over the centuries, reduces to two central axioms: one, that God is real and knowable through the use of the natural reason; and two, that all claims of special revelation and supernatural occurrence are to be rejected.

The first claim is partly true and this accounts for the seductive aspects of Deism as a philosophy. It is true that God’s existence can be known through the natural reason alone, without recourse to revelation. There are several well-known proofs of this which are valid and have been understood since antiquity, such that the reality of God was never seriously in doubt. Deism errs, however, in assuming that such knowledge is exhaustive of the subject or sufficient for salvation. By definition, a knowledge that man can get through the exercise of his own faculties leaves him no better off than where he started, and this does not fulfil the demands placed upon religion to satisfy man’s desire for a transcendent good.

The second claim is an unsupported assertion whereby the sovereign reason simply declares, as it were by fiat, that nothing exists outside of its scope. It is easy to see that this claim remains unprovable, for while reason can prove the existence of God, it cannot prove the nonexistence of revelation, the possibility of which the existence of God entails. The substantive rejection of revelation is thus a dogmatical stance that cannot be established by an appeal to natural reason itself, as the argument exhibits metalogical incompleteness.

There is no great shame in being temporarily in a state of believing in God but not professing any particular faith. A man who has reasoned his way to the existence of God but remains skeptical of all creeds is, in a sense, only natural, for “only the Holy Ghost can declare that Jesus is the Christ.” However, as a practical matter, persistence in this state is almost never the result of honest philosophical inquiry. It is born of concupiscence and socio-political conflicts, the desire to live a libertine life or to separate from established churches, or simply the vanity of thinking oneself a 3-sigma kind of guy. The former condition is a necessary waystation on a spiritual journey; the latter is simply a pedant’s way of saying “I’m spiritual but not religious,” a sentiment which is rightly ridiculed in others.

But on the one hundredth “raid”, the opponents’ morale cracks, their ranks break, they flee in terror and are crushed beneath the wheels of your chariots. Total Aryan Victory!

After the first raid, you would have fortified your settlement if it wasn’t fortified already. You would have put archers and slingers in place to pick off the charioteers. Eventually you would have hit and killed some of them, leading to the capture of intact chariots and trained horses. The attackers’ advantage in means and mobility would be brought down and finally reduced to parity as you reverse-engineered some chariots and bred some more horses.

Nobody just allows themselves to be raided 100 times without changing tactics, so I am not buying this.

One subtle reason for the rise in popularity of neo-Nietzscheans like Bronze Age Pervert

What popularity? The only place I’ve heard about this (literal) faggot was here at iSteve. The same applies to Razib Khan, Ibrahim X. Kandi and Greg Crochan and other losers. The only place I hear about those idiots and/or planted tools is here at iSteve’s blog. Then again, I don’t use Twitter.

(Think of the world views of NFL team owners.)

Nietzsche and NFL owners, well, that’s a type of weird comparison that you’ll only find at iSteve, alright…