The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
How and Why Is Conquest’s Second Law True?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Tyler Cowen’s column in Bloomberg:

How and why is Conquest’s Second Law true?
by Tyler Cowen June 23, 2021 at 12:18 am in Current Affairs Education Political Science

“Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”

You can see that in this graph:

In a recent graphic of the top 100 organizations for donations to political candidates by employees, the only two that were distinctly more pro-Trump than pro-Democrat were the Marines and the NYPD. And while 97% of Harvard donors donated to Biden, only about 70% of the Marines and NYPD donated to Trump.

Still, I suspect that scared the heck out of Democrats: they’ve got 98% of the institutions more or less on their side, but NOT the two you’d most want to have in your foxhole.

That probably explains a lot of the anti-police and anti-warriors moves by Democrat politicians over the last 13 months.

But, to be pedantic, Conquest’s Second Law is actually my friend John O’Sullivan’s First Law. The widespread notion that it is Conquest’s Second Law appears to be our mutual friend John Derbyshire’s fault.

Robert Conquest’s First Law — “Everybody is reactionary on the subjects he knows about” — is also relevant, and indeed Tyler comes to much the same point of view: the more organizations come to emphasize talking rather than actually doing, the better the left will do. As does Conquest’s Second Law: “Every organization appears to be headed by secret agents of its opponents,” which was likely inspired by his working relationship with British intelligence, which was about to be headed by Kim Philby when he fled to the Soviet Union.

Confusing Conquest’s Laws with O’Sullivan’s Law is forgivable because O’Sullivan was consciously adding to an existent tradition among highbrow rightist British journalists of mordant analyses of organizations, which goes back before Conquest to Parkinson’s Law: “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.”

A commenter writes:

I challenge the whole premise that institutions become “left-wing.” We say that media is left-wing, but show me a story on crime and it will most likely be a word-for-word rehash of the statement made by cops. Same goes for stories on national security or science or economics or business. Media defers to the experts until some switch gets thrown and the narrative changes to questioning the experts, usually with support from some new set of experts.

The media depends a lot upon who is packaging the story for them. Publishing a newspaper or putting on a broadcast is a lot of work, so whoever takes on much of the burden for the reporters will likely have a lot of influence on what is published.

A lot of stories are packaged by plaintiffs’ attorneys, so they will be full of complaints about about whoever has the deepest pockets. Other stories are packaged by corporate PR departments. Many stories about foreign policy are packaged by the deep state. Lots of stories based on academic studies are packaged by university PR departments to appeal to media prejudices. Stories about how the latest nonbinary refugee Islamic actor represents the New Face of Our Time are packaged by the agent. Policy stories are usually packaged by a thinktank advocating the policy.

A reporter might call up a thinktank representing the other side for a couple of quotes disagreeing, but only rarely do reporters decide that the nice people who have done all this hard work explaining the story to them are in the wrong and stab their benefactors in the back. Janet Malcolm claimed reporters do this all the time, but I fear they don’t.

Note that one type of story — the now ubiquitous “White Men Are Bad” storyline — almost never comes with the usually obligatory demurral from the counter-thinktank. That’s because there is no It’s OK To Be White thinktank, much less a White Men Are Good thinktank. If one were to hang out their shingle on K Street, it would be burned to the ground by an indignant mob by the next dawn, and the smoking hulk would be condemned by both houses of Congress by 5PM the next day.

 
Hide 159 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The ship is going to sink. Get thee to a lifeboat quick.

    • Replies: @Hangnail Hans
    @anon

    Bridge collapse in Washington D.C. today.

    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/bridge-collapse-88.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=2000

    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?


    https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/at-least-6-hurt-in-dc-pedestrian-bridge-collapse/

    It may have been hit by a truck, as the negro-on-the-scene helpfully explained:


    "What had happen was..."
     

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Gamecock, @Reg Cæsar, @Sagamore Sam

  2. The role of personal tastes toward career choices acts as a powerful sorting mechanism. Individuals whose personal tastes tilt them toward careers in public-activity institutions, like NGOs and various government departments, also have left-leaning views and left-typical personality profiles. An analogous sorting mechanism operates in the mainstream media — a reporting career attracts personality types that want to “fight the powers”.

    Once the left-leaning bias of an institution is in place, a secondary sorting mechanism operates: individuals want to join an organization where the majority share their views. That serves to strengthen the institutional bias.

    This is not the complete explanation, of course. It is a component of the full explanation.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Peter Johnson


    An analogous sorting mechanism operates in the mainstream media — a reporting career attracts personality types that want to “fight the powers”.
     
    It's been obvious for a long time now that the media does not "fight the power", but rather speaks for it. Less obvious, though still true, is that it always has.
    , @AnotherDad
    @Peter Johnson


    The role of personal tastes toward career choices acts as a powerful sorting mechanism. Individuals whose personal tastes tilt them toward careers in public-activity institutions, like NGOs and various government departments, also have left-leaning views and left-typical personality profiles. An analogous sorting mechanism operates in the mainstream media — a reporting career attracts personality types that want to “fight the powers”.
     
    Peter, this is an excellent comment and addendum to Steve's institutional/journalistic points.

    The verbalist idealist--i'm going to think good thoughts and fix the world--ends up in precisely the institutions they should be kept away from. (Or at least kept away from until they've actually done something materially productive for 20 or 30 years and have a better handle on reality.)
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Peter Johnson

    "Individuals whose personal tastes tilt them toward careers in public-activity institutions, like NGOs and various government departments, also have left-leaning views and left-typical personality profiles."


    I don't know. I think it's just where the power is for some people. I met a public-school rugby type last week, just finished finals in International History, looking for an NGO or UN job.

    Mind you, pretty much anyone who's spent 3 or 4 years at uni now will "have left-leaning views" - it's in the air they breathe there, and any opposition is ruthlessly crushed.

    , @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @Peter Johnson

    Certainly-you either enjoy or tolerate a 'career' based on exploitation and theft, or you do not. Simples.

  3. It’s really a corollary of Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy which basically states that any organization will be taken over by the talkers, not the doers because the talkers have time to burn on their little games and are not challenged by reality until it is much too late.

    Add free money from the state to support even more talkers than are physically feasible in a healthy economy, and you are good to go.

    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not “right-wing” at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières. If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @El Dato

    It's as if right wing intellectual friends of mine like to deduce insights about bureaucracies...

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @RichardTaylor
    @El Dato

    Pournelle's law for sure.

    , @zundel
    @El Dato

    lol because right-wingers could never merely be big talkers

    , @Marcus
    @El Dato

    The SS was "the brass": the most powerful of the bureaucratic empires carved out by men like Himmler who would have been clerks in another time. Naturally, the ascendancy of these types rubbed the old aristocracy the wrong way. One of my all time favorite passages (regarding Werner von Fritsch):
    "Poor Fritsch! He had no idea how to combat these charges, of which he was completely innocent, save the conventional resort of his caste: he challenged Himmler to a duel. In the subterranean jungle of Nazi politics such a gesture had as little effect as a peacock spreading his tail feathers at a python."

    , @Almost Missouri
    @El Dato


    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not “right-wing” at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières.
     
    Albert Speer would agree. His memoir was full of anecdotes of Party bosses enriching themselves at the expense of the nation the were supposedly redeeming. He was also very frank about how the bureaucracy (even his own bureacracy) was much worse than even in the WWI-era Kaiserreich.

    If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.
     
    This is backwards. The Todt Org and the SS were the part of bureaucracy. The old school Wehrmacht brass were those who could still get things done. Which is why Hitler needed them, and why after their mutual trust was broken at the point of the July 1944 bomb plot, the Hitler Reich relentlessly imploded.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @megabar
    @El Dato

    > because the talkers have time to burn on their little games and are not challenged by reality until it is much too late.

    My argument is different. All organizations eventually become large enough that nobody can really directly evaluate what anybody is doing. Rather, they evaluate what people say they are doing (in meetings, presentations, etc).

    Guess who's better at that -- talkers or doers?

  4. @El Dato
    It's really a corollary of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy which basically states that any organization will be taken over by the talkers, not the doers because the talkers have time to burn on their little games and are not challenged by reality until it is much too late.

    Add free money from the state to support even more talkers than are physically feasible in a healthy economy, and you are good to go.

    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not "right-wing" at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières. If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @RichardTaylor, @zundel, @Marcus, @Almost Missouri, @megabar

    It’s as if right wing intellectual friends of mine like to deduce insights about bureaucracies…

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Steve Sailer

    Ever come in contact with James Q. Wilson?

  5. How and why is O’Sullivan’s law true? I think “Melvin Udall”, who penned this over at Urban Dictionary back in 2011, answered that question quite nicely:

    O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.

    Television shows are the best examples of this. {snip} Charitable foundations are worse but harder to see.

    One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.

    Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.

    Another reason is that the parasitic nature of Liberals/Leftists attracts them to existing money.

    An enterprise can stave off O’Sullivan’s Law if their creators keep it in mind and remain vigilant and truthful.
    {snip}

    The Annenberg Foundation was started by a Republican but it didn’t take long before O’Sullivan’s Law had them handing a domestic terrorist money for educating kids.

    The ACLU, the Ford Foundation and the Episcopal Church all fell to O’Sullivan’s Law.
    by Melvin Udall April 22, 2011

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=O%E2%80%99Sullivan%E2%80%99s+Law

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Thanks: bomag
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Matthew Kelly

    Who has ever heard of a Udall having inside knowledge of American politics?

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Matthew Kelly

    This Melvin Udall speaks a lot of truth there, so thank you, Mr. Kelly.

    I'm glad he brought up the charities. It's one thing for the ACLU to morph from Libertarian to Commie-left, as Libertarian donors can at least quit sending money. It's when the private ones, with big endowments, follow O'Sullivan's law, that it's really a civil breach of contract.

    Take Mr. Ford, who has given all that money to be spend on furthering his Conservative causes after his death, in the hopes of helping keep society the way he wished it to be. Then these assholes in the organization do their own thing with the money. How much control families have (which may have gone lefty themselves anyway) is I guess part of the legal stuff from when the organization was formed. Someone ought to raise some hell though.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Harry Baldwin, @Alden

    , @Known Fact
    @Matthew Kelly

    If you are a liberal, conservatives will gently roll their eyes at your naivety and hypocrisy and gleefully expect you to come face to face with reality sooner or later.

    If you are a conservative, liberals simply want you dead

    This gap partially explains organizational drift -- such as NHL teams holding Pride Nights, and high school girls in my conservative county smiling and waving BLM flags by the side of the road

    Replies: @Corn

    , @stillCARealist
    @Matthew Kelly

    As Dr. Laura used to say, "Evil has power because it doesn't have to obey the rules."

    Conservative people are nice and will give way to pushy libs. Occasionally we'll have a pushy one on our side (Trump as the pre-eminent example) and he or she will face plenty of friendly fire.

    In order to combat jerks, you often have to be a jerk yourself, and most right wingers just don't have the stomach for that.

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Matthew Kelly


    One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.
     
    Yes, this is it. Conservatives are fair-minded and tolerant while leftists are ruthless and intolerant. So while the latter preclude the former, the former inadvertently incubate the latter.

    Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.
     
    Even more meta and even more true. I have thought this for a long time. In prelapsarian society, leftism simply does not exist. It is literally unthinkable. As society gradually degenerates, leftist notions begin to emerge, but society can still recognize them as the mortal threat they are and so punishes them harshly. But as social degeneration advances, the immune response weakens and leftist notions receive more and more toleration. The gradually more decrepit body politic can no longer fight off pathogens, disease and parasites, and so accepts them as part of the status quo. As the decline accelerates, it even begins to apologize for its former resistance against these threats. In the final stage of degeneration, the pathogens and parasite reign triumphant, raising themselves above the body politic itself, oblivious to their own dependence upon what they consume and despise. Collapse, implosion and societal death are imminent. We are here.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  6. “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”

    Of course, groups don’t name themselves or their objectives as right-wing or left-wing; others call them that. There are no “explicitly right-wing organizations”, so it’s a useless formulation.

    It’s much more accurate to say:

    “Any organization not explicitly pro-white will sooner or later become anti-white.”

    Also:

    “Any organization not explicitly anti-Jewish will sooner or later become anti-Gentile.”

    • Replies: @anon
    @40 Acres and a Kardashian

    “Any organization not explicitly anti-Jewish will sooner or later become anti-Gentile.”

    This is the most accurate statement. Any empirical examination of US institutions reveals they are either run directly by Jews or indirectly via Jewish money and political action groups. Often, a combination of the two approaches.

    For example, how can anyone talk about political changes in the Ivy League, without mentioning 7 out of 8 current Ivy League presidents are Jews?

    You can't. And the people who fail to mention this are either willfully ignorant or dishonest. Or perhaps like Cowan, talking their book, ethnically-speaking.

    , @Pop Warner
    @40 Acres and a Kardashian


    “Any organization not explicitly pro-white will sooner or later become anti-white.”
    Also:
    “Any organization not explicitly anti-Jewish will sooner or later become anti-Gentile.”
     
    That explains the US Government very well. As soon as the institutions ceased being pro-white, they became anti-white. And as for the latter scenario, only country clubs were ever anti-jewish; the US regretfully never took an anti-jewish stance
  7. @Matthew Kelly
    How and why is O'Sullivan's law true? I think "Melvin Udall", who penned this over at Urban Dictionary back in 2011, answered that question quite nicely:

    O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.

    Television shows are the best examples of this. {snip} Charitable foundations are worse but harder to see.

    One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.

    Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.

    Another reason is that the parasitic nature of Liberals/Leftists attracts them to existing money.

    An enterprise can stave off O'Sullivan's Law if their creators keep it in mind and remain vigilant and truthful.
    {snip}

    The Annenberg Foundation was started by a Republican but it didn't take long before O'Sullivan's Law had them handing a domestic terrorist money for educating kids.

    The ACLU, the Ford Foundation and the Episcopal Church all fell to O’Sullivan’s Law.
    by Melvin Udall April 22, 2011
     

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=O%E2%80%99Sullivan%E2%80%99s+Law

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Achmed E. Newman, @Known Fact, @stillCARealist, @Almost Missouri

    Who has ever heard of a Udall having inside knowledge of American politics?

    • LOL: Matthew Kelly
  8. Anonymous[118] • Disclaimer says:

    What does ‘right wing’ mean in this context?

    Many take ‘right wing’ to be the counterpoint of socialism, which means advocates of free enterprise and free markets as opposed to collectivisation.
    In this context, all the woke nonsense is merely extraneous piss and wind compared to the real red meat of politics. By definition, even the trendiest and wokeist of corporate America are right wing extremists.

    If we take ‘right wing’ to mean ‘conservative’ in that conservatives wish to ‘conserve’ traditional and time honored mores and ethics, then strictly by this definition the essence of conservatism are nationalists and anti immigrationists, since nothing is more destructive of heritage and tradition than mass immigration.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    What does ‘right wing’ mean in this context?
     
    Thomas Sowell nailed it, if only in passing: The "right" is anything that stands in the way of the Left.

    That is a very, very big tent!


    https://compote.slate.com/images/1a27dbcb-704c-4242-8794-313a414afa91.jpg
  9. I don’t know who this “commenter” is this time, but he is wrong. Most of the media has been left-wing ever since that Watergate Woodward & Bernstein story. Except for the talking blonde heads who just want to show off their ta-ta’s on TV, these people get into what’s now “journalism” in order to CHANGE THE WORLD!, like those Woodward and Bernstein guys.

    Change the world means changing this country first, and it means tearing down traditional institutions. That’s more exciting as a career than just, like, reporting some news and shit.

    Oh, and people in media are some of the stupidest people with college degree you’ll ever run into. Reporters without college degrees 50 years ago were a whole lot smarter and did their jobs.

    I get this “packaging” idea you brought up, Steve, but it’s the journalists (and thanks for calling them reporters, BTW) who decide where they will get this package from. Who are they going to choose or the ADL the Federalist Society, or, even better, an informative series of Steve Sailer posts? You tell me. How many calls have you gotten lately?

    .

    PS: I wrote “most” in that first sentence, because some of the big outlets have been left-wing since well before then, such as the New York Times with their Pulitzer Prize winning lyin’ POS Walter Duranty.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian, JMcG
    • Replies: @Gamecock
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Correct, Achmed. People cannot comprehend the mental failure of Leftards. 'Commenter' believes he is right, he is even smirky about it. I have a good friend who is a smart boy - a retired CEO - who believes along with other Leftards that literally everything Trump said was a lie. His saying it made it a lie. A mania that killed people (for example, the suppression of the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid because Trump said it would help. Not for medical reasons, but to spite Trump).

    Mr Sailor is right that publishers editorialize by their choices of what they publish. Your average low intellect Leftard doesn't realize that the key editing is not the content in the stories published, but in the choice of stories published.

    , @Prester John
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I was going to write that the left tilt of the media pre-dated W&B but...saw your postscript at the end. Totally agree. I once heard some kid "journalist" fresh out of one of the Ivies (where else?) answer in response to the question why he decided to go into journalism that was because he "wanted to make a difference."

    In other words, a True Believer.

    Replies: @tr, @Uncle Dan

    , @mmack
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "Reporters without college degrees 50 years ago were a whole lot smarter and did their jobs."

    Because they had editors that read their stories, snarled "This is CRAP! Rewrite it!", and tossed it back in their faces with disdain or outright anger. Constant rejection got rid of the special snowflakes. Those reporters worked their way up the ladder from writing obituaries, covering Parks Department budget meetings, or covering the graveyard crime shift. And their snarling editor worked his way up the same way.

    "If your mother says she loves you, check it out” - Motto of the Chicago City News Bureau.

    "Does it get clicks?" - Journalism today.

    Replies: @Gamecock, @tr

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Most of the media has been left-wing ever since that Watergate Woodward & Bernstein story.

    People used to say that Woodward and Bernstein inspired young people to go into journalism because they showed that journalists could take down a president. Of course, that wasn't really the story--Woodward and Bernstein showed that journalists could take down a Republican president. Democrats need not worry.

    Bernstein himself has become a joke, known as the "Worse than Watergate!" guy because during Trump's presidency CNN trotted him out at every opportunity to declare that whatever Trump was currently accused of was "Worse than Watergate!"

    Obama employing the intelligence agencies to undermine and attempt to unseat Trump was not worse than Watergate, at least according to Bernstein.

  10. @Steve Sailer
    @El Dato

    It's as if right wing intellectual friends of mine like to deduce insights about bureaucracies...

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Ever come in contact with James Q. Wilson?

  11. @El Dato
    It's really a corollary of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy which basically states that any organization will be taken over by the talkers, not the doers because the talkers have time to burn on their little games and are not challenged by reality until it is much too late.

    Add free money from the state to support even more talkers than are physically feasible in a healthy economy, and you are good to go.

    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not "right-wing" at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières. If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @RichardTaylor, @zundel, @Marcus, @Almost Missouri, @megabar

    Pournelle’s law for sure.

  12. As far as the police go (and I’m sure increasingly the Marines), it has become pretty much standard for every big city police force to be headed by a black or a female or sometimes a black female. The other day Anchorage, where there are few blacks, nevertheless named a black police chief. So if the Democrats don’t have the rank and file on their side (and they don’t) they at least have the top leadership.

    In the NYC mayoral race, the top candidate is an ex-cop but his is also black and when push comes to shove, he will go with his race and not his occupation. Apparently, enough time has passed for NY to have forgotten about its past disasters, following Lindsay (the De Blasio of the ’60s) with Dinkins. The press is all in, recalling the time of Giuliani and Bloomberg as a time of horror rather than a low crime paradise.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Jack D

    Yesterday the black, Eric Adams won the NYC democrat primary big surprise. And Chris Silwa of the Guardian Angels I believe it’s called won the Republican primary. Adams will win and NYC will sink into even worse crime. Next time a Tessa Majors is killed the black boys won’t even be arrested. .

  13. @Matthew Kelly
    How and why is O'Sullivan's law true? I think "Melvin Udall", who penned this over at Urban Dictionary back in 2011, answered that question quite nicely:

    O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.

    Television shows are the best examples of this. {snip} Charitable foundations are worse but harder to see.

    One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.

    Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.

    Another reason is that the parasitic nature of Liberals/Leftists attracts them to existing money.

    An enterprise can stave off O'Sullivan's Law if their creators keep it in mind and remain vigilant and truthful.
    {snip}

    The Annenberg Foundation was started by a Republican but it didn't take long before O'Sullivan's Law had them handing a domestic terrorist money for educating kids.

    The ACLU, the Ford Foundation and the Episcopal Church all fell to O’Sullivan’s Law.
    by Melvin Udall April 22, 2011
     

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=O%E2%80%99Sullivan%E2%80%99s+Law

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Achmed E. Newman, @Known Fact, @stillCARealist, @Almost Missouri

    This Melvin Udall speaks a lot of truth there, so thank you, Mr. Kelly.

    I’m glad he brought up the charities. It’s one thing for the ACLU to morph from Libertarian to Commie-left, as Libertarian donors can at least quit sending money. It’s when the private ones, with big endowments, follow O’Sullivan’s law, that it’s really a civil breach of contract.

    Take Mr. Ford, who has given all that money to be spend on furthering his Conservative causes after his death, in the hopes of helping keep society the way he wished it to be. Then these assholes in the organization do their own thing with the money. How much control families have (which may have gone lefty themselves anyway) is I guess part of the legal stuff from when the organization was formed. Someone ought to raise some hell though.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Ford himself knew better than to rely on that elusive someone. At least when he was alive. He'd have done well to think a little harder about what would happen after he no longer was.

    Invest your time in your people. Invest your money in your time.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Achmed E. Newman

    How much control families have (which may have gone lefty themselves anyway)

    The offspring of greatly successful men often become leftists. Enjoying unearned wealth is a kind of disgrace, so they try to redeem themselves by repudiating the views of its creator. I know several people living off trust funds who proudly declare themselves socialists.

    Replies: @CorkyAgain

    , @Alden
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The families have no control. Henry Ford 2 resigned from the foundation because of its leftist communist leanings. Supposedly the family has no control at all. It’s basically a big tax deduction for the family. Ford Foundation was responsible for Betty Friedan Gloria Steinem and feminazis

    The purpose was not to be mean and cruel to men. The purpose was to increase the labor force by 1/3 or more by sending all the married women back to work.

    Thus increasing the labor force and driving wages down to reverse the advances workers had made in the 20th century.

    And cubicle coolies with BAs MAs BSs MSs and MBAs are workers whose wages were driven down by Ford and Rockefeller Foundations invention of feminazism

    Replies: @Desiderius

  14. Well the part of the populace that he appeals to (and a big chunk of that was at least agnostic about Trump, which is why Biden was selected) defines their identity, particularly their national/political identity, as being part of the vanguard of progress. Lacking much actual progress to point to they just make shit up and celebrate that.

    On the ground there is some progress here and there but it’s too much tied up with white men so they go with the trans stuff. The thing about trans is that if you were wargaming what an actual skynet (i.e. rogue AI/transorganic life) would be doing right now it would be hard to come up with something better than exactly what we’re seeing from the mouthpieces of the corporate state.

  15. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Matthew Kelly

    This Melvin Udall speaks a lot of truth there, so thank you, Mr. Kelly.

    I'm glad he brought up the charities. It's one thing for the ACLU to morph from Libertarian to Commie-left, as Libertarian donors can at least quit sending money. It's when the private ones, with big endowments, follow O'Sullivan's law, that it's really a civil breach of contract.

    Take Mr. Ford, who has given all that money to be spend on furthering his Conservative causes after his death, in the hopes of helping keep society the way he wished it to be. Then these assholes in the organization do their own thing with the money. How much control families have (which may have gone lefty themselves anyway) is I guess part of the legal stuff from when the organization was formed. Someone ought to raise some hell though.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Harry Baldwin, @Alden

    Ford himself knew better than to rely on that elusive someone. At least when he was alive. He’d have done well to think a little harder about what would happen after he no longer was.

    Invest your time in your people. Invest your money in your time.

  16. Anon[407] • Disclaimer says:

    To be (overly) schematic about it…

    First Law organization (traditional authority): conservative about its hard-won expertise, local details can’t be generalized away, local history matters, “this is how we’ve always done things around here”, hierarchical with newbies deferring to the experienced, education in the form of mentorship and war stories.

    Second Law organization (reluctant to be seen as an authority, presenting itself as scientific, fact-based, liberating the individual from oppressive traditional authorities and historical boundaries and limits): procedural and compliance-based, generalists “from corporate” disrupting the hidebound local hierarchies, the ability to “manipulate procedural outcomes” is essential, and the ability to conceal raw power behind a facade of stakeholder consultation. This applies not only to running a business but to running the world; not only to logistical and financial problems, but to the great moral issues.

    Third Law organization (puppet authority): instead of the Second Law guys wiping out a First Law institution, they divert its support base and loyalties. The patriarch is retooled as a grumpy old man whose bark is worse than his bite, and wins Strange New Respect.

  17. Every organization appears to be headed by secret agents of its opponents,

    I like the “run by a cabal of its enemies” phrasing because one rarely hears “cabal.”

  18. @El Dato
    It's really a corollary of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy which basically states that any organization will be taken over by the talkers, not the doers because the talkers have time to burn on their little games and are not challenged by reality until it is much too late.

    Add free money from the state to support even more talkers than are physically feasible in a healthy economy, and you are good to go.

    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not "right-wing" at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières. If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @RichardTaylor, @zundel, @Marcus, @Almost Missouri, @megabar

    lol because right-wingers could never merely be big talkers

  19. There are exceptions to every rule. Especially if there is big money at stake.

    One notable exception is the formerly respectable National Rifle Association. Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters. In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization. It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country. I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    • LOL: Jim Christian
    • Troll: Gamecock, TWS
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Paleo Liberal

    It's still a respectable organization to normal human beings. It's also a vast membership organization with active local chapters. Stop lying.

    , @anon
    @Paleo Liberal

    Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters.

    Then some people did something in 1968. Do you recall what that was?

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization.

    You have learned your Sarah Brady catechism well. Too bad it has zero to do with reality.

    It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    Not really, no. But the Democrats largely became the party of gun confiscation, so...

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country.

    Oh, I dunno, there is so much to choose from. Did you participate in the Cincinnati reforms? Probably not, so you are an outsider making not very well informed comments about an organization that was long ago hijacked by a small number of insiders. There are old time NRA members who could tell you a lot more, except that being a Liberal you are not capable of listening to anyone outside of your bubble. So, meh.

    I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Yes, Putin has totally taken over the NRA. Thanks for toeing a party line once again, your totally independent thought is always so refreshing.

    But since you brought up corruption, why is it that no one can find the typical Wisconsin frat boys who deliberately tried to immolate poor Althea? Not the Madison police, not the FBI, and apparently not even you! How elusive are those fellers, anyway?

    They must be Mission Impossible level agents, because the alternative would be a degree of corruption and lying within the Madison PD, the FBI and yes, even you...and that can't be true, can it? Because you are a special snowflake who would never participate passively in an obvious campaign of lying, right?

    Right. By definition, the Liberal is so good, so pure, as to be positively angelic! Such a being would never lie and would never tolerate lies or liars. So those frat boys in Hawaiian shirts must exist, and yet cannot be found. It is a paradox even Zeno would marvel at!

    Be seeing you...

    , @Rahan
    @Paleo Liberal


    Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.
     
    I still can't get over how easily the West switched from the 20th century format of righwingers seeing Russian spies everywhere, to the 21st century format of leftwingers seeing Russian spies everywhere.

    And everyone's pretending this is fine, this is rational, not some mass psychosis mechanism that keeps shapeshifting. Also the current attempt to "unite the west" with Beijing being the new Third Reich.

    Enough to make you think westerners really should be turned into trannies and replaced by Somalians and Guatemalans. If they're this incapable of independent thought, this susceptible to crude programming, them maybe they are a danger to themselves and the world.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell, @Kratoklastes

    , @JMcG
    @Paleo Liberal

    The democrats who owned guns all became republicans. Funny, spell check auto-capitalized democrats, but not republicans. What was Steve talking about? Lack of intentional bias?

    , @Joe Stalin
    @Paleo Liberal


    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization.
     
    Didn't the NRA OPPOSE the ban on import of used military surplus firearms that domestic gun makers supported and got passed in the Gun Control Act of 1968? Wasn't Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality in the Board of Directors of the NRA? Isn't his son, Niger Innis, currently running for a BOD position there?
    , @Alden
    @Paleo Liberal

    Burn in hell forever and ever amen

    , @TWS
    @Paleo Liberal

    You truly are repugnant and ignorant.

    , @Hibernian
    @Paleo Liberal


    In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.
     
    Yea, when a lot of the South was still yellow dog Democratic.
  20. In a Desert of Imagination, the Promoter-Type is King.

  21. What even is “left-wing”? Or “right-wing”? For that reason, I don’t think the formulation is all that useful in the long run (although it is useful in the here and now). Someone upthread phrased it better as “talkers vs. doers” – I would’ve said mediocrities and weasels with faith in the awesome power of expertise and a firm belief that they themselves possess some of that expertise, rather than “talkers” – but the question is, is this a Law? That is, is this something that’s true in all societies across all times, or is it only true of ours?

    Put another way: perhaps an organisation becomes left-wing (so to speak) over time because ours is a left-wing society; to be right-wing is to swim against the tide, and any such swimmer will eventually tire out and be pulled back the other way.

    If society is left-wing, then staffing a right-wing organisation with right-wingers is difficult, and becomes more difficult over time. All things being equal, as the organisation ages, the probability that a left-winger will slip through the cracks approaches one; and all things are not equal: any society will seek to become more like itself as it grows and gains strength, if that makes sense. The internal logic of the societal value system will push towards a concentration and strengthening of its values. A society that valued, say, martial skill, would find itself, absent any countervailing force, becoming more martial: if a little bit of martial skill is good, then a lot must be better; if there are intellectual justifications to be made of that state of affairs, there will be incentives to find them, and publicise them, and a paying audience for them; and there will also be incentives for strengthening those justifications.

    A left-wing society will therefore become more left-wing and thus the pool of potential personnel will become more left-wing. And the religious fervour of those outside this right-wing organisation will also grow, and thus whatever persecution the organisation faces will increase. Thus it will become left-wing – but if this was a right-wing society, a left-wing organisation would suffer in the same way.

    Right?

    • Replies: @Charlotte
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    I think you’re on to something. If we ever had a logical endpoint to the expansion of liberalism, or progressivism, or leftism, or whatever the proper term may be, we’ve forgotten what it was or how to articulate it. Many a basically conservative person has agreed that a little more freedom from oppressive traditional strictures would be a good thing, at least for certain unfortunate individuals, and probably not too harmful to society. But once that goal is obtained, there’s always some more urgent injustice to be remedied, while the conservative, confused, thinks “Wait, I thought we agreed to just this and no more, I thought we had a compromise!” But there was no compromise, just an incremental step leftwards, and if the conservative fails to see that another step is needed, yesterday’s moderate becomes today’s bigot.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

  22. @Matthew Kelly
    How and why is O'Sullivan's law true? I think "Melvin Udall", who penned this over at Urban Dictionary back in 2011, answered that question quite nicely:

    O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.

    Television shows are the best examples of this. {snip} Charitable foundations are worse but harder to see.

    One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.

    Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.

    Another reason is that the parasitic nature of Liberals/Leftists attracts them to existing money.

    An enterprise can stave off O'Sullivan's Law if their creators keep it in mind and remain vigilant and truthful.
    {snip}

    The Annenberg Foundation was started by a Republican but it didn't take long before O'Sullivan's Law had them handing a domestic terrorist money for educating kids.

    The ACLU, the Ford Foundation and the Episcopal Church all fell to O’Sullivan’s Law.
    by Melvin Udall April 22, 2011
     

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=O%E2%80%99Sullivan%E2%80%99s+Law

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Achmed E. Newman, @Known Fact, @stillCARealist, @Almost Missouri

    If you are a liberal, conservatives will gently roll their eyes at your naivety and hypocrisy and gleefully expect you to come face to face with reality sooner or later.

    If you are a conservative, liberals simply want you dead

    This gap partially explains organizational drift — such as NHL teams holding Pride Nights, and high school girls in my conservative county smiling and waving BLM flags by the side of the road

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Known Fact


    If you are a liberal, conservatives will gently roll their eyes at your naivety and hypocrisy and gleefully expect you to come face to face with reality sooner or later.

    If you are a conservative, liberals simply want you dead
     
    I heard it once put thusly: “Conservatives view liberals as being sort of willfully ignorant. Liberals view conservatives as evil.”
  23. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know who this "commenter" is this time, but he is wrong. Most of the media has been left-wing ever since that Watergate Woodward & Bernstein story. Except for the talking blonde heads who just want to show off their ta-ta's on TV, these people get into what's now "journalism" in order to CHANGE THE WORLD!, like those Woodward and Bernstein guys.

    Change the world means changing this country first, and it means tearing down traditional institutions. That's more exciting as a career than just, like, reporting some news and shit.

    Oh, and people in media are some of the stupidest people with college degree you'll ever run into. Reporters without college degrees 50 years ago were a whole lot smarter and did their jobs.

    I get this "packaging" idea you brought up, Steve, but it's the journalists (and thanks for calling them reporters, BTW) who decide where they will get this package from. Who are they going to choose or the ADL the Federalist Society, or, even better, an informative series of Steve Sailer posts? You tell me. How many calls have you gotten lately?

    .

    PS: I wrote "most" in that first sentence, because some of the big outlets have been left-wing since well before then, such as the New York Times with their Pulitzer Prize winning lyin' POS Walter Duranty.

    Replies: @Gamecock, @Prester John, @mmack, @Harry Baldwin

    Correct, Achmed. People cannot comprehend the mental failure of Leftards. ‘Commenter’ believes he is right, he is even smirky about it. I have a good friend who is a smart boy – a retired CEO – who believes along with other Leftards that literally everything Trump said was a lie. His saying it made it a lie. A mania that killed people (for example, the suppression of the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid because Trump said it would help. Not for medical reasons, but to spite Trump).

    Mr Sailor is right that publishers editorialize by their choices of what they publish. Your average low intellect Leftard doesn’t realize that the key editing is not the content in the stories published, but in the choice of stories published.

    • Agree: LondonBob
  24. I dunno about this. You should read Richard Hanania, who thinks that woke is just civil rights law.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
  25. anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @40 Acres and a Kardashian
    “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”

    Of course, groups don't name themselves or their objectives as right-wing or left-wing; others call them that. There are no "explicitly right-wing organizations", so it's a useless formulation.

    It's much more accurate to say:

    “Any organization not explicitly pro-white will sooner or later become anti-white.”

    Also:

    “Any organization not explicitly anti-Jewish will sooner or later become anti-Gentile.”

    Replies: @anon, @Pop Warner

    “Any organization not explicitly anti-Jewish will sooner or later become anti-Gentile.”

    This is the most accurate statement. Any empirical examination of US institutions reveals they are either run directly by Jews or indirectly via Jewish money and political action groups. Often, a combination of the two approaches.

    For example, how can anyone talk about political changes in the Ivy League, without mentioning 7 out of 8 current Ivy League presidents are Jews?

    You can’t. And the people who fail to mention this are either willfully ignorant or dishonest. Or perhaps like Cowan, talking their book, ethnically-speaking.

  26. @Paleo Liberal
    There are exceptions to every rule. Especially if there is big money at stake.

    One notable exception is the formerly respectable National Rifle Association. Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters. In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization. It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country. I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @anon, @Rahan, @JMcG, @Joe Stalin, @Alden, @TWS, @Hibernian

    It’s still a respectable organization to normal human beings. It’s also a vast membership organization with active local chapters. Stop lying.

    • Agree: JMcG, TWS
    • Thanks: donut
  27. anon[171] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paleo Liberal
    There are exceptions to every rule. Especially if there is big money at stake.

    One notable exception is the formerly respectable National Rifle Association. Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters. In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization. It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country. I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @anon, @Rahan, @JMcG, @Joe Stalin, @Alden, @TWS, @Hibernian

    Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters.

    Then some people did something in 1968. Do you recall what that was?

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization.

    You have learned your Sarah Brady catechism well. Too bad it has zero to do with reality.

    It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    Not really, no. But the Democrats largely became the party of gun confiscation, so…

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country.

    Oh, I dunno, there is so much to choose from. Did you participate in the Cincinnati reforms? Probably not, so you are an outsider making not very well informed comments about an organization that was long ago hijacked by a small number of insiders. There are old time NRA members who could tell you a lot more, except that being a Liberal you are not capable of listening to anyone outside of your bubble. So, meh.

    I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Yes, Putin has totally taken over the NRA. Thanks for toeing a party line once again, your totally independent thought is always so refreshing.

    But since you brought up corruption, why is it that no one can find the typical Wisconsin frat boys who deliberately tried to immolate poor Althea? Not the Madison police, not the FBI, and apparently not even you! How elusive are those fellers, anyway?

    They must be Mission Impossible level agents, because the alternative would be a degree of corruption and lying within the Madison PD, the FBI and yes, even you…and that can’t be true, can it? Because you are a special snowflake who would never participate passively in an obvious campaign of lying, right?

    Right. By definition, the Liberal is so good, so pure, as to be positively angelic! Such a being would never lie and would never tolerate lies or liars. So those frat boys in Hawaiian shirts must exist, and yet cannot be found. It is a paradox even Zeno would marvel at!

    Be seeing you…

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  28. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know who this "commenter" is this time, but he is wrong. Most of the media has been left-wing ever since that Watergate Woodward & Bernstein story. Except for the talking blonde heads who just want to show off their ta-ta's on TV, these people get into what's now "journalism" in order to CHANGE THE WORLD!, like those Woodward and Bernstein guys.

    Change the world means changing this country first, and it means tearing down traditional institutions. That's more exciting as a career than just, like, reporting some news and shit.

    Oh, and people in media are some of the stupidest people with college degree you'll ever run into. Reporters without college degrees 50 years ago were a whole lot smarter and did their jobs.

    I get this "packaging" idea you brought up, Steve, but it's the journalists (and thanks for calling them reporters, BTW) who decide where they will get this package from. Who are they going to choose or the ADL the Federalist Society, or, even better, an informative series of Steve Sailer posts? You tell me. How many calls have you gotten lately?

    .

    PS: I wrote "most" in that first sentence, because some of the big outlets have been left-wing since well before then, such as the New York Times with their Pulitzer Prize winning lyin' POS Walter Duranty.

    Replies: @Gamecock, @Prester John, @mmack, @Harry Baldwin

    I was going to write that the left tilt of the media pre-dated W&B but…saw your postscript at the end. Totally agree. I once heard some kid “journalist” fresh out of one of the Ivies (where else?) answer in response to the question why he decided to go into journalism that was because he “wanted to make a difference.”

    In other words, a True Believer.

    • Replies: @tr
    @Prester John

    I always want to ask people who "Want to make a difference" or "Change the world" whether it is for the better or for the worse, or does it make a difference to them?

    The way things are phrased makes me think that the intent is to desensitize the listener from the need to ask such impertinent questions.

    , @Uncle Dan
    @Prester John

    The world is divided between those who “want to make a difference “ (ie “left wingers “) and those who want to support their families and enjoy life (it’s ungrateful not to), the normies. The former are usually victorious because the latter are too busy living life to pay attention. Until the world-savers mess with The Gods of The Copybook Headings.

  29. @Matthew Kelly
    How and why is O'Sullivan's law true? I think "Melvin Udall", who penned this over at Urban Dictionary back in 2011, answered that question quite nicely:

    O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.

    Television shows are the best examples of this. {snip} Charitable foundations are worse but harder to see.

    One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.

    Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.

    Another reason is that the parasitic nature of Liberals/Leftists attracts them to existing money.

    An enterprise can stave off O'Sullivan's Law if their creators keep it in mind and remain vigilant and truthful.
    {snip}

    The Annenberg Foundation was started by a Republican but it didn't take long before O'Sullivan's Law had them handing a domestic terrorist money for educating kids.

    The ACLU, the Ford Foundation and the Episcopal Church all fell to O’Sullivan’s Law.
    by Melvin Udall April 22, 2011
     

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=O%E2%80%99Sullivan%E2%80%99s+Law

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Achmed E. Newman, @Known Fact, @stillCARealist, @Almost Missouri

    As Dr. Laura used to say, “Evil has power because it doesn’t have to obey the rules.”

    Conservative people are nice and will give way to pushy libs. Occasionally we’ll have a pushy one on our side (Trump as the pre-eminent example) and he or she will face plenty of friendly fire.

    In order to combat jerks, you often have to be a jerk yourself, and most right wingers just don’t have the stomach for that.

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    @stillCARealist


    In order to combat jerks, you often have to be a jerk yourself, and most right wingers just don’t have the stomach for that.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32iCWzpDpKs
  30. @Paleo Liberal
    There are exceptions to every rule. Especially if there is big money at stake.

    One notable exception is the formerly respectable National Rifle Association. Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters. In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization. It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country. I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @anon, @Rahan, @JMcG, @Joe Stalin, @Alden, @TWS, @Hibernian

    Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    I still can’t get over how easily the West switched from the 20th century format of righwingers seeing Russian spies everywhere, to the 21st century format of leftwingers seeing Russian spies everywhere.

    And everyone’s pretending this is fine, this is rational, not some mass psychosis mechanism that keeps shapeshifting. Also the current attempt to “unite the west” with Beijing being the new Third Reich.

    Enough to make you think westerners really should be turned into trannies and replaced by Somalians and Guatemalans. If they’re this incapable of independent thought, this susceptible to crude programming, them maybe they are a danger to themselves and the world.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Rahan

    Punishment is brutal, unfortunately...or fortunately, in a cosmic sense. Alas, of course, the suffering and punishment is likely intended to some extent by the very people who are leading this endeavor.

    , @Kratoklastes
    @Rahan


    If they’re this incapable of independent thought, this susceptible to crude programming, them maybe they are a danger to themselves and the world.
     
    Aldous Huxley was far more prophetic that people give credit for. Well before he wrote Brave New World, he was quite the Young Eugenicist - here's an example from 1927...

    “All the resources of science are applied in order that imbecility may flourish and vulgarity cover the whole earth. That they are rapidly doing so must be obvious to anyone who glances at a popular picture paper, looks at a popular film, listens to popular music on the radio or phonograph” (from “The Outlook for American Culture: Some Reflections on a Machine Age,” Harper’s Magazine, August 1927)

     

    and he pulled fewer punches in private correspondence, as an excerpt from a 1933 letter to Glyn Roberts shows...

    About 99.5% of the entire population of the planet are as stupid and philistine...as the great masses of the English. The important thing, it seems to me, is not to attack the 99.5%...but to try to see that the 0.5% survives, keeps its quality up to the highest possible level, and, if possible, dominates the rest. The imbecility of the 99.5% is appalling — but after all, what else can you expect?
     

    The views, preferences and opinions of the bottom 99.5% of society are currently given more exposure than was the case in the period BSM (Before Social Media). That's the only difference between now and the pre-WWII period through which Huxley lived: nowadays the Village Idiot has Instagram and Twitter.
  31. this whole formulation is conspicuously mid-witted. if we’re talking about modern state bureaucracies they’re virtually identical with the idea of the modern liberal state: politically neutral and concerned above all with their own self-perpetuation (see weber, politics as a vocation). thus their main ideological commitment is to the status-quo, which is why they’d regard the unstable orange imbecile as a plague.

    if we’re talking about political organizations, they’re in fact deeply anti-democratic and all tend to compact, oligarchical ideological rule (see quasi-fascist robert michels).

    if we’re talking about private-sector bureaucracy, one would imagine it’d go without saying that they’re constitutionally liberal and thus politically neutral — concerned only with profit and favorable regulatory regimes.

    so we’re left with the cops and the grunts, who are said to be constitutionally right-wing heh. let’s roundly assume this means: too stupid for the private sector, fetishistic relationship with violence, naive notions about morality, etc. (except for that 30% at the top of the hierarchy, the brass, who are quite politically minded and resemble any other entrenched political bureaucracy.)

  32. Along the same lines, Gamecock has noticed that many institutions, regardless of their founding, eventually just become about the money. They lose sight of why they originally wanted money, and become dazzled just by the money.

  33. @Paleo Liberal
    There are exceptions to every rule. Especially if there is big money at stake.

    One notable exception is the formerly respectable National Rifle Association. Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters. In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization. It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country. I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @anon, @Rahan, @JMcG, @Joe Stalin, @Alden, @TWS, @Hibernian

    The democrats who owned guns all became republicans. Funny, spell check auto-capitalized democrats, but not republicans. What was Steve talking about? Lack of intentional bias?

  34. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know who this "commenter" is this time, but he is wrong. Most of the media has been left-wing ever since that Watergate Woodward & Bernstein story. Except for the talking blonde heads who just want to show off their ta-ta's on TV, these people get into what's now "journalism" in order to CHANGE THE WORLD!, like those Woodward and Bernstein guys.

    Change the world means changing this country first, and it means tearing down traditional institutions. That's more exciting as a career than just, like, reporting some news and shit.

    Oh, and people in media are some of the stupidest people with college degree you'll ever run into. Reporters without college degrees 50 years ago were a whole lot smarter and did their jobs.

    I get this "packaging" idea you brought up, Steve, but it's the journalists (and thanks for calling them reporters, BTW) who decide where they will get this package from. Who are they going to choose or the ADL the Federalist Society, or, even better, an informative series of Steve Sailer posts? You tell me. How many calls have you gotten lately?

    .

    PS: I wrote "most" in that first sentence, because some of the big outlets have been left-wing since well before then, such as the New York Times with their Pulitzer Prize winning lyin' POS Walter Duranty.

    Replies: @Gamecock, @Prester John, @mmack, @Harry Baldwin

    “Reporters without college degrees 50 years ago were a whole lot smarter and did their jobs.”

    Because they had editors that read their stories, snarled “This is CRAP! Rewrite it!”, and tossed it back in their faces with disdain or outright anger. Constant rejection got rid of the special snowflakes. Those reporters worked their way up the ladder from writing obituaries, covering Parks Department budget meetings, or covering the graveyard crime shift. And their snarling editor worked his way up the same way.

    “If your mother says she loves you, check it out” – Motto of the Chicago City News Bureau.

    “Does it get clicks?” – Journalism today.

    • Agree: Gamecock
    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Gamecock
    @mmack


    Because they had editors that read their stories, snarled “This is CRAP! Rewrite it!”, and tossed it back in their faces with disdain or outright anger.
     
    Perry White was the last good editor.

    I worked in industry. In the 1980s, the consultants said, "Get rid of middle management. They produce nothing and cost you a lot of money."

    In the print periodical business, this manifested as, "Get rid of your editors. They produce nothing and cost you a lot of money."

    It was the beginning of the end of print periodicals. They blame the interweb, but it's their own damn fault.

    We had our problems, too. Burned down a $30M factory (1988 dollars) because no middle management was there to enforce housekeeping.

    Had to institute 6 Sigma programs because the innovators were gone. Replaced people who knew the business with people who knew how to count beans.
    , @tr
    @mmack

    I assume that 50 years ago the reporters without college degrees were the top of the working class. I assume that now the reporters with college degrees are the dregs of the ruling class.

    That's a two sigma difference.

  35. The media depends a lot upon who is packaging the story for them. Publishing a newspaper or putting on a broadcast is a lot of work, so whoever takes on much of the burden for the reporters will likely have a lot of influence on what is published.

    ………………………………………..

    A reporter might call up a thinktank representing the other side for a couple of quotes disagreeing, but only rarely do reporters decide that the nice people who have done all this hard work explaining the story to them are in the wrong and stab their benefactors in the back.

    Another way of saying this is that journalists are hacks and the product they peddle is pure propaganda.

  36. @Peter Johnson
    The role of personal tastes toward career choices acts as a powerful sorting mechanism. Individuals whose personal tastes tilt them toward careers in public-activity institutions, like NGOs and various government departments, also have left-leaning views and left-typical personality profiles. An analogous sorting mechanism operates in the mainstream media -- a reporting career attracts personality types that want to "fight the powers".

    Once the left-leaning bias of an institution is in place, a secondary sorting mechanism operates: individuals want to join an organization where the majority share their views. That serves to strengthen the institutional bias.

    This is not the complete explanation, of course. It is a component of the full explanation.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @AnotherDad, @YetAnotherAnon, @Mulga Mumblebrain

    An analogous sorting mechanism operates in the mainstream media — a reporting career attracts personality types that want to “fight the powers”.

    It’s been obvious for a long time now that the media does not “fight the power”, but rather speaks for it. Less obvious, though still true, is that it always has.

  37. @Peter Johnson
    The role of personal tastes toward career choices acts as a powerful sorting mechanism. Individuals whose personal tastes tilt them toward careers in public-activity institutions, like NGOs and various government departments, also have left-leaning views and left-typical personality profiles. An analogous sorting mechanism operates in the mainstream media -- a reporting career attracts personality types that want to "fight the powers".

    Once the left-leaning bias of an institution is in place, a secondary sorting mechanism operates: individuals want to join an organization where the majority share their views. That serves to strengthen the institutional bias.

    This is not the complete explanation, of course. It is a component of the full explanation.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @AnotherDad, @YetAnotherAnon, @Mulga Mumblebrain

    The role of personal tastes toward career choices acts as a powerful sorting mechanism. Individuals whose personal tastes tilt them toward careers in public-activity institutions, like NGOs and various government departments, also have left-leaning views and left-typical personality profiles. An analogous sorting mechanism operates in the mainstream media — a reporting career attracts personality types that want to “fight the powers”.

    Peter, this is an excellent comment and addendum to Steve’s institutional/journalistic points.

    The verbalist idealist–i’m going to think good thoughts and fix the world–ends up in precisely the institutions they should be kept away from. (Or at least kept away from until they’ve actually done something materially productive for 20 or 30 years and have a better handle on reality.)

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
  38. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know who this "commenter" is this time, but he is wrong. Most of the media has been left-wing ever since that Watergate Woodward & Bernstein story. Except for the talking blonde heads who just want to show off their ta-ta's on TV, these people get into what's now "journalism" in order to CHANGE THE WORLD!, like those Woodward and Bernstein guys.

    Change the world means changing this country first, and it means tearing down traditional institutions. That's more exciting as a career than just, like, reporting some news and shit.

    Oh, and people in media are some of the stupidest people with college degree you'll ever run into. Reporters without college degrees 50 years ago were a whole lot smarter and did their jobs.

    I get this "packaging" idea you brought up, Steve, but it's the journalists (and thanks for calling them reporters, BTW) who decide where they will get this package from. Who are they going to choose or the ADL the Federalist Society, or, even better, an informative series of Steve Sailer posts? You tell me. How many calls have you gotten lately?

    .

    PS: I wrote "most" in that first sentence, because some of the big outlets have been left-wing since well before then, such as the New York Times with their Pulitzer Prize winning lyin' POS Walter Duranty.

    Replies: @Gamecock, @Prester John, @mmack, @Harry Baldwin

    Most of the media has been left-wing ever since that Watergate Woodward & Bernstein story.

    People used to say that Woodward and Bernstein inspired young people to go into journalism because they showed that journalists could take down a president. Of course, that wasn’t really the story–Woodward and Bernstein showed that journalists could take down a Republican president. Democrats need not worry.

    Bernstein himself has become a joke, known as the “Worse than Watergate!” guy because during Trump’s presidency CNN trotted him out at every opportunity to declare that whatever Trump was currently accused of was “Worse than Watergate!”

    Obama employing the intelligence agencies to undermine and attempt to unseat Trump was not worse than Watergate, at least according to Bernstein.

  39. Some organizations get flipped in one fell swoop, like the Sierra Club when they took $100M from David Gelbaum and switched positions on immigration. A part of all this is definitely the impact of current money. As the billionaire class gets ever more woke they expect to get something for their money, and this drives organizations ever Leftward.

    Where are the right-wing billionaires? You get a few that donate GOP, but 9 times out of 10 it’s because they want to ensure support for Ersatz Yisroel and the forever wars.

  40. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Matthew Kelly

    This Melvin Udall speaks a lot of truth there, so thank you, Mr. Kelly.

    I'm glad he brought up the charities. It's one thing for the ACLU to morph from Libertarian to Commie-left, as Libertarian donors can at least quit sending money. It's when the private ones, with big endowments, follow O'Sullivan's law, that it's really a civil breach of contract.

    Take Mr. Ford, who has given all that money to be spend on furthering his Conservative causes after his death, in the hopes of helping keep society the way he wished it to be. Then these assholes in the organization do their own thing with the money. How much control families have (which may have gone lefty themselves anyway) is I guess part of the legal stuff from when the organization was formed. Someone ought to raise some hell though.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Harry Baldwin, @Alden

    How much control families have (which may have gone lefty themselves anyway)

    The offspring of greatly successful men often become leftists. Enjoying unearned wealth is a kind of disgrace, so they try to redeem themselves by repudiating the views of its creator. I know several people living off trust funds who proudly declare themselves socialists.

    • Thanks: beavertales
    • Replies: @CorkyAgain
    @Harry Baldwin

    That's the best argument for an inheritance tax I've ever seen.

  41. The Z man touches on how so many supposedly right wing organizations become left wing.

    The Gatekeeper Is Broken

    https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=24183

    A good example of this is the CRT business. Parents around the country suddenly learned that the schools are teaching their kids that white people are born evil and their only way to salvation is to hate their ancestors. The gatekeepers immediately leapt into action to lecture them that saying CRT is antiwhite is wrong. Suddenly, the purpose of conservatism is to prevent anyone from noticing that the cultural revolution is explicitly and overtly antiwhite. It almost seems coordinated.

    Unz could use a few more people who argue like this:

    Since few arguments in favor of the status quo can withstand scrutiny, they create a set of false choices to contain all discussion. In economics the choice is “free enterprise” versus “communism” with regards to corporate corruption of society. In other issues, like the race debate, one choice is an absurdly immoral position and defeatism. You either buckle under or you are a Nazi, and you deserve the assault from the Left.

    Go thou and do likewise.

  42. @Paleo Liberal
    There are exceptions to every rule. Especially if there is big money at stake.

    One notable exception is the formerly respectable National Rifle Association. Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters. In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization. It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country. I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @anon, @Rahan, @JMcG, @Joe Stalin, @Alden, @TWS, @Hibernian

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization.

    Didn’t the NRA OPPOSE the ban on import of used military surplus firearms that domestic gun makers supported and got passed in the Gun Control Act of 1968? Wasn’t Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality in the Board of Directors of the NRA? Isn’t his son, Niger Innis, currently running for a BOD position there?

    • Agree: kaganovitch
  43. “We say that media is left-wing, but show me a story on crime and it will most likely be a word-for-word rehash of the statement…”

    Not word-for-word. With journos, It’s not so much what is left wing as what is left out of the story.

  44. Many people (and organizations) embraced the NSDAP in the 1930’s Germany because they thought it would be a good future career move. Same in Benito’s Italy or Franco’s Spain. Power is sensed and humans flock to it. Had they won it might still be the case.

    Woke Leftism has the whip hand today.

    It would be fair to say that progressive leftism ascended to power in the mid-20th century, by projecting its whip hand as much bigger and formidable than it actually was.

    Seizing the nodes of institutional power became actual power when the masses noticed.

  45. Here’s the first YouTube posted segment of the Glenn Loury & Charles Murray discussion:

    The Coming Backlash | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show

    Glenn Loury and Charles Murray discuss threats to social stability posed by ideological commitments from the left and the right.

    • Replies: @Bert
    @MEH 0910

    Thanks. Anyone who understands human nature realizes that the backlash is a certainty.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anon

    , @donut
    @MEH 0910

    That was a waste of 15 min.

    , @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    Here's the next posted segment:

    Grappling with Genetic Variation | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xBOlPodYHU


    Glenn Loury and Charles Murray discuss genetic differences within and between populations.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  46. @Jack D
    As far as the police go (and I'm sure increasingly the Marines), it has become pretty much standard for every big city police force to be headed by a black or a female or sometimes a black female. The other day Anchorage, where there are few blacks, nevertheless named a black police chief. So if the Democrats don't have the rank and file on their side (and they don't) they at least have the top leadership.

    In the NYC mayoral race, the top candidate is an ex-cop but his is also black and when push comes to shove, he will go with his race and not his occupation. Apparently, enough time has passed for NY to have forgotten about its past disasters, following Lindsay (the De Blasio of the '60s) with Dinkins. The press is all in, recalling the time of Giuliani and Bloomberg as a time of horror rather than a low crime paradise.

    Replies: @Alden

    Yesterday the black, Eric Adams won the NYC democrat primary big surprise. And Chris Silwa of the Guardian Angels I believe it’s called won the Republican primary. Adams will win and NYC will sink into even worse crime. Next time a Tessa Majors is killed the black boys won’t even be arrested. .

  47. New literary fiction is screwed, in part, because there is so much good stuff, written long ago, and out of copyright.

    No one could read all of the good books from history in their entire lifetime and many are now completely free.

    Films and TV shows are only partly protected from this; by improvements in technology.

    People who make entertainment, therefore have an interest in discrediting the past. This makes them more relevant, relative to the past, and decreases their competition.

    Taken to extremes, this can include banning, or making taboo, historical works, but no one is going to do that openly, even to themselves, for the purely self-interested reason I give above.

    Instead, they need a new ideology to use to do their discrediting. New ideologies are generally the province of the left. This lays down an incentive for them to think their morals are clean and well-argued, when they are just a self-disguise.

    This works even better, though less obviously, for big institutions. You’re the vain head of a long-established institution? How are you going to be different? What makes you better than the past? More worthy than the glory days? It is like inheriting a lot of money and using specious moral arguments to declare your superiority to the source. Morality and ideology is where people hide, even from themselves.

    The left is the place with the new ideas, though often they’re awful, and so the left is where the present goes to distinguish itself.

    This is why it predominates so easily in places where the unfortunate human need for validation, and ignorant self-interest, require distinguishment from the past.

    Notice how competitive areas, that only compete in the present, like warfare or dynamic new industries, have other ways to mark themselves out, and how they generally stay free of this, at least until institutionalised themselves.

    • Replies: @Dr. Krieger
    @Triteleia Laxa


    New literary fiction is screwed, in part, because there is so much good stuff, written long ago, and out of copyright.

    No one could read all of the good books from history in their entire lifetime and many are now completely free.
     

    I agree. It takes about 50 years to know if a book is really worth reading or not. Now, I don't blindly follow popular opinion (or I damn sure wouldn't be reading UNZ), but if people aren't still reading a book after 50 years (not counting shit they make people read in school) then it probably isn't worth reading. Point is... there is so much good literature from the past, that reading contemporary novels seems a waste of time.

    I say the same for movies, but cut that 50 years to 20. There are a few new Directors that I like, and some old genres I still follow (Godzilla, old slasher reboots, etc.) but I don't watch much new entertainment. Admittedly, this is because of its extreme Leftward Drift, but I also just think there are too many excellent old movies to watch, to bother about the new stuff.

  48. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Matthew Kelly

    This Melvin Udall speaks a lot of truth there, so thank you, Mr. Kelly.

    I'm glad he brought up the charities. It's one thing for the ACLU to morph from Libertarian to Commie-left, as Libertarian donors can at least quit sending money. It's when the private ones, with big endowments, follow O'Sullivan's law, that it's really a civil breach of contract.

    Take Mr. Ford, who has given all that money to be spend on furthering his Conservative causes after his death, in the hopes of helping keep society the way he wished it to be. Then these assholes in the organization do their own thing with the money. How much control families have (which may have gone lefty themselves anyway) is I guess part of the legal stuff from when the organization was formed. Someone ought to raise some hell though.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Harry Baldwin, @Alden

    The families have no control. Henry Ford 2 resigned from the foundation because of its leftist communist leanings. Supposedly the family has no control at all. It’s basically a big tax deduction for the family. Ford Foundation was responsible for Betty Friedan Gloria Steinem and feminazis

    The purpose was not to be mean and cruel to men. The purpose was to increase the labor force by 1/3 or more by sending all the married women back to work.

    Thus increasing the labor force and driving wages down to reverse the advances workers had made in the 20th century.

    And cubicle coolies with BAs MAs BSs MSs and MBAs are workers whose wages were driven down by Ford and Rockefeller Foundations invention of feminazism

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Alden

    Fight beats flight.

    Don't resign, especially from your own foundation for God's sake. Honor your ancestors.

  49. @Paleo Liberal
    There are exceptions to every rule. Especially if there is big money at stake.

    One notable exception is the formerly respectable National Rifle Association. Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters. In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization. It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country. I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @anon, @Rahan, @JMcG, @Joe Stalin, @Alden, @TWS, @Hibernian

    Burn in hell forever and ever amen

    • Agree: JMcG
  50. @Harry Baldwin
    @Achmed E. Newman

    How much control families have (which may have gone lefty themselves anyway)

    The offspring of greatly successful men often become leftists. Enjoying unearned wealth is a kind of disgrace, so they try to redeem themselves by repudiating the views of its creator. I know several people living off trust funds who proudly declare themselves socialists.

    Replies: @CorkyAgain

    That’s the best argument for an inheritance tax I’ve ever seen.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  51. You people aren’t bad on immigration, anti-war, and anti-Wall Street.

    But until you get hep to class war, you ain’t worth a plugged nickel. (Like my ebonics!?)

    • Replies: @Dr. Krieger
    @obwandiyag

    Surely you mean

    (Likes my ebonics!?)

  52. Organizations move Left because:

    1. As organizations become successful, they move to urban environments to have access to more potential employees, donors, and political lobbying. In the last 60 years, the divide in this country politically has been Urban v. Rural—-Urban areas vote blue, Rural areas vote red. So any successful organization will locate to a more urban area and be affected by urban concerns and urban workers, which will shift the political votes left.

    2. Gramscianism Marxism. Deliberate, targeted capture by left-wing orgs. The amount of money ad effort spent by Lefties to infest and corrupt institutions they deem successful is enormous and a very real conspiracy. If they can’t take it over overtly (universities, FBI) they will get blackmail to control it (Supreme Court).

    It is amazing how many intelligent non-leftists will laugh and deny #2 as a “conspiracy theory”, dismissing it out of hand. This is despite Gramscian communism being a documented historical movement with tons of examples. The Left really has engaged in a long-term conspiracy, openly talked about it, and yet everyone denies it.

  53. @anon
    The ship is going to sink. Get thee to a lifeboat quick.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

    Bridge collapse in Washington D.C. today.

    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?

    https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/at-least-6-hurt-in-dc-pedestrian-bridge-collapse/

    It may have been hit by a truck, as the negro-on-the-scene helpfully explained:

    “What had happen was…”

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Hangnail Hans

    On the right side of the divide, the left lane traffic is headed toward the bridge but the right lane traffic away. The traffic appears to be turning around, giving the falseimpression of post-bridge backup.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

    , @Gamecock
    @Hangnail Hans


    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?
     
    They are cleaning their pants.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Hangnail Hans


    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?
     
    This isn't the US Virgins. DC still drives on the right, like Nigeria. The cars on that side have simply turned around, to get out of there. Possibly having been directed to.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Sagamore Sam
    @Hangnail Hans

    It looks like the cops are turning traffic around. On the right, you can see 1 lane of cars heading towards the collapsed bridge, and 2 lanes of turned-around traffic going in the opposite direction. On the left, they've succeeded in shutting off traffic upstream, and there is a line of cars that are heading back to the last onramp.

  54. Costco is to the right of the Navy? Is there a Lenny Bruce contingent we don’t know about? Or Village People fans? Where is the Coast Guard? The Marines can’t be pulling the “US Military” average down all by themselves.

    Robert Conquest’s First Law — “Everybody is reactionary on the subjects he knows about”

    With striking and unfortunate exceptions, notably architecture. Howard Roark was a modernist.

    Rockers are more inclined to incline to starboard than are classical musicians. Schoenberg was a political reactionary, and the most radical composer of his day. (Save oddballs– really, publicity stuntmen–such as Cage, Partch, and Ono). His composition texts are also quite staid.

  55. The conquest rule is fast insinuating itself into even conservative organizations. Ibram X. is in Steve’s foxhole. (Well, whatever the navy equivalent of a foxhole is.)

  56. @MEH 0910
    Here's the first YouTube posted segment of the Glenn Loury & Charles Murray discussion:

    The Coming Backlash | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXrMHGsbduA


    Glenn Loury and Charles Murray discuss threats to social stability posed by ideological commitments from the left and the right.
     

    Replies: @Bert, @donut, @MEH 0910

    Thanks. Anyone who understands human nature realizes that the backlash is a certainty.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Bert


    Anyone who understands human nature realizes that the backlash is a certainty.
     
    Nah. Anyone who knows history realizes that there will be no backlash. No serious and successful one anyway. As a rule, things need to totally burn before they can be reborn. No backlash against destroyed Russia or South Africa. For that matter, no backlash against ancient Rome slowly failing victim to the same globalist/decadent thinking.

    We are doomed. For the next few generations at the very least.

    Replies: @Bert

    , @anon
    @Bert

    Murray is articulating fear of future backlash. That is, Frontlash.

    But is a fear or a wish?

    Lets just say that the only way it can be articulated is as a fear.

  57. anonymous[129] • Disclaimer says:

    Suspect there are three primary reasons for leftward drift of institutions:

    1) Conservatives focus on laissez faire economics and a smaller government regulatory footprint. The left focuses heavily on regulation, which provides easy pretext for going after political enemies and rewarding allies. Naturally, if you run an organization, then you have no incentive to appease conservatives. They won’t help you and they won’t destroy you. But you have every incentive to appease the left, or else.

    2) Influx of women into organizations.

    3) Influx of Jewish cultural Marxists into the cultural commanding heights for last 50 years.

  58. I suspect that scared the heck out of Democrats: they’ve got 98% of the institutions more or less on their side, but NOT the two you’d most want to have in your foxhole.

    Eloi and Morlocks, stage 1.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Chrisnonymous

    The Bantu are the Morlocks. You’re the Eloi.

    Replies: @anon

  59. @Hangnail Hans
    @anon

    Bridge collapse in Washington D.C. today.

    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/bridge-collapse-88.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=2000

    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?


    https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/at-least-6-hurt-in-dc-pedestrian-bridge-collapse/

    It may have been hit by a truck, as the negro-on-the-scene helpfully explained:


    "What had happen was..."
     

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Gamecock, @Reg Cæsar, @Sagamore Sam

    On the right side of the divide, the left lane traffic is headed toward the bridge but the right lane traffic away. The traffic appears to be turning around, giving the falseimpression of post-bridge backup.

    • Replies: @Hangnail Hans
    @Chrisnonymous

    Thanks. It just seems so very orderly, especially that single file in the middle lanes.

    And to get in line in such a way that the very last car in line is right where the accident happened. They would have to have driven right up to it to get in the very back of the line.

    I guess I'm still not quite getting it. Is it some kind of white thing? Are there that many whites left in Washington D.C.?

    It may be time for me to find a new hobby. iSteve is taking too much of my time lately.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  60. @El Dato
    It's really a corollary of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy which basically states that any organization will be taken over by the talkers, not the doers because the talkers have time to burn on their little games and are not challenged by reality until it is much too late.

    Add free money from the state to support even more talkers than are physically feasible in a healthy economy, and you are good to go.

    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not "right-wing" at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières. If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @RichardTaylor, @zundel, @Marcus, @Almost Missouri, @megabar

    The SS was “the brass”: the most powerful of the bureaucratic empires carved out by men like Himmler who would have been clerks in another time. Naturally, the ascendancy of these types rubbed the old aristocracy the wrong way. One of my all time favorite passages (regarding Werner von Fritsch):
    “Poor Fritsch! He had no idea how to combat these charges, of which he was completely innocent, save the conventional resort of his caste: he challenged Himmler to a duel. In the subterranean jungle of Nazi politics such a gesture had as little effect as a peacock spreading his tail feathers at a python.”

    • Thanks: Gabe Ruth
  61. The unquestioning and all-in support given to transpersons in the military has doomed those institutions, for two reasons. It’s expensive to be trans; the health care costs are ten times those of cishet people. Also, the social environment of the military is now 100% fully supportive from the leaders on down. Social support for transpeople is enforced by MPs.

    These two factors will lead to a 10% trans military within a few years, and they’ll be promoted heavily. It’s like gays moving to San Francisco.

    It’s funny that the Democrats pooh-pooh the conservative argument that citizens have the right to bear arms to force the government take them seriously. The Democrats obviously want the military on their side in a dispute.

    Are the Democrats planning a dispute in which government orders will be backed domestically by the military?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Anon7


    Are the Democrats planning a dispute in which government orders will be backed domestically by the military?
     
    Yes.

    Next question.

    ------

    But seriously, this isn't a prediction, this already happened. Federal and federalized troops enforced the rewriting of the Constitution by judicial fiat on Mississippi and Alabama 59 years ago. The 101st Airborne division was deployed to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce that same leftist rewriting of the Constitution 64 years ago (by a revered Republican President!). The Union army burned the South down to enforce the Abolitionist rewriting of the Constitution 162 years ago (another revered Republican President).

    The know they will do it again and want to be sure the military will do their bidding.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  62. @Known Fact
    @Matthew Kelly

    If you are a liberal, conservatives will gently roll their eyes at your naivety and hypocrisy and gleefully expect you to come face to face with reality sooner or later.

    If you are a conservative, liberals simply want you dead

    This gap partially explains organizational drift -- such as NHL teams holding Pride Nights, and high school girls in my conservative county smiling and waving BLM flags by the side of the road

    Replies: @Corn

    If you are a liberal, conservatives will gently roll their eyes at your naivety and hypocrisy and gleefully expect you to come face to face with reality sooner or later.

    If you are a conservative, liberals simply want you dead

    I heard it once put thusly: “Conservatives view liberals as being sort of willfully ignorant. Liberals view conservatives as evil.”

  63. @Hangnail Hans
    @anon

    Bridge collapse in Washington D.C. today.

    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/bridge-collapse-88.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=2000

    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?


    https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/at-least-6-hurt-in-dc-pedestrian-bridge-collapse/

    It may have been hit by a truck, as the negro-on-the-scene helpfully explained:


    "What had happen was..."
     

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Gamecock, @Reg Cæsar, @Sagamore Sam

    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?

    They are cleaning their pants.

    • LOL: Hangnail Hans
  64. @mmack
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "Reporters without college degrees 50 years ago were a whole lot smarter and did their jobs."

    Because they had editors that read their stories, snarled "This is CRAP! Rewrite it!", and tossed it back in their faces with disdain or outright anger. Constant rejection got rid of the special snowflakes. Those reporters worked their way up the ladder from writing obituaries, covering Parks Department budget meetings, or covering the graveyard crime shift. And their snarling editor worked his way up the same way.

    "If your mother says she loves you, check it out” - Motto of the Chicago City News Bureau.

    "Does it get clicks?" - Journalism today.

    Replies: @Gamecock, @tr

    Because they had editors that read their stories, snarled “This is CRAP! Rewrite it!”, and tossed it back in their faces with disdain or outright anger.

    Perry White was the last good editor.

    I worked in industry. In the 1980s, the consultants said, “Get rid of middle management. They produce nothing and cost you a lot of money.”

    In the print periodical business, this manifested as, “Get rid of your editors. They produce nothing and cost you a lot of money.”

    It was the beginning of the end of print periodicals. They blame the interweb, but it’s their own damn fault.

    We had our problems, too. Burned down a $30M factory (1988 dollars) because no middle management was there to enforce housekeeping.

    Had to institute 6 Sigma programs because the innovators were gone. Replaced people who knew the business with people who knew how to count beans.

  65. @40 Acres and a Kardashian
    “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”

    Of course, groups don't name themselves or their objectives as right-wing or left-wing; others call them that. There are no "explicitly right-wing organizations", so it's a useless formulation.

    It's much more accurate to say:

    “Any organization not explicitly pro-white will sooner or later become anti-white.”

    Also:

    “Any organization not explicitly anti-Jewish will sooner or later become anti-Gentile.”

    Replies: @anon, @Pop Warner

    “Any organization not explicitly pro-white will sooner or later become anti-white.”
    Also:
    “Any organization not explicitly anti-Jewish will sooner or later become anti-Gentile.”

    That explains the US Government very well. As soon as the institutions ceased being pro-white, they became anti-white. And as for the latter scenario, only country clubs were ever anti-jewish; the US regretfully never took an anti-jewish stance

  66. @Anonymous
    What does 'right wing' mean in this context?

    Many take 'right wing' to be the counterpoint of socialism, which means advocates of free enterprise and free markets as opposed to collectivisation.
    In this context, all the woke nonsense is merely extraneous piss and wind compared to the real red meat of politics. By definition, even the trendiest and wokeist of corporate America are right wing extremists.

    If we take 'right wing' to mean 'conservative' in that conservatives wish to 'conserve' traditional and time honored mores and ethics, then strictly by this definition the essence of conservatism are nationalists and anti immigrationists, since nothing is more destructive of heritage and tradition than mass immigration.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    What does ‘right wing’ mean in this context?

    Thomas Sowell nailed it, if only in passing: The “right” is anything that stands in the way of the Left.

    That is a very, very big tent!

  67. @obwandiyag
    You people aren't bad on immigration, anti-war, and anti-Wall Street.

    But until you get hep to class war, you ain't worth a plugged nickel. (Like my ebonics!?)

    Replies: @Dr. Krieger

    Surely you mean

    (Likes my ebonics!?)

  68. @Paleo Liberal
    There are exceptions to every rule. Especially if there is big money at stake.

    One notable exception is the formerly respectable National Rifle Association. Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters. In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization. It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country. I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @anon, @Rahan, @JMcG, @Joe Stalin, @Alden, @TWS, @Hibernian

    You truly are repugnant and ignorant.

  69. @Hangnail Hans
    @anon

    Bridge collapse in Washington D.C. today.

    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/bridge-collapse-88.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=2000

    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?


    https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/at-least-6-hurt-in-dc-pedestrian-bridge-collapse/

    It may have been hit by a truck, as the negro-on-the-scene helpfully explained:


    "What had happen was..."
     

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Gamecock, @Reg Cæsar, @Sagamore Sam

    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?

    This isn’t the US Virgins. DC still drives on the right, like Nigeria. The cars on that side have simply turned around, to get out of there. Possibly having been directed to.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Reg Cæsar

    Right. How would they be traveling in normal traffic flow on the left? Likely after a while the cops got them turned around and put up cones on the next (previous, originally) on-ramp to make it temporarily an exit ramp.

  70. @Hangnail Hans
    @anon

    Bridge collapse in Washington D.C. today.

    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/bridge-collapse-88.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=2000

    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?


    https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/at-least-6-hurt-in-dc-pedestrian-bridge-collapse/

    It may have been hit by a truck, as the negro-on-the-scene helpfully explained:


    "What had happen was..."
     

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Gamecock, @Reg Cæsar, @Sagamore Sam

    It looks like the cops are turning traffic around. On the right, you can see 1 lane of cars heading towards the collapsed bridge, and 2 lanes of turned-around traffic going in the opposite direction. On the left, they’ve succeeded in shutting off traffic upstream, and there is a line of cars that are heading back to the last onramp.

  71. @Triteleia Laxa
    New literary fiction is screwed, in part, because there is so much good stuff, written long ago, and out of copyright.

    No one could read all of the good books from history in their entire lifetime and many are now completely free.

    Films and TV shows are only partly protected from this; by improvements in technology.

    People who make entertainment, therefore have an interest in discrediting the past. This makes them more relevant, relative to the past, and decreases their competition.

    Taken to extremes, this can include banning, or making taboo, historical works, but no one is going to do that openly, even to themselves, for the purely self-interested reason I give above.

    Instead, they need a new ideology to use to do their discrediting. New ideologies are generally the province of the left. This lays down an incentive for them to think their morals are clean and well-argued, when they are just a self-disguise.

    This works even better, though less obviously, for big institutions. You're the vain head of a long-established institution? How are you going to be different? What makes you better than the past? More worthy than the glory days? It is like inheriting a lot of money and using specious moral arguments to declare your superiority to the source. Morality and ideology is where people hide, even from themselves.

    The left is the place with the new ideas, though often they're awful, and so the left is where the present goes to distinguish itself.

    This is why it predominates so easily in places where the unfortunate human need for validation, and ignorant self-interest, require distinguishment from the past.

    Notice how competitive areas, that only compete in the present, like warfare or dynamic new industries, have other ways to mark themselves out, and how they generally stay free of this, at least until institutionalised themselves.

    Replies: @Dr. Krieger

    New literary fiction is screwed, in part, because there is so much good stuff, written long ago, and out of copyright.

    No one could read all of the good books from history in their entire lifetime and many are now completely free.

    I agree. It takes about 50 years to know if a book is really worth reading or not. Now, I don’t blindly follow popular opinion (or I damn sure wouldn’t be reading UNZ), but if people aren’t still reading a book after 50 years (not counting shit they make people read in school) then it probably isn’t worth reading. Point is… there is so much good literature from the past, that reading contemporary novels seems a waste of time.

    I say the same for movies, but cut that 50 years to 20. There are a few new Directors that I like, and some old genres I still follow (Godzilla, old slasher reboots, etc.) but I don’t watch much new entertainment. Admittedly, this is because of its extreme Leftward Drift, but I also just think there are too many excellent old movies to watch, to bother about the new stuff.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
  72. Steve Sailer wrote:

    Robert Conquest’s First Law — “Everybody is reactionary on the subjects he knows about” — is also relevant, and indeed Tyler comes to much the same point of view: the more organizations come to emphasize talking rather than actually doing, the better the left will do.

    That’s why I am hammering away on the phrase “parasitic verbalist overclass”: the world is now run, at a micro as well as macro level, by people whose skill set consists in manipulating words.

    To be sure, priests and politicians (the old “throne and altar”) were always people who were verbalists. But nowadays your local moving company may be dominated by a crazy DIE consultant.

    Having interacted with a lot of these people in recent years — ranging from extended family members to university administrators to lawyers — I have come to realize that they truly believe that everyone is just faking it by manipulating language: not just journalists and lawyers and HR apparatchiks, but also farmers and mechanics and engineers. It must just be a miracle that somehow food grows and planes fly despite the fact that the farmers and pilots are just faking it!

    I think this may be what really distinguishes our current elite from earlier elites: older elites knew that the peasants, the blacksmiths, and the miners did real work dealing with a recalcitrant physical reality in which verbal gobbledygook played no role.

    The current elite is so caught up in their own ideology that they no longer really understand that there is a real world outside the Matrix.

    • Agree: Desiderius, rebel yell, donut, res
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @PhysicistDave

    Great comment; thanks, Dave.

    , @Desiderius
    @PhysicistDave

    Great post. Make sure you've read this:

    https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on-bullshit

    , @Rob McX
    @PhysicistDave


    I think this may be what really distinguishes our current elite from earlier elites: older elites knew that the peasants, the blacksmiths, and the miners did real work dealing with a recalcitrant physical reality in which verbal gobbledygook played no role.
     
    True. The elites of bygone days were also aware of how much they depended on people lower down the social scale, especially those working the land. I read somewhere that in ancient Greece it took ten rural dwellers to support one city dweller, and this ratio probably remained unchanged until a couple of centuries ago. Although peasants were in no position to withdraw their services, a random disaster like a bad harvest or a flood could starve the high and the low alike.
    , @Bumpkin
    @PhysicistDave


    the world is now run, at a micro as well as macro level, by people whose skill set consists in manipulating words.
     
    I don't think it's so simple: the corporate parasites can get you fired and Kamala's "words" put a lot of Californians in jail. I think you're right that many of them are lost in a make-believe world of words, but nobody fears their words. It is the existing power superstructure that they have commandeered that is the problem, and yes, part of that takeover was because of their skill with words, but it also took brazenly mucking around in the mud, as with whatever operation Epstein was running with the various billionaires and politicians in his orbit.

    I think this may be what really distinguishes our current elite from earlier elites: older elites knew that the peasants, the blacksmiths, and the miners did real work dealing with a recalcitrant physical reality in which verbal gobbledygook played no role.
     
    This is probably ahistorical: every history I've seen talks about how the ruling class resented and looked down upon the merchants and craftsmen. But it may be worse now.

    The current elite is so caught up in their own ideology that they no longer really understand that there is a real world outside the Matrix.
     
    If it were just them, nobody would care and they would be booted out quickly. The problem is that a significant portion of the populace has fallen for those crazy ideologies too, whether Biden praising CRT or Trump claiming he'd fix everything with "the best people," when he had no clue.

    And the reason that populace probably falls for those words is because they're ignorant of that "real world," either because they're not that bright or are so specialized in their work that they know nothing outside it. This is a much deeper rot and one that the verbalist elites merely exploit, but cannot cause.

    I'm optimistic that the internet is going to change much of that though, because people will have to generalize more and do more on their own. A Lyft driver sets his own hours and can't afford to be surly, unlike the previously protected taxi cab cartels. As more and more professions similarly go freelance online, which we're seeing happen now with journalists and Substack, the previous trend towards large corporations and specialization is reversing.

    Those are inexorable economic trends, but they do have real and positive downstream effects on the values of the populace too.
  73. Please, I beseech all of you to appeal as respectfully as you can muster (watch Mr. Rogers talking to that Senate Cmte for an effective tone) to your community leaders and elected representatives to get informed and make their voices heard and above all get organized to stop this travesty.

    Your lives could literally depend on it. The world can see this. This is not how reserve currency keepers act.

  74. That throne was the polity, Dave. When people say they want to avoid politics they mean that they want a king. And so we have and now we have, or something worse.

  75. tr says:
    @Prester John
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I was going to write that the left tilt of the media pre-dated W&B but...saw your postscript at the end. Totally agree. I once heard some kid "journalist" fresh out of one of the Ivies (where else?) answer in response to the question why he decided to go into journalism that was because he "wanted to make a difference."

    In other words, a True Believer.

    Replies: @tr, @Uncle Dan

    I always want to ask people who “Want to make a difference” or “Change the world” whether it is for the better or for the worse, or does it make a difference to them?

    The way things are phrased makes me think that the intent is to desensitize the listener from the need to ask such impertinent questions.

  76. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bert
    @MEH 0910

    Thanks. Anyone who understands human nature realizes that the backlash is a certainty.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anon

    Anyone who understands human nature realizes that the backlash is a certainty.

    Nah. Anyone who knows history realizes that there will be no backlash. No serious and successful one anyway. As a rule, things need to totally burn before they can be reborn. No backlash against destroyed Russia or South Africa. For that matter, no backlash against ancient Rome slowly failing victim to the same globalist/decadent thinking.

    We are doomed. For the next few generations at the very least.

    • Replies: @Bert
    @Anonymous

    Thanks for your input, Shlomo.

  77. @mmack
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "Reporters without college degrees 50 years ago were a whole lot smarter and did their jobs."

    Because they had editors that read their stories, snarled "This is CRAP! Rewrite it!", and tossed it back in their faces with disdain or outright anger. Constant rejection got rid of the special snowflakes. Those reporters worked their way up the ladder from writing obituaries, covering Parks Department budget meetings, or covering the graveyard crime shift. And their snarling editor worked his way up the same way.

    "If your mother says she loves you, check it out” - Motto of the Chicago City News Bureau.

    "Does it get clicks?" - Journalism today.

    Replies: @Gamecock, @tr

    I assume that 50 years ago the reporters without college degrees were the top of the working class. I assume that now the reporters with college degrees are the dregs of the ruling class.

    That’s a two sigma difference.

  78. @Bert
    @MEH 0910

    Thanks. Anyone who understands human nature realizes that the backlash is a certainty.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anon

    Murray is articulating fear of future backlash. That is, Frontlash.

    But is a fear or a wish?

    Lets just say that the only way it can be articulated is as a fear.

  79. • Replies: @Rob McX
    @MEH 0910

    Are you sure John Goodman didn't sneak into the Capitol dressed in General Milley's clothes to defend critical race theory? Because what's happening these days is crazier than any Coen brothers movie.

    Replies: @black sea

    , @Desiderius
    @MEH 0910

    This is the guy who flipped on Barr the day after Barr saved the Church of the Presidents (America's Notre Dame) from burning, on the basis of a story the media frantically pushed that was recently proven to be fake news. Barr must have smelled a rat since he used troops under his control to protect the White House.

    The question is whether he had flipped long before and was involved in/behind the June 2020 coup attempt. He did walk the beat with Barr and participated in the "photo-op."

    https://twitter.com/bkharnish/status/1407827693723439104?s=20

    Consider how badly they screwed up the Middle East.

    The most glaring problem of all is how utterly ill-equipped Rs are to contest any of this. Unsurprisingly since none of this was taught in Thermodynamics or Contract Law.

    https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1407766880337555460?s=20

    Replies: @LondonBob, @MEH 0910

  80. I challenge the whole premise that institutions become “left-wing.” We say that media is left-wing, but show me a story on crime and it will most likely be a word-for-word rehash of the statement made by cops.

    But the media decide which cop statements to print, and which parts of those statements to leave out.

    “White kills black” is national news, with deliberate emphasis on the racial angle. Occasionally the story remains in the news for years (George Floyd) or even decades (Emmett Till).

    “Black kills white”, and the media deliberately hide any racial angle, for example describing the killers as “youths” and making sure not to print police mugshots. The story runs only in the local press, and for no more than a week.

    “Black kills black” and it isn’t even news.

    This bias has consequences. The popular narrative that all black lives are in peril from racist whites could not possibly survive if the news coverage of all homicides was equal. Instead, this counterfactual narrative informs the political agenda at the highest level, to the extent that people are seriously proposing to defund the police!

    This goes beyond people’s tendency to corrupt institutions by trying to be – and be seen to be – “nice”. BLM and others want to destroy the family and civil society, and anything that supports them – and preferably while being paid to do so. They are Bolshevik in character. Many people in the media are Bolshevik too, and want to burn everything down.

    The situation is wide open for anyone who can challenge these extremely damaging and foolish ideas to enter the political mainstream.

  81. There hasn’t actually been any turn to the Left. What has occurred are 2 fundamental shifts which have sown confusion. First of all there was the fact that as stagflation broke out in 1971 it became clear that there was no longer an easy way of letting economic growth act as a palliative. This has become even more clear in the last half-century as new technology has failed to create the volume of jobs which used to accompany technological breakthroughs. Nowadays a new computer program creates a reason to put more people out of work, instead of the way that a new assembly-line method used to create more jobs.

    Democrats in the 1930s around Roosevelt concentrated heavily on the economy. This is how it came about that AOC can now squeal about “racist redlining.” Although the New Deal certainly did bring economic benefits to blacks as well as whites, it was not cast in racial terms. It was cast in economic terms and that meant that even the most enthusiastic New Dealers sometimes had to draw an economic line.

    But after 1971 Democrats gave up on trying to pretend to offer a program which appealed to working class people. In any sane world this would be recognized as a clear shift to the Right by the Democrats. But that fact was obscured by another separate but parallel event which happened around the same time.

    In the early 20th century when Eugene Debs led the Socialist Party he never spent any time campaigning around blacks and racial issues. Debs had the idea that the proletarian revolution was on its way and that trying to campaign for the abolition of Jim Crow would just be cleaning up the dirt for the haute bourgeoisie. Debs welcomed anyone of any racial background into the party, but never campaigned around issues that would specifically appeal to blacks.

    This brought some criticism from Lenin when the Communist Party was being newly formed. Even here Lenin certainly never endorsed anything like the obsession with race that one sees trumpeted today. Lenin simply saw that Debs was acting a bit naive by failing to raise special issues outside of the pure labor movement.

    For the next half-century the idea became more widespread among would-be socialists that campaigns must be ready to sometimes reach beyond the narrow working class labor force, even though this group remained the prime audience. During the same period there has always been a variety of bourgeois liberals who were not really interested un organized labor but preferred a campaign around issues of race. These liberals then tended to get drawn into the Left.

    A major reason why such liberals were drawn into the Left back then was because the heirs of the old slave-owning class still held a lot of power in the South of that era. If you went traveling across the South in 1910 trying to promote your idea of anti-racism then you quickly found that you needed to try to appeal to working class people, otherwise you might be deprived of an audience. So this meant that people who started out as anti-racist tended to become pro-labor and the same happened in reverse.

    After the victories of the Civil Rights Movement this was no longer the case. By 1971 a rich foundation could freely promote anti-racism anywhere in the US without having to worry that they might really be offending some rich sector of people who might honestly look at the Confederacy with approval. Not only had Civil Rights legislation been passed, but people like the Bush family had created a new layer of Southern rich who were no longer attached to the old heritage. In turn, many of those rich whites who did have some historical linkage with the old plantation-owning class now were willing to integrate themselves into a different model of wealth and lost much of the enthusiasm for hailing the Confederacy.

    So it came about that at the same time that Democrats increasingly moved away from the working class, away from the Left, they simultaneously found it easier to take up cries for racial justice. This became a new in vogue way for the haute bourgeoisie to express their scorn for proletarian commoners. In the old days the newly rich would brag about the number of cars and houses they owned. A new form of class snobbery was to simply scoff at how racist the working class whites were even as one hurried back to your gated community with private security. It is that brand of elitist class-snobbery which is now mislabeled as a “turn to the Left” by commentators.

    • Thanks: Boomthorkell
  82. @Matthew Kelly
    How and why is O'Sullivan's law true? I think "Melvin Udall", who penned this over at Urban Dictionary back in 2011, answered that question quite nicely:

    O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.

    Television shows are the best examples of this. {snip} Charitable foundations are worse but harder to see.

    One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.

    Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.

    Another reason is that the parasitic nature of Liberals/Leftists attracts them to existing money.

    An enterprise can stave off O'Sullivan's Law if their creators keep it in mind and remain vigilant and truthful.
    {snip}

    The Annenberg Foundation was started by a Republican but it didn't take long before O'Sullivan's Law had them handing a domestic terrorist money for educating kids.

    The ACLU, the Ford Foundation and the Episcopal Church all fell to O’Sullivan’s Law.
    by Melvin Udall April 22, 2011
     

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=O%E2%80%99Sullivan%E2%80%99s+Law

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Achmed E. Newman, @Known Fact, @stillCARealist, @Almost Missouri

    One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.

    Yes, this is it. Conservatives are fair-minded and tolerant while leftists are ruthless and intolerant. So while the latter preclude the former, the former inadvertently incubate the latter.

    Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.

    Even more meta and even more true. I have thought this for a long time. In prelapsarian society, leftism simply does not exist. It is literally unthinkable. As society gradually degenerates, leftist notions begin to emerge, but society can still recognize them as the mortal threat they are and so punishes them harshly. But as social degeneration advances, the immune response weakens and leftist notions receive more and more toleration. The gradually more decrepit body politic can no longer fight off pathogens, disease and parasites, and so accepts them as part of the status quo. As the decline accelerates, it even begins to apologize for its former resistance against these threats. In the final stage of degeneration, the pathogens and parasite reign triumphant, raising themselves above the body politic itself, oblivious to their own dependence upon what they consume and despise. Collapse, implosion and societal death are imminent. We are here.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Thanks: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Almost Missouri

    Conservatives can be just as ruthless if not more when their ox is gored. The reason establishment Rs are so silent about the travesties happening now is because they’re behind them.

    Leftism isn’t decay, decay is decay. You guys sound like wine moms on Huff Post.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  83. @Reg Cæsar
    @Hangnail Hans


    Now can someone please explain why the backups in both directions appear to come after the fallen bridge?
     
    This isn't the US Virgins. DC still drives on the right, like Nigeria. The cars on that side have simply turned around, to get out of there. Possibly having been directed to.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Right. How would they be traveling in normal traffic flow on the left? Likely after a while the cops got them turned around and put up cones on the next (previous, originally) on-ramp to make it temporarily an exit ramp.

  84. @Anon7
    The unquestioning and all-in support given to transpersons in the military has doomed those institutions, for two reasons. It's expensive to be trans; the health care costs are ten times those of cishet people. Also, the social environment of the military is now 100% fully supportive from the leaders on down. Social support for transpeople is enforced by MPs.

    These two factors will lead to a 10% trans military within a few years, and they'll be promoted heavily. It's like gays moving to San Francisco.

    It's funny that the Democrats pooh-pooh the conservative argument that citizens have the right to bear arms to force the government take them seriously. The Democrats obviously want the military on their side in a dispute.

    Are the Democrats planning a dispute in which government orders will be backed domestically by the military?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Are the Democrats planning a dispute in which government orders will be backed domestically by the military?

    Yes.

    Next question.

    ——

    But seriously, this isn’t a prediction, this already happened. Federal and federalized troops enforced the rewriting of the Constitution by judicial fiat on Mississippi and Alabama 59 years ago. The 101st Airborne division was deployed to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce that same leftist rewriting of the Constitution 64 years ago (by a revered Republican President!). The Union army burned the South down to enforce the Abolitionist rewriting of the Constitution 162 years ago (another revered Republican President).

    The know they will do it again and want to be sure the military will do their bidding.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Almost Missouri

    Recently Steve asked readers to remind him of some of the memorable terms and concepts he originated. I think the term "frontlash" is original to him.

    When Biden's spokesmen talk about "white supremacy" being the most dangerous potential threat to the nation, I see it as frontlash. The Deep State intends to put into effect more and more policies that will harm whites and benefit non-whites, increasing resentment among whites. Therefore, the Deep State is applying frontlash, declaring that any such resistance will be evidence of dangerous white supremacy and will be crushed.

  85. @El Dato
    It's really a corollary of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy which basically states that any organization will be taken over by the talkers, not the doers because the talkers have time to burn on their little games and are not challenged by reality until it is much too late.

    Add free money from the state to support even more talkers than are physically feasible in a healthy economy, and you are good to go.

    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not "right-wing" at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières. If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @RichardTaylor, @zundel, @Marcus, @Almost Missouri, @megabar

    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not “right-wing” at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières.

    Albert Speer would agree. His memoir was full of anecdotes of Party bosses enriching themselves at the expense of the nation the were supposedly redeeming. He was also very frank about how the bureaucracy (even his own bureacracy) was much worse than even in the WWI-era Kaiserreich.

    If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.

    This is backwards. The Todt Org and the SS were the part of bureaucracy. The old school Wehrmacht brass were those who could still get things done. Which is why Hitler needed them, and why after their mutual trust was broken at the point of the July 1944 bomb plot, the Hitler Reich relentlessly imploded.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    So no bomb plot and Germany wins the war? This after Stalingrad and Normandy?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  86. @Chrisnonymous
    @Hangnail Hans

    On the right side of the divide, the left lane traffic is headed toward the bridge but the right lane traffic away. The traffic appears to be turning around, giving the falseimpression of post-bridge backup.

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

    Thanks. It just seems so very orderly, especially that single file in the middle lanes.

    And to get in line in such a way that the very last car in line is right where the accident happened. They would have to have driven right up to it to get in the very back of the line.

    I guess I’m still not quite getting it. Is it some kind of white thing? Are there that many whites left in Washington D.C.?

    It may be time for me to find a new hobby. iSteve is taking too much of my time lately.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Hangnail Hans

    There are a lot of whites in DC.

    Or maybe the photo is just left/right reversed.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  87. @stillCARealist
    @Matthew Kelly

    As Dr. Laura used to say, "Evil has power because it doesn't have to obey the rules."

    Conservative people are nice and will give way to pushy libs. Occasionally we'll have a pushy one on our side (Trump as the pre-eminent example) and he or she will face plenty of friendly fire.

    In order to combat jerks, you often have to be a jerk yourself, and most right wingers just don't have the stomach for that.

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    In order to combat jerks, you often have to be a jerk yourself, and most right wingers just don’t have the stomach for that.

  88. • Replies: @Jack D
    @Desiderius

    In the USSR, opposition to Party rule was classified as a mental disorder. We are becoming more like the USSR every day.

  89. @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/extradeadjcb/status/1407873449599582210?s=20

    Replies: @Jack D

    In the USSR, opposition to Party rule was classified as a mental disorder. We are becoming more like the USSR every day.

  90. @Almost Missouri
    @El Dato


    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not “right-wing” at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières.
     
    Albert Speer would agree. His memoir was full of anecdotes of Party bosses enriching themselves at the expense of the nation the were supposedly redeeming. He was also very frank about how the bureaucracy (even his own bureacracy) was much worse than even in the WWI-era Kaiserreich.

    If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.
     
    This is backwards. The Todt Org and the SS were the part of bureaucracy. The old school Wehrmacht brass were those who could still get things done. Which is why Hitler needed them, and why after their mutual trust was broken at the point of the July 1944 bomb plot, the Hitler Reich relentlessly imploded.

    Replies: @Jack D

    So no bomb plot and Germany wins the war? This after Stalingrad and Normandy?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D

    Haha, no. Obviously they were going to lose anyway, but after July 1944 what had been a measured, methodical fighting withdrawal became a headlong rush to the rear. Accounts on both sides confirm that German logistics and even determination really began to disintegrate at that point.

    Hitler still managed a counterattack or two (notably at the Battle of the Bulge, which failed but had the secondary effect of scaring the Western Allies into treating the collapsing Reich as if it were more capable than it really was), but at that point they were mostly bluff and had to rely on the most loyal/fanatical formations. There's a reason that the last "German" fighters in Berlin were ... the SS Charlemagne Division (i.e., French).

    Replies: @Jack D

  91. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1407824906381934597

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Desiderius

    Are you sure John Goodman didn’t sneak into the Capitol dressed in General Milley’s clothes to defend critical race theory? Because what’s happening these days is crazier than any Coen brothers movie.

    • Replies: @black sea
    @Rob McX

    Right movie, wrong character:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47kA3BNSOk

  92. @El Dato
    It's really a corollary of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy which basically states that any organization will be taken over by the talkers, not the doers because the talkers have time to burn on their little games and are not challenged by reality until it is much too late.

    Add free money from the state to support even more talkers than are physically feasible in a healthy economy, and you are good to go.

    Interestingly, this also implies that National-Socialism was completely left-wing and not "right-wing" at all. It was a bunch of shitty talkers playing office games and giving themselves medals and brassières. If you needed something done, you would call the Todt Organization or the Waffen SS or whoever, and bypass the brass at all costs.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @RichardTaylor, @zundel, @Marcus, @Almost Missouri, @megabar

    > because the talkers have time to burn on their little games and are not challenged by reality until it is much too late.

    My argument is different. All organizations eventually become large enough that nobody can really directly evaluate what anybody is doing. Rather, they evaluate what people say they are doing (in meetings, presentations, etc).

    Guess who’s better at that — talkers or doers?

  93. @PhysicistDave
    Steve Sailer wrote:

    Robert Conquest’s First Law — “Everybody is reactionary on the subjects he knows about” — is also relevant, and indeed Tyler comes to much the same point of view: the more organizations come to emphasize talking rather than actually doing, the better the left will do.
     
    That's why I am hammering away on the phrase "parasitic verbalist overclass": the world is now run, at a micro as well as macro level, by people whose skill set consists in manipulating words.

    To be sure, priests and politicians (the old "throne and altar") were always people who were verbalists. But nowadays your local moving company may be dominated by a crazy DIE consultant.

    Having interacted with a lot of these people in recent years -- ranging from extended family members to university administrators to lawyers -- I have come to realize that they truly believe that everyone is just faking it by manipulating language: not just journalists and lawyers and HR apparatchiks, but also farmers and mechanics and engineers. It must just be a miracle that somehow food grows and planes fly despite the fact that the farmers and pilots are just faking it!

    I think this may be what really distinguishes our current elite from earlier elites: older elites knew that the peasants, the blacksmiths, and the miners did real work dealing with a recalcitrant physical reality in which verbal gobbledygook played no role.

    The current elite is so caught up in their own ideology that they no longer really understand that there is a real world outside the Matrix.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Desiderius, @Rob McX, @Bumpkin

    Great comment; thanks, Dave.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  94. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1407824906381934597

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Desiderius

    This is the guy who flipped on Barr the day after Barr saved the Church of the Presidents (America’s Notre Dame) from burning, on the basis of a story the media frantically pushed that was recently proven to be fake news. Barr must have smelled a rat since he used troops under his control to protect the White House.

    The question is whether he had flipped long before and was involved in/behind the June 2020 coup attempt. He did walk the beat with Barr and participated in the “photo-op.”

    Consider how badly they screwed up the Middle East.

    The most glaring problem of all is how utterly ill-equipped Rs are to contest any of this. Unsurprisingly since none of this was taught in Thermodynamics or Contract Law.

    • Thanks: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Desiderius

    I tend to think Barr was a good guy, but he never really had control of the DoJ and he wasn't going to start a fight he would never win and for which he would face a high price.

    Why do organisations become left wing, the poster above is right, the left purge their enemies whilst the right don't, just look at what was done in 2016 compared to today in regard to the military, FBI, the DoJ. The left is just more fanatical.

    , @MEH 0910
    @Desiderius

    https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1408250189190598656
    https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1408255582067253251

  95. @Rob McX
    @MEH 0910

    Are you sure John Goodman didn't sneak into the Capitol dressed in General Milley's clothes to defend critical race theory? Because what's happening these days is crazier than any Coen brothers movie.

    Replies: @black sea

    Right movie, wrong character:

  96. @Almost Missouri
    @Matthew Kelly


    One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.
     
    Yes, this is it. Conservatives are fair-minded and tolerant while leftists are ruthless and intolerant. So while the latter preclude the former, the former inadvertently incubate the latter.

    Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.
     
    Even more meta and even more true. I have thought this for a long time. In prelapsarian society, leftism simply does not exist. It is literally unthinkable. As society gradually degenerates, leftist notions begin to emerge, but society can still recognize them as the mortal threat they are and so punishes them harshly. But as social degeneration advances, the immune response weakens and leftist notions receive more and more toleration. The gradually more decrepit body politic can no longer fight off pathogens, disease and parasites, and so accepts them as part of the status quo. As the decline accelerates, it even begins to apologize for its former resistance against these threats. In the final stage of degeneration, the pathogens and parasite reign triumphant, raising themselves above the body politic itself, oblivious to their own dependence upon what they consume and despise. Collapse, implosion and societal death are imminent. We are here.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Conservatives can be just as ruthless if not more when their ox is gored. The reason establishment Rs are so silent about the travesties happening now is because they’re behind them.

    Leftism isn’t decay, decay is decay. You guys sound like wine moms on Huff Post.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Desiderius


    Conservatives can be just as ruthless if not more when their ox is gored. The reason establishment Rs are so silent about the travesties happening now is because they’re behind them.
     
    So in other words, Establishment Rs are not really Conservatives.

    You guys sound like wine moms on Huff Post.
     
    HuffPo is full of wine moms denouncing leftism as decay? Things must have changed over there.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  97. @Rahan
    @Paleo Liberal


    Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.
     
    I still can't get over how easily the West switched from the 20th century format of righwingers seeing Russian spies everywhere, to the 21st century format of leftwingers seeing Russian spies everywhere.

    And everyone's pretending this is fine, this is rational, not some mass psychosis mechanism that keeps shapeshifting. Also the current attempt to "unite the west" with Beijing being the new Third Reich.

    Enough to make you think westerners really should be turned into trannies and replaced by Somalians and Guatemalans. If they're this incapable of independent thought, this susceptible to crude programming, them maybe they are a danger to themselves and the world.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell, @Kratoklastes

    Punishment is brutal, unfortunately…or fortunately, in a cosmic sense. Alas, of course, the suffering and punishment is likely intended to some extent by the very people who are leading this endeavor.

  98. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    What even is "left-wing"? Or "right-wing"? For that reason, I don't think the formulation is all that useful in the long run (although it is useful in the here and now). Someone upthread phrased it better as "talkers vs. doers" - I would've said mediocrities and weasels with faith in the awesome power of expertise and a firm belief that they themselves possess some of that expertise, rather than "talkers" - but the question is, is this a Law? That is, is this something that's true in all societies across all times, or is it only true of ours?

    Put another way: perhaps an organisation becomes left-wing (so to speak) over time because ours is a left-wing society; to be right-wing is to swim against the tide, and any such swimmer will eventually tire out and be pulled back the other way.

    If society is left-wing, then staffing a right-wing organisation with right-wingers is difficult, and becomes more difficult over time. All things being equal, as the organisation ages, the probability that a left-winger will slip through the cracks approaches one; and all things are not equal: any society will seek to become more like itself as it grows and gains strength, if that makes sense. The internal logic of the societal value system will push towards a concentration and strengthening of its values. A society that valued, say, martial skill, would find itself, absent any countervailing force, becoming more martial: if a little bit of martial skill is good, then a lot must be better; if there are intellectual justifications to be made of that state of affairs, there will be incentives to find them, and publicise them, and a paying audience for them; and there will also be incentives for strengthening those justifications.

    A left-wing society will therefore become more left-wing and thus the pool of potential personnel will become more left-wing. And the religious fervour of those outside this right-wing organisation will also grow, and thus whatever persecution the organisation faces will increase. Thus it will become left-wing - but if this was a right-wing society, a left-wing organisation would suffer in the same way.

    Right?

    Replies: @Charlotte

    I think you’re on to something. If we ever had a logical endpoint to the expansion of liberalism, or progressivism, or leftism, or whatever the proper term may be, we’ve forgotten what it was or how to articulate it. Many a basically conservative person has agreed that a little more freedom from oppressive traditional strictures would be a good thing, at least for certain unfortunate individuals, and probably not too harmful to society. But once that goal is obtained, there’s always some more urgent injustice to be remedied, while the conservative, confused, thinks “Wait, I thought we agreed to just this and no more, I thought we had a compromise!” But there was no compromise, just an incremental step leftwards, and if the conservative fails to see that another step is needed, yesterday’s moderate becomes today’s bigot.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Charlotte

    The world is always in need of saving if you don't believe Someone's already saved it.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  99. Conquest’s second/O’Sullivan’s first law is true because it’s illegal to be right-wing. Institutions turn because the government pressures them until they turn. The gun-toting professions resist more, because gun-toting. It leads to self-confidence. (Governments hate it!)

    E.g. there were probably tax advantages for the Ford Foundation going left. Either that or a CIA operative was backed by establishment money and became the board chairman. I know the Harvard endowment suffers from many financial privileges…as long as the regulators know Harvard deserves the privilege, of course.

    Anarcho-tyranny is just so useful. If you’re not on-side, your business/endowment/trust can and will be regulated out of existence. E.g. try to start a non-peer-reviewed journal of science, see how long until they write a book specifically so they can throw it at you. See also: Gab.

  100. @Charlotte
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    I think you’re on to something. If we ever had a logical endpoint to the expansion of liberalism, or progressivism, or leftism, or whatever the proper term may be, we’ve forgotten what it was or how to articulate it. Many a basically conservative person has agreed that a little more freedom from oppressive traditional strictures would be a good thing, at least for certain unfortunate individuals, and probably not too harmful to society. But once that goal is obtained, there’s always some more urgent injustice to be remedied, while the conservative, confused, thinks “Wait, I thought we agreed to just this and no more, I thought we had a compromise!” But there was no compromise, just an incremental step leftwards, and if the conservative fails to see that another step is needed, yesterday’s moderate becomes today’s bigot.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    The world is always in need of saving if you don’t believe Someone’s already saved it.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    That poor patriotic grandma who wanted nothing more than a fair election and put all of us to shame by getting off her couch and petitioning her government for it could use some saving from the Inquisitors terrorizing her and her elected representatives who can’t even be bothered to notice it happening right under their noses.

  101. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    So no bomb plot and Germany wins the war? This after Stalingrad and Normandy?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Haha, no. Obviously they were going to lose anyway, but after July 1944 what had been a measured, methodical fighting withdrawal became a headlong rush to the rear. Accounts on both sides confirm that German logistics and even determination really began to disintegrate at that point.

    Hitler still managed a counterattack or two (notably at the Battle of the Bulge, which failed but had the secondary effect of scaring the Western Allies into treating the collapsing Reich as if it were more capable than it really was), but at that point they were mostly bluff and had to rely on the most loyal/fanatical formations. There’s a reason that the last “German” fighters in Berlin were … the SS Charlemagne Division (i.e., French).

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    If you are going to lose a war anyway, it's better to lose it faster. Losing it slower only increases the damages and human losses to your side.

    For the good of the coming postwar Germany, the generals should have concentrated on holding back the Bolsheviks (the ostensible reason for the war to begin with) and allowed the Americans and British (and nominally the French) to take more territory so as to create facts on the ground in Germany. If they were going to lose anyway (and they were and they knew it) then better to lose to the Western allies.

    Hitler and his hard core inner circle were not only psychopaths but they also had nothing to lose - they were going to hold out until everything around them was rubble because the only thing that awaited them in a postwar Germany was a hangman's rope and Germans did not deserve to live anyway without their wonderfulness. They wanted to do the murder-suicide thing.

    But the Wehrmacht generals had a different equation - most of them were not war criminals nor invested in the Thousand Year Reich as the only possible form of government for Germany. After the failure of the bomb plot they were scared to actively oppose Hitler (an even more immediate hanging awaited them if they did) but they could have (perhaps did) shaped the losses differently. Certainly after the collapse of the Bulge in late January it was all over for sure and whatever they did from that point on just prolonged the agony.

  102. @Desiderius
    @Almost Missouri

    Conservatives can be just as ruthless if not more when their ox is gored. The reason establishment Rs are so silent about the travesties happening now is because they’re behind them.

    Leftism isn’t decay, decay is decay. You guys sound like wine moms on Huff Post.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Conservatives can be just as ruthless if not more when their ox is gored. The reason establishment Rs are so silent about the travesties happening now is because they’re behind them.

    So in other words, Establishment Rs are not really Conservatives.

    You guys sound like wine moms on Huff Post.

    HuffPo is full of wine moms denouncing leftism as decay? Things must have changed over there.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Almost Missouri

    No they go on and on how how we’re to good and nice while the baddies are all ruthless and evil. Can’t say that I have a huge PuffHo sample size but you see same characters replying to regime/pop culture (but I repeat myself) tweets.

    Yes, I’m sure real conservatism has yet to be tried. Now you’re bleeding into tankie rhetoric. You are what you do, and that hasn’t been much for a long time.

    Own it.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  103. @Almost Missouri
    @Desiderius


    Conservatives can be just as ruthless if not more when their ox is gored. The reason establishment Rs are so silent about the travesties happening now is because they’re behind them.
     
    So in other words, Establishment Rs are not really Conservatives.

    You guys sound like wine moms on Huff Post.
     
    HuffPo is full of wine moms denouncing leftism as decay? Things must have changed over there.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    No they go on and on how how we’re to good and nice while the baddies are all ruthless and evil. Can’t say that I have a huge PuffHo sample size but you see same characters replying to regime/pop culture (but I repeat myself) tweets.

    Yes, I’m sure real conservatism has yet to be tried. Now you’re bleeding into tankie rhetoric. You are what you do, and that hasn’t been much for a long time.

    Own it.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Desiderius

    If one group insists "2+2=4" and another group insists "2+2=7", you could say, "They're both alike, so insistent and intransigent!"

    What've you been doing lately?

    Replies: @Desiderius

  104. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Charlotte

    The world is always in need of saving if you don't believe Someone's already saved it.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    That poor patriotic grandma who wanted nothing more than a fair election and put all of us to shame by getting off her couch and petitioning her government for it could use some saving from the Inquisitors terrorizing her and her elected representatives who can’t even be bothered to notice it happening right under their noses.

  105. The class of experts has its own political orientation. It wants a world in which experts run everything.

    That would be a world in which traditional authorities like family and religious, cultural, and national community have no influence whatever. The only authorities would be regulated global markets and supposedly neutral and expert transnational bureaucracies.

  106. A commenter writes:

    I challenge the whole premise that institutions become “left-wing.” We say that media is left-wing, but show me a story on crime and it will most likely be a word-for-word rehash of the statement made by cops. Same goes for stories on national security or science or economics or business. Media defers to the experts until some switch gets thrown and the narrative changes to questioning the experts, usually with support from some new set of experts.

    I disagree with your commenter; at least, I think he misses the key point.

    The mainstream media has been left-wing for decades, but it used to be, until maybe the last 10 -15 years, most apparent in the stories they selected for reporting. Even the New York Times articles were generally well-written and somewhat comprehensive in their coverage of whatever they were reporting.

    Not only is the selection bias so much worse now, but the pieces themselves lack even the pretense of even-handedness.

  107. “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”

    The NRA has moved significantly to the right since the 1950s.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Peter Akuleyev

    That ain’t the right, brother.

    Talk about decay.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Yes, it is a rare counter-example, but it basically took a palace coup to accomplish it, so it doesn't necessarily invalidate the basic drift-to-the-left model.

    And the NRA has itself been a little adrift lately.

    , @Jack D
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights are "explicitly and constitutionally right-wing" so they fall within the exception. There are no leftist countries that constitutionally recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a check on dictatorship and most leftist countries restrict gun ownership to a high degree.

    Just yesterday, as a card carrying leftist, Biden was mocking the very premise of the 2nd Amendment. Even AR's with 100 round magazines aren't going to do it anymore for you white supremacist racists. You're gonna need F-15s and nukes if you want to fight the might of the US Government. So hang it up. He actually said this.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6

    Biden needs to study history more. When the time comes for the regime to collapse, all their planes and nuclear weapons will avail them not.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Kratoklastes

  108. @Peter Akuleyev

    “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”
     
    The NRA has moved significantly to the right since the 1950s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Almost Missouri, @Jack D

    That ain’t the right, brother.

    Talk about decay.

  109. @MEH 0910
    Here's the first YouTube posted segment of the Glenn Loury & Charles Murray discussion:

    The Coming Backlash | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXrMHGsbduA


    Glenn Loury and Charles Murray discuss threats to social stability posed by ideological commitments from the left and the right.
     

    Replies: @Bert, @donut, @MEH 0910

    That was a waste of 15 min.

  110. @Desiderius
    @Almost Missouri

    No they go on and on how how we’re to good and nice while the baddies are all ruthless and evil. Can’t say that I have a huge PuffHo sample size but you see same characters replying to regime/pop culture (but I repeat myself) tweets.

    Yes, I’m sure real conservatism has yet to be tried. Now you’re bleeding into tankie rhetoric. You are what you do, and that hasn’t been much for a long time.

    Own it.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    If one group insists “2+2=4” and another group insists “2+2=7”, you could say, “They’re both alike, so insistent and intransigent!”

    What’ve you been doing lately?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Almost Missouri

    You’re not saying “2+2=4” you’re saying Ds can’t add. No shit. What can you do besides fellate your donors and defy the electorate?

  111. @Peter Akuleyev

    “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”
     
    The NRA has moved significantly to the right since the 1950s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Almost Missouri, @Jack D

    Yes, it is a rare counter-example, but it basically took a palace coup to accomplish it, so it doesn’t necessarily invalidate the basic drift-to-the-left model.

    And the NRA has itself been a little adrift lately.

  112. @Hangnail Hans
    @Chrisnonymous

    Thanks. It just seems so very orderly, especially that single file in the middle lanes.

    And to get in line in such a way that the very last car in line is right where the accident happened. They would have to have driven right up to it to get in the very back of the line.

    I guess I'm still not quite getting it. Is it some kind of white thing? Are there that many whites left in Washington D.C.?

    It may be time for me to find a new hobby. iSteve is taking too much of my time lately.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    There are a lot of whites in DC.

    Or maybe the photo is just left/right reversed.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Almost Missouri

    Or maybe the photo is just left/right reversed.

    I suspected that, but look at the highway sign. It's where you would expect and the lettering is not reversed.

  113. THE RNLI, the charity that funds and runs lifeboats in the UK and Southern Ireland, is an example.

    All their ads are bold lifeboatmen rushing to the rescue of drowning sailors in the home waters around the British Isles but:

    “The Creches for Bangladesh programme helps reduce children’s risk of drowning by ensuring they have close supervision throughout the day. About 40 children a day die from drowning in Bangladesh. Access to a free creche place reduces a child’s risk of drowning by an incredible 82%.”

    82% eh?

  114. That’s because there is no It’s OK To Be White thinktank, much less a White Men Are Good thinktank. If one were to hang out their shingle on K Street, it would be burned to the ground by an indignant mob by the next dawn, and the smoking hulk would be condemned by both houses of Congress by 5PM the next day.

    Reality gets the last word. Even if it speaks a foreign language.

  115. @Almost Missouri
    @Desiderius

    If one group insists "2+2=4" and another group insists "2+2=7", you could say, "They're both alike, so insistent and intransigent!"

    What've you been doing lately?

    Replies: @Desiderius

    You’re not saying “2+2=4” you’re saying Ds can’t add. No shit. What can you do besides fellate your donors and defy the electorate?

  116. @Almost Missouri
    @Anon7


    Are the Democrats planning a dispute in which government orders will be backed domestically by the military?
     
    Yes.

    Next question.

    ------

    But seriously, this isn't a prediction, this already happened. Federal and federalized troops enforced the rewriting of the Constitution by judicial fiat on Mississippi and Alabama 59 years ago. The 101st Airborne division was deployed to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce that same leftist rewriting of the Constitution 64 years ago (by a revered Republican President!). The Union army burned the South down to enforce the Abolitionist rewriting of the Constitution 162 years ago (another revered Republican President).

    The know they will do it again and want to be sure the military will do their bidding.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    Recently Steve asked readers to remind him of some of the memorable terms and concepts he originated. I think the term “frontlash” is original to him.

    When Biden’s spokesmen talk about “white supremacy” being the most dangerous potential threat to the nation, I see it as frontlash. The Deep State intends to put into effect more and more policies that will harm whites and benefit non-whites, increasing resentment among whites. Therefore, the Deep State is applying frontlash, declaring that any such resistance will be evidence of dangerous white supremacy and will be crushed.

  117. @Almost Missouri
    @Hangnail Hans

    There are a lot of whites in DC.

    Or maybe the photo is just left/right reversed.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    Or maybe the photo is just left/right reversed.

    I suspected that, but look at the highway sign. It’s where you would expect and the lettering is not reversed.

  118. @Chrisnonymous

    I suspect that scared the heck out of Democrats: they’ve got 98% of the institutions more or less on their side, but NOT the two you’d most want to have in your foxhole.
     
    Eloi and Morlocks, stage 1.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    The Bantu are the Morlocks. You’re the Eloi.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Desiderius

    Lol, no. Go re-read the book.

    Clue: The Morlocks actually made stuff.

    Wells was a 19th century Socialist. "Time Machine" is an extended political tract, at one level. The story doesn't force fit into 21st century politics, not at all.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  119. @Prester John
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I was going to write that the left tilt of the media pre-dated W&B but...saw your postscript at the end. Totally agree. I once heard some kid "journalist" fresh out of one of the Ivies (where else?) answer in response to the question why he decided to go into journalism that was because he "wanted to make a difference."

    In other words, a True Believer.

    Replies: @tr, @Uncle Dan

    The world is divided between those who “want to make a difference “ (ie “left wingers “) and those who want to support their families and enjoy life (it’s ungrateful not to), the normies. The former are usually victorious because the latter are too busy living life to pay attention. Until the world-savers mess with The Gods of The Copybook Headings.

  120. @Desiderius
    @Chrisnonymous

    The Bantu are the Morlocks. You’re the Eloi.

    Replies: @anon

    Lol, no. Go re-read the book.

    Clue: The Morlocks actually made stuff.

    Wells was a 19th century Socialist. “Time Machine” is an extended political tract, at one level. The story doesn’t force fit into 21st century politics, not at all.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @anon

    I stand by the analogy. I'm talking about anthropology not politics.

    Who fears whom?

    Replies: @anon

  121. @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D

    Haha, no. Obviously they were going to lose anyway, but after July 1944 what had been a measured, methodical fighting withdrawal became a headlong rush to the rear. Accounts on both sides confirm that German logistics and even determination really began to disintegrate at that point.

    Hitler still managed a counterattack or two (notably at the Battle of the Bulge, which failed but had the secondary effect of scaring the Western Allies into treating the collapsing Reich as if it were more capable than it really was), but at that point they were mostly bluff and had to rely on the most loyal/fanatical formations. There's a reason that the last "German" fighters in Berlin were ... the SS Charlemagne Division (i.e., French).

    Replies: @Jack D

    If you are going to lose a war anyway, it’s better to lose it faster. Losing it slower only increases the damages and human losses to your side.

    For the good of the coming postwar Germany, the generals should have concentrated on holding back the Bolsheviks (the ostensible reason for the war to begin with) and allowed the Americans and British (and nominally the French) to take more territory so as to create facts on the ground in Germany. If they were going to lose anyway (and they were and they knew it) then better to lose to the Western allies.

    Hitler and his hard core inner circle were not only psychopaths but they also had nothing to lose – they were going to hold out until everything around them was rubble because the only thing that awaited them in a postwar Germany was a hangman’s rope and Germans did not deserve to live anyway without their wonderfulness. They wanted to do the murder-suicide thing.

    But the Wehrmacht generals had a different equation – most of them were not war criminals nor invested in the Thousand Year Reich as the only possible form of government for Germany. After the failure of the bomb plot they were scared to actively oppose Hitler (an even more immediate hanging awaited them if they did) but they could have (perhaps did) shaped the losses differently. Certainly after the collapse of the Bulge in late January it was all over for sure and whatever they did from that point on just prolonged the agony.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  122. @Anonymous
    @Bert


    Anyone who understands human nature realizes that the backlash is a certainty.
     
    Nah. Anyone who knows history realizes that there will be no backlash. No serious and successful one anyway. As a rule, things need to totally burn before they can be reborn. No backlash against destroyed Russia or South Africa. For that matter, no backlash against ancient Rome slowly failing victim to the same globalist/decadent thinking.

    We are doomed. For the next few generations at the very least.

    Replies: @Bert

    Thanks for your input, Shlomo.

  123. @Peter Akuleyev

    “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”
     
    The NRA has moved significantly to the right since the 1950s.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Almost Missouri, @Jack D

    Gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights are “explicitly and constitutionally right-wing” so they fall within the exception. There are no leftist countries that constitutionally recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a check on dictatorship and most leftist countries restrict gun ownership to a high degree.

    Just yesterday, as a card carrying leftist, Biden was mocking the very premise of the 2nd Amendment. Even AR’s with 100 round magazines aren’t going to do it anymore for you white supremacist racists. You’re gonna need F-15s and nukes if you want to fight the might of the US Government. So hang it up. He actually said this.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6

    Biden needs to study history more. When the time comes for the regime to collapse, all their planes and nuclear weapons will avail them not.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @anon
    @Jack D

    Biden needs to study history more.

    It's Thursday. Today he gets pudding.

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Biden needs to study history more.

    No, he doesn't. He'll forget it the next day.

    , @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @Jack D

    The Japanese quickly banned guns when they appeared there, as 'coward's weapons'. Sums it up nicely. The Freudian angle is pretty strong, too.

    , @Kratoklastes
    @Jack D


    You’re gonna need F-15s and nukes if you want to fight the might of the US Government.
     
    The Viet Cong, the Taliban and the 'skinnies' in Mogadishu didn't need anything much more than light infantry weapons to 'fight the might' of the US Death Machine. The US military hasn't won against a near-peer enemy since 1812, and even that was a fustercluck (the US has been on winning sides since then, but it was never the sine qua non).

    4G War, baby... the locals always win. If only R. E. Lee had gone full "insurgency" (but he would have considered that ungentlemanly, I bet).

    Ivan Arreguin-Toft's "How The Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict" (International Security, V ol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 93–128 ) was a good little paper (free PDF can be had from Harvard) - so good he expanded it to book-length.

    John Robb and Bill Lind have also written some good stuff on why COIN is always doomed to failure if you're on the insurgents' home turf and you shouldn't be there.
  124. @Jack D
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights are "explicitly and constitutionally right-wing" so they fall within the exception. There are no leftist countries that constitutionally recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a check on dictatorship and most leftist countries restrict gun ownership to a high degree.

    Just yesterday, as a card carrying leftist, Biden was mocking the very premise of the 2nd Amendment. Even AR's with 100 round magazines aren't going to do it anymore for you white supremacist racists. You're gonna need F-15s and nukes if you want to fight the might of the US Government. So hang it up. He actually said this.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6

    Biden needs to study history more. When the time comes for the regime to collapse, all their planes and nuclear weapons will avail them not.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Kratoklastes

    Biden needs to study history more.

    It’s Thursday. Today he gets pudding.

  125. @Jack D
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights are "explicitly and constitutionally right-wing" so they fall within the exception. There are no leftist countries that constitutionally recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a check on dictatorship and most leftist countries restrict gun ownership to a high degree.

    Just yesterday, as a card carrying leftist, Biden was mocking the very premise of the 2nd Amendment. Even AR's with 100 round magazines aren't going to do it anymore for you white supremacist racists. You're gonna need F-15s and nukes if you want to fight the might of the US Government. So hang it up. He actually said this.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6

    Biden needs to study history more. When the time comes for the regime to collapse, all their planes and nuclear weapons will avail them not.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Kratoklastes

    Biden needs to study history more.

    No, he doesn’t. He’ll forget it the next day.

  126. @PhysicistDave
    Steve Sailer wrote:

    Robert Conquest’s First Law — “Everybody is reactionary on the subjects he knows about” — is also relevant, and indeed Tyler comes to much the same point of view: the more organizations come to emphasize talking rather than actually doing, the better the left will do.
     
    That's why I am hammering away on the phrase "parasitic verbalist overclass": the world is now run, at a micro as well as macro level, by people whose skill set consists in manipulating words.

    To be sure, priests and politicians (the old "throne and altar") were always people who were verbalists. But nowadays your local moving company may be dominated by a crazy DIE consultant.

    Having interacted with a lot of these people in recent years -- ranging from extended family members to university administrators to lawyers -- I have come to realize that they truly believe that everyone is just faking it by manipulating language: not just journalists and lawyers and HR apparatchiks, but also farmers and mechanics and engineers. It must just be a miracle that somehow food grows and planes fly despite the fact that the farmers and pilots are just faking it!

    I think this may be what really distinguishes our current elite from earlier elites: older elites knew that the peasants, the blacksmiths, and the miners did real work dealing with a recalcitrant physical reality in which verbal gobbledygook played no role.

    The current elite is so caught up in their own ideology that they no longer really understand that there is a real world outside the Matrix.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Desiderius, @Rob McX, @Bumpkin

  127. Biden slept thru the 20th century. It was made abundantly clear in VietNam that you can’t hold territory with jets.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @Gamecock

    Yes, but you CAN destroy the place and kill whole lots of 'gooks'. Such jolly fun, and profitable!

  128. @Peter Johnson
    The role of personal tastes toward career choices acts as a powerful sorting mechanism. Individuals whose personal tastes tilt them toward careers in public-activity institutions, like NGOs and various government departments, also have left-leaning views and left-typical personality profiles. An analogous sorting mechanism operates in the mainstream media -- a reporting career attracts personality types that want to "fight the powers".

    Once the left-leaning bias of an institution is in place, a secondary sorting mechanism operates: individuals want to join an organization where the majority share their views. That serves to strengthen the institutional bias.

    This is not the complete explanation, of course. It is a component of the full explanation.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @AnotherDad, @YetAnotherAnon, @Mulga Mumblebrain

    “Individuals whose personal tastes tilt them toward careers in public-activity institutions, like NGOs and various government departments, also have left-leaning views and left-typical personality profiles.”

    I don’t know. I think it’s just where the power is for some people. I met a public-school rugby type last week, just finished finals in International History, looking for an NGO or UN job.

    Mind you, pretty much anyone who’s spent 3 or 4 years at uni now will “have left-leaning views” – it’s in the air they breathe there, and any opposition is ruthlessly crushed.

  129. He doesn’t consider himself subordinate to non-deracinated whites or those elected by them. Their views are merely white rage (i.e. white noise).

    That is the problem.

  130. @MEH 0910
    Here's the first YouTube posted segment of the Glenn Loury & Charles Murray discussion:

    The Coming Backlash | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXrMHGsbduA


    Glenn Loury and Charles Murray discuss threats to social stability posed by ideological commitments from the left and the right.
     

    Replies: @Bert, @donut, @MEH 0910

    Here’s the next posted segment:

    Grappling with Genetic Variation | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show

    Glenn Loury and Charles Murray discuss genetic differences within and between populations.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    ...and here finally is the entire discussion:

    Facing Reality | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqgUclg7-Lk


    0:00 Intro
    1:37 How Charles deals with his notoriety
    5:26 Charles's new book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America
    13:49 Grappling with the fact of group disparities
    21:04 Threats from the left, threats from the right
    27:33 The shift in white attitudes toward race since the 1950s
    35:11 What would happen if white people revolted?
    41:13 Charles: Black people are not genetically inferior
    50:36 Why small differences in ability can have major consequences
    54:29 Charles: We need universal, not race-based, public policy solutions

    Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University) and Charles Murray (AEI, The Bell Curve). Recorded June 1, 2021.
     
    Also can be seen at Bloggingheads.tv:
    https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/61888
  131. @PhysicistDave
    Steve Sailer wrote:

    Robert Conquest’s First Law — “Everybody is reactionary on the subjects he knows about” — is also relevant, and indeed Tyler comes to much the same point of view: the more organizations come to emphasize talking rather than actually doing, the better the left will do.
     
    That's why I am hammering away on the phrase "parasitic verbalist overclass": the world is now run, at a micro as well as macro level, by people whose skill set consists in manipulating words.

    To be sure, priests and politicians (the old "throne and altar") were always people who were verbalists. But nowadays your local moving company may be dominated by a crazy DIE consultant.

    Having interacted with a lot of these people in recent years -- ranging from extended family members to university administrators to lawyers -- I have come to realize that they truly believe that everyone is just faking it by manipulating language: not just journalists and lawyers and HR apparatchiks, but also farmers and mechanics and engineers. It must just be a miracle that somehow food grows and planes fly despite the fact that the farmers and pilots are just faking it!

    I think this may be what really distinguishes our current elite from earlier elites: older elites knew that the peasants, the blacksmiths, and the miners did real work dealing with a recalcitrant physical reality in which verbal gobbledygook played no role.

    The current elite is so caught up in their own ideology that they no longer really understand that there is a real world outside the Matrix.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Desiderius, @Rob McX, @Bumpkin

    I think this may be what really distinguishes our current elite from earlier elites: older elites knew that the peasants, the blacksmiths, and the miners did real work dealing with a recalcitrant physical reality in which verbal gobbledygook played no role.

    True. The elites of bygone days were also aware of how much they depended on people lower down the social scale, especially those working the land. I read somewhere that in ancient Greece it took ten rural dwellers to support one city dweller, and this ratio probably remained unchanged until a couple of centuries ago. Although peasants were in no position to withdraw their services, a random disaster like a bad harvest or a flood could starve the high and the low alike.

  132. @anon
    @Desiderius

    Lol, no. Go re-read the book.

    Clue: The Morlocks actually made stuff.

    Wells was a 19th century Socialist. "Time Machine" is an extended political tract, at one level. The story doesn't force fit into 21st century politics, not at all.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    I stand by the analogy. I’m talking about anthropology not politics.

    Who fears whom?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Desiderius

    I stand by the analogy.

    Fail.

    I’m talking about anthropology not politics.

    Lol, ask Franz Boas how to separate them now.

    Who fears whom?

    Who feeds whom?

    Replies: @Desiderius

  133. @Alden
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The families have no control. Henry Ford 2 resigned from the foundation because of its leftist communist leanings. Supposedly the family has no control at all. It’s basically a big tax deduction for the family. Ford Foundation was responsible for Betty Friedan Gloria Steinem and feminazis

    The purpose was not to be mean and cruel to men. The purpose was to increase the labor force by 1/3 or more by sending all the married women back to work.

    Thus increasing the labor force and driving wages down to reverse the advances workers had made in the 20th century.

    And cubicle coolies with BAs MAs BSs MSs and MBAs are workers whose wages were driven down by Ford and Rockefeller Foundations invention of feminazism

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Fight beats flight.

    Don’t resign, especially from your own foundation for God’s sake. Honor your ancestors.

  134. @Paleo Liberal
    There are exceptions to every rule. Especially if there is big money at stake.

    One notable exception is the formerly respectable National Rifle Association. Until about 50-60 years ago, the organization was a mostly gun safety organization run by hunters. In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Then it went to being a lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers mascarading as a gun owners organization. It went from being apolitical to the far right of the GOP.

    It is now one of the most corrupt of the major organizations in this country. I am a left winger, and I will admit that quite a few left wing organizations are completely corrupt. But the NRA is one of the very worst. Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @anon, @Rahan, @JMcG, @Joe Stalin, @Alden, @TWS, @Hibernian

    In those days a gun owner was as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican.

    Yea, when a lot of the South was still yellow dog Democratic.

  135. @Desiderius
    @anon

    I stand by the analogy. I'm talking about anthropology not politics.

    Who fears whom?

    Replies: @anon

    I stand by the analogy.

    Fail.

    I’m talking about anthropology not politics.

    Lol, ask Franz Boas how to separate them now.

    Who fears whom?

    Who feeds whom?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @anon


    Lol, ask Franz Boas how to separate them now.
     
    Don't need to. Can't have politics without a polity. The dudes abide.

    Who feeds whom?
     
    You sure you want a waistline battle hotshot? I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.
  136. @anon
    @Desiderius

    I stand by the analogy.

    Fail.

    I’m talking about anthropology not politics.

    Lol, ask Franz Boas how to separate them now.

    Who fears whom?

    Who feeds whom?

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Lol, ask Franz Boas how to separate them now.

    Don’t need to. Can’t have politics without a polity. The dudes abide.

    Who feeds whom?

    You sure you want a waistline battle hotshot? I’ll take that bet in a heartbeat.

  137. Biden needs to study history more. When the time comes for the regime to collapse, all their planes and nuclear weapons will avail them not.

    And when will this time come? In another 50 years? It’s already too late for you guys more than 50% of the under 18’s aren’t white, to update a metaphor that bullet has left its chamber. And even if your d’day comes very early before you’re bundled into your retirement homes what next? Do you guys think that tens of millions of you(median age/average age 40 plus) are going to come out with your weapons and declare war on the feds and have your grand insurrection? They say that that when history repeats itself the second time it will be a farce. The first time you guys took up arms against the feds protesting against the overwhelming social changes it took 4 years of bloody fighting to put you down this time it won’t even last 4 weeks. At heart you’re all a bunch of poseurs, larping losers who don’t have the stomach(ha ha) for a fight, no heart or will for such grand tasks. It will be another shitshow like your capitol hill ‘insurrection’.

    Fantasizing is free go ahead and indulge yourself.

  138. @Peter Johnson
    The role of personal tastes toward career choices acts as a powerful sorting mechanism. Individuals whose personal tastes tilt them toward careers in public-activity institutions, like NGOs and various government departments, also have left-leaning views and left-typical personality profiles. An analogous sorting mechanism operates in the mainstream media -- a reporting career attracts personality types that want to "fight the powers".

    Once the left-leaning bias of an institution is in place, a secondary sorting mechanism operates: individuals want to join an organization where the majority share their views. That serves to strengthen the institutional bias.

    This is not the complete explanation, of course. It is a component of the full explanation.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @AnotherDad, @YetAnotherAnon, @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Certainly-you either enjoy or tolerate a ‘career’ based on exploitation and theft, or you do not. Simples.

  139. @Gamecock
    Biden slept thru the 20th century. It was made abundantly clear in VietNam that you can't hold territory with jets.

    Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Yes, but you CAN destroy the place and kill whole lots of ‘gooks’. Such jolly fun, and profitable!

  140. @Jack D
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights are "explicitly and constitutionally right-wing" so they fall within the exception. There are no leftist countries that constitutionally recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a check on dictatorship and most leftist countries restrict gun ownership to a high degree.

    Just yesterday, as a card carrying leftist, Biden was mocking the very premise of the 2nd Amendment. Even AR's with 100 round magazines aren't going to do it anymore for you white supremacist racists. You're gonna need F-15s and nukes if you want to fight the might of the US Government. So hang it up. He actually said this.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6

    Biden needs to study history more. When the time comes for the regime to collapse, all their planes and nuclear weapons will avail them not.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Kratoklastes

    The Japanese quickly banned guns when they appeared there, as ‘coward’s weapons’. Sums it up nicely. The Freudian angle is pretty strong, too.

  141. @Desiderius
    @MEH 0910

    This is the guy who flipped on Barr the day after Barr saved the Church of the Presidents (America's Notre Dame) from burning, on the basis of a story the media frantically pushed that was recently proven to be fake news. Barr must have smelled a rat since he used troops under his control to protect the White House.

    The question is whether he had flipped long before and was involved in/behind the June 2020 coup attempt. He did walk the beat with Barr and participated in the "photo-op."

    https://twitter.com/bkharnish/status/1407827693723439104?s=20

    Consider how badly they screwed up the Middle East.

    The most glaring problem of all is how utterly ill-equipped Rs are to contest any of this. Unsurprisingly since none of this was taught in Thermodynamics or Contract Law.

    https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1407766880337555460?s=20

    Replies: @LondonBob, @MEH 0910

    I tend to think Barr was a good guy, but he never really had control of the DoJ and he wasn’t going to start a fight he would never win and for which he would face a high price.

    Why do organisations become left wing, the poster above is right, the left purge their enemies whilst the right don’t, just look at what was done in 2016 compared to today in regard to the military, FBI, the DoJ. The left is just more fanatical.

  142. Agitator’s Law: Sociopaths rise to the top.

    Marxism, which is just feudalism with periodic fresh coats of paint, is the vehicle. Sociopaths leading lemming cult members. Western civilization has been subdued by weaponizing “You got the cooties! You got the cooties!”. Somebody wake me up when the masses of white men find their balls.

  143. @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    Here's the next posted segment:

    Grappling with Genetic Variation | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xBOlPodYHU


    Glenn Loury and Charles Murray discuss genetic differences within and between populations.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    …and here finally is the entire discussion:

    Facing Reality | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show

    0:00 Intro
    1:37 How Charles deals with his notoriety
    5:26 Charles’s new book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America
    13:49 Grappling with the fact of group disparities
    21:04 Threats from the left, threats from the right
    27:33 The shift in white attitudes toward race since the 1950s
    35:11 What would happen if white people revolted?
    41:13 Charles: Black people are not genetically inferior
    50:36 Why small differences in ability can have major consequences
    54:29 Charles: We need universal, not race-based, public policy solutions

    Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University) and Charles Murray (AEI, The Bell Curve). Recorded June 1, 2021.

    Also can be seen at Bloggingheads.tv:
    https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/61888

    • Thanks: res
  144. When the most known socialist in the USA, like Bernie and Pocahontas, discuss new wealth/estate/capital gain taxes, they never ever mention reforming the gigantic tax loop hole of the ultra affluent. That is the 503C/Non Profit institution/Education complex exemption, donate your wealth to these institutions and not pay capital gains or estate taxes. Plus you can get additional PR bang for the buck if you create your own foundation say like the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.

    Henry Ford may have been an anti-Semite, but the Ford Foundation has paid for that families guilt many times over and will continue to so, going forward. Obviously this is why progressives never want to close this loop hole as it’s a huge subsidy to left leaning institutions even if they did not start out that way. Bush type Republican’s seem to keep a blind eye to this phenomenon or maybe if they take those exceptions away, they’ll be forced to start taxing churches.

    Philosophical question, if your truly giving, why to you need a tax incentive?

  145. @Desiderius
    @MEH 0910

    This is the guy who flipped on Barr the day after Barr saved the Church of the Presidents (America's Notre Dame) from burning, on the basis of a story the media frantically pushed that was recently proven to be fake news. Barr must have smelled a rat since he used troops under his control to protect the White House.

    The question is whether he had flipped long before and was involved in/behind the June 2020 coup attempt. He did walk the beat with Barr and participated in the "photo-op."

    https://twitter.com/bkharnish/status/1407827693723439104?s=20

    Consider how badly they screwed up the Middle East.

    The most glaring problem of all is how utterly ill-equipped Rs are to contest any of this. Unsurprisingly since none of this was taught in Thermodynamics or Contract Law.

    https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1407766880337555460?s=20

    Replies: @LondonBob, @MEH 0910

  146. Coleman Hughes and Charles Murray:

    The Consequences of the Race & IQ Discourse with Charles Murray

    This is an excerpt of my conversation with Charles Murray.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    ...and here finally is the entire episode:

    Coleman Hughes on The Perils of Race Science with Charles Murray [S2 Ep.21]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE5QcD_12fQ


    Welcome to another episode of Conversations with Coleman.

    My guest today requires a longer than normal preamble. I'm speaking with Charles Murray, who is a Political Scientist, Writer, and W.H. Brady scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Murray has been a controversial figure throughout his whole career, but especially since the publication of "The Bell Curve" in the '90s. The most controversial claim in that book was that the mean IQ gap between black and white Americans is partly genetic in origin, meaning it cannot be fully closed by changing the environment in which black kids grow up. As you'll hear in the podcast, I suspect Murray is wrong about this and that huge cognitive changes are possible in the long run for black America by means of environmental interventions.

    I did not have Murray on to rehash the empirical claims he made in The Bell Curve. I had him on to discuss his new book, "Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America". This book has a slightly different emphasis than The Bell Curve. In facing reality, Murray argues that we have to face two truths about race in America, or else the American experiment is doomed. These two truths, according to Murray, are that different races have different mean levels of cognitive ability and that different races have different crime rates. Murray believes that the only way to fight back against the idea that America is a racist nation and to fight against the proliferation of race-based public policy is to bring his empirical claims from The Bell Curve into the mainstream. Now, I strongly disagree with Murray about this, as you'll hear....
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  147. @Rahan
    @Paleo Liberal


    Convicted felons and Russian spies running your organization doesn’t inspire confidence.
     
    I still can't get over how easily the West switched from the 20th century format of righwingers seeing Russian spies everywhere, to the 21st century format of leftwingers seeing Russian spies everywhere.

    And everyone's pretending this is fine, this is rational, not some mass psychosis mechanism that keeps shapeshifting. Also the current attempt to "unite the west" with Beijing being the new Third Reich.

    Enough to make you think westerners really should be turned into trannies and replaced by Somalians and Guatemalans. If they're this incapable of independent thought, this susceptible to crude programming, them maybe they are a danger to themselves and the world.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell, @Kratoklastes

    If they’re this incapable of independent thought, this susceptible to crude programming, them maybe they are a danger to themselves and the world.

    Aldous Huxley was far more prophetic that people give credit for. Well before he wrote Brave New World, he was quite the Young Eugenicist – here’s an example from 1927…

    “All the resources of science are applied in order that imbecility may flourish and vulgarity cover the whole earth. That they are rapidly doing so must be obvious to anyone who glances at a popular picture paper, looks at a popular film, listens to popular music on the radio or phonograph” (from “The Outlook for American Culture: Some Reflections on a Machine Age,” Harper’s Magazine, August 1927)

    and he pulled fewer punches in private correspondence, as an excerpt from a 1933 letter to Glyn Roberts shows…

    About 99.5% of the entire population of the planet are as stupid and philistine…as the great masses of the English. The important thing, it seems to me, is not to attack the 99.5%…but to try to see that the 0.5% survives, keeps its quality up to the highest possible level, and, if possible, dominates the rest. The imbecility of the 99.5% is appalling — but after all, what else can you expect?

    The views, preferences and opinions of the bottom 99.5% of society are currently given more exposure than was the case in the period BSM (Before Social Media). That’s the only difference between now and the pre-WWII period through which Huxley lived: nowadays the Village Idiot has Instagram and Twitter.

  148. @Jack D
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights are "explicitly and constitutionally right-wing" so they fall within the exception. There are no leftist countries that constitutionally recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a check on dictatorship and most leftist countries restrict gun ownership to a high degree.

    Just yesterday, as a card carrying leftist, Biden was mocking the very premise of the 2nd Amendment. Even AR's with 100 round magazines aren't going to do it anymore for you white supremacist racists. You're gonna need F-15s and nukes if you want to fight the might of the US Government. So hang it up. He actually said this.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6

    Biden needs to study history more. When the time comes for the regime to collapse, all their planes and nuclear weapons will avail them not.

    Replies: @anon, @Art Deco, @Mulga Mumblebrain, @Kratoklastes

    You’re gonna need F-15s and nukes if you want to fight the might of the US Government.

    The Viet Cong, the Taliban and the ‘skinnies’ in Mogadishu didn’t need anything much more than light infantry weapons to ‘fight the might’ of the US Death Machine. The US military hasn’t won against a near-peer enemy since 1812, and even that was a fustercluck (the US has been on winning sides since then, but it was never the sine qua non).

    4G War, baby… the locals always win. If only R. E. Lee had gone full “insurgency” (but he would have considered that ungentlemanly, I bet).

    Ivan Arreguin-Toft’s “How The Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict” (International Security, V ol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 93–128 ) was a good little paper (free PDF can be had from Harvard) – so good he expanded it to book-length.

    John Robb and Bill Lind have also written some good stuff on why COIN is always doomed to failure if you’re on the insurgents’ home turf and you shouldn’t be there.

  149. • Replies: @Patrick McNally
    @MEH 0910

    Is there any evidence to suggest that this was done by a white person? I don't in principle object to smashing such statues, but in the area of NYC it's hard for me to imagine most white people who live there doing this.

  150. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/LionBlogosphere/status/1408804588111732739

    Replies: @Patrick McNally

    Is there any evidence to suggest that this was done by a white person? I don’t in principle object to smashing such statues, but in the area of NYC it’s hard for me to imagine most white people who live there doing this.

  151. • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    Facing "Facing Reality" | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter | The Glenn Show
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNFGAwCAiAE


    Glenn Loury and John McWhorter debate the merits of Charles Murray's new book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  152. @PhysicistDave
    Steve Sailer wrote:

    Robert Conquest’s First Law — “Everybody is reactionary on the subjects he knows about” — is also relevant, and indeed Tyler comes to much the same point of view: the more organizations come to emphasize talking rather than actually doing, the better the left will do.
     
    That's why I am hammering away on the phrase "parasitic verbalist overclass": the world is now run, at a micro as well as macro level, by people whose skill set consists in manipulating words.

    To be sure, priests and politicians (the old "throne and altar") were always people who were verbalists. But nowadays your local moving company may be dominated by a crazy DIE consultant.

    Having interacted with a lot of these people in recent years -- ranging from extended family members to university administrators to lawyers -- I have come to realize that they truly believe that everyone is just faking it by manipulating language: not just journalists and lawyers and HR apparatchiks, but also farmers and mechanics and engineers. It must just be a miracle that somehow food grows and planes fly despite the fact that the farmers and pilots are just faking it!

    I think this may be what really distinguishes our current elite from earlier elites: older elites knew that the peasants, the blacksmiths, and the miners did real work dealing with a recalcitrant physical reality in which verbal gobbledygook played no role.

    The current elite is so caught up in their own ideology that they no longer really understand that there is a real world outside the Matrix.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Desiderius, @Rob McX, @Bumpkin

    the world is now run, at a micro as well as macro level, by people whose skill set consists in manipulating words.

    I don’t think it’s so simple: the corporate parasites can get you fired and Kamala’s “words” put a lot of Californians in jail. I think you’re right that many of them are lost in a make-believe world of words, but nobody fears their words. It is the existing power superstructure that they have commandeered that is the problem, and yes, part of that takeover was because of their skill with words, but it also took brazenly mucking around in the mud, as with whatever operation Epstein was running with the various billionaires and politicians in his orbit.

    I think this may be what really distinguishes our current elite from earlier elites: older elites knew that the peasants, the blacksmiths, and the miners did real work dealing with a recalcitrant physical reality in which verbal gobbledygook played no role.

    This is probably ahistorical: every history I’ve seen talks about how the ruling class resented and looked down upon the merchants and craftsmen. But it may be worse now.

    The current elite is so caught up in their own ideology that they no longer really understand that there is a real world outside the Matrix.

    If it were just them, nobody would care and they would be booted out quickly. The problem is that a significant portion of the populace has fallen for those crazy ideologies too, whether Biden praising CRT or Trump claiming he’d fix everything with “the best people,” when he had no clue.

    And the reason that populace probably falls for those words is because they’re ignorant of that “real world,” either because they’re not that bright or are so specialized in their work that they know nothing outside it. This is a much deeper rot and one that the verbalist elites merely exploit, but cannot cause.

    I’m optimistic that the internet is going to change much of that though, because people will have to generalize more and do more on their own. A Lyft driver sets his own hours and can’t afford to be surly, unlike the previously protected taxi cab cartels. As more and more professions similarly go freelance online, which we’re seeing happen now with journalists and Substack, the previous trend towards large corporations and specialization is reversing.

    Those are inexorable economic trends, but they do have real and positive downstream effects on the values of the populace too.

  153. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/GlennLoury/status/1410371566572036096

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    Facing “Facing Reality” | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter | The Glenn Show

    Glenn Loury and John McWhorter debate the merits of Charles Murray’s new book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    ...and here, from within the entire episode, is a link to the last segment, where Glenn Loury offers a qualified defense of Charles Murray's book to counter John McWhorter's critique:

    Rejecting Racial Determinism | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter | The Glenn Show
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_xc9fyt8ms&t=4332s


    0:00 A peek inside Glenn’s writing process
    3:31 Aaron Hana’s critique of Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele
    13:50 Extending the presumption of free will to Black communities
    19:31 Who gets to opine on race matters?
    32:09 Black rednecks
    44:31 Is the “acting white” phenomenon real?
    53:58 A critique of Charles Murray’s new book …
    1:12:12 … and a defense of same

    Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University) and John McWhorter (Columbia University, Lexicon Valley, The Atlantic). Recorded June 29, 2021.
     
  154. @MEH 0910
    Coleman Hughes and Charles Murray:

    The Consequences of the Race & IQ Discourse with Charles Murray
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCJFr6zB2NM


    This is an excerpt of my conversation with Charles Murray.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    …and here finally is the entire episode:

    Coleman Hughes on The Perils of Race Science with Charles Murray [S2 Ep.21]

    [MORE]

    Welcome to another episode of Conversations with Coleman.

    My guest today requires a longer than normal preamble. I’m speaking with Charles Murray, who is a Political Scientist, Writer, and W.H. Brady scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Murray has been a controversial figure throughout his whole career, but especially since the publication of “The Bell Curve” in the ’90s. The most controversial claim in that book was that the mean IQ gap between black and white Americans is partly genetic in origin, meaning it cannot be fully closed by changing the environment in which black kids grow up. As you’ll hear in the podcast, I suspect Murray is wrong about this and that huge cognitive changes are possible in the long run for black America by means of environmental interventions.

    I did not have Murray on to rehash the empirical claims he made in The Bell Curve. I had him on to discuss his new book, “Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America”. This book has a slightly different emphasis than The Bell Curve. In facing reality, Murray argues that we have to face two truths about race in America, or else the American experiment is doomed. These two truths, according to Murray, are that different races have different mean levels of cognitive ability and that different races have different crime rates. Murray believes that the only way to fight back against the idea that America is a racist nation and to fight against the proliferation of race-based public policy is to bring his empirical claims from The Bell Curve into the mainstream. Now, I strongly disagree with Murray about this, as you’ll hear….

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://twitter.com/NoahCarl90/status/1413225552522227717

  155. @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    Facing "Facing Reality" | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter | The Glenn Show
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNFGAwCAiAE


    Glenn Loury and John McWhorter debate the merits of Charles Murray's new book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    …and here, from within the entire episode, is a link to the last segment, where Glenn Loury offers a qualified defense of Charles Murray’s book to counter John McWhorter’s critique:

    Rejecting Racial Determinism | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter | The Glenn Show

    0:00 A peek inside Glenn’s writing process
    3:31 Aaron Hana’s critique of Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele
    13:50 Extending the presumption of free will to Black communities
    19:31 Who gets to opine on race matters?
    32:09 Black rednecks
    44:31 Is the “acting white” phenomenon real?
    53:58 A critique of Charles Murray’s new book …
    1:12:12 … and a defense of same

    Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University) and John McWhorter (Columbia University, Lexicon Valley, The Atlantic). Recorded June 29, 2021.

  156. @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    ...and here finally is the entire episode:

    Coleman Hughes on The Perils of Race Science with Charles Murray [S2 Ep.21]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE5QcD_12fQ


    Welcome to another episode of Conversations with Coleman.

    My guest today requires a longer than normal preamble. I'm speaking with Charles Murray, who is a Political Scientist, Writer, and W.H. Brady scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Murray has been a controversial figure throughout his whole career, but especially since the publication of "The Bell Curve" in the '90s. The most controversial claim in that book was that the mean IQ gap between black and white Americans is partly genetic in origin, meaning it cannot be fully closed by changing the environment in which black kids grow up. As you'll hear in the podcast, I suspect Murray is wrong about this and that huge cognitive changes are possible in the long run for black America by means of environmental interventions.

    I did not have Murray on to rehash the empirical claims he made in The Bell Curve. I had him on to discuss his new book, "Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America". This book has a slightly different emphasis than The Bell Curve. In facing reality, Murray argues that we have to face two truths about race in America, or else the American experiment is doomed. These two truths, according to Murray, are that different races have different mean levels of cognitive ability and that different races have different crime rates. Murray believes that the only way to fight back against the idea that America is a racist nation and to fight against the proliferation of race-based public policy is to bring his empirical claims from The Bell Curve into the mainstream. Now, I strongly disagree with Murray about this, as you'll hear....
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings