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 Many Reviews Has Charles Murray's "Facing Reality" Received in Its First Month of Publication?
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

It’s now been a month since Charles Murray’s book Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America was published on June 15, 2021. It’s a quite short book so it’s not as if you have to expect reviewers to take weeks to read it. And it’s certainly topical and relevant regarding current news.

Which publications have reviewed it so far?

Wall Street Journal: No.

The book made the WSJ’s bestseller list, but it has not otherwise been mentioned on WSJ.com.

New York Times: No.

The Times reviews numerous books, both in its main pages and its Book Review section, sometimes even reviewing one book twice. But the NYT has not reviewed Facing Reality. From June 15, 2021, Charles Murray’s name has been mentioned only once on NYTimes.com, in a letter to the editor defending the banning of bad thinkers like Charles Murray from speaking on campus.

What the critics call an abandonment of A.C.L.U.’s principles reflects, in fact, a growing awareness of many within the A.C.L.U. that speech and equality are sometimes in conflict, and that context matters.

The point is illustrated by the recent controversy over attempts by college students to block Ann Coulter, Milo and Charles Murray from speaking on their campuses. While the administrators who ran the college bemoaned threats to academic freedom, and liberal critics charged the students with censorship of views they didn’t like, the students recognized what it meant to vulnerable students — whose lives on predominantly white, elite campuses were often a daily struggle — to be targeted by such unrestrained bigotry.

In contrast, Ibram X. Kendi, who for once doesn’t seem to have a new book to promote, has been mentioned nine times in the Times since Facing Reality was published.

The Atlantic: No review. Murray’s name has been mentioned once on TheAtlantic.com since June 15, 2021:

TUCKER CARLSON’S MANUFACTURED AMERICA
The Fox host has a new daytime show, and he’s using it to poison the meaning of patriotism.

By Megan Garber
JULY 12, 2021

On the June 16 episode of Tucker Carlson Today, Carlson hosted a man the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as an extremist—ideology: white nationalism—on the basis of his use of “racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the Black and Latino communities, women and the poor.” Carlson spoke with Charles Murray for nearly an hour. He flattered. He fawned. “We are honored to have you,” Carlson told him.

Murray, who disputes the SPLC’s assessment of him, spent the episode issuing the kinds of claims that have made him infamous. At one point, he stated as fact that white people are more qualified for cognitively challenging professions than Black people are. Carlson did not push back on the assertion. He nodded appreciatively as Murray dismissed Fox News’s latest manufactured threat, critical race theory, as “a repudiation of the American creed.”

The New Yorker: No mention of Murray or his book.

The New York Review of Books has not mentioned Facing Reality, but it runs on a slower schedule.

NPR has not mentioned Murray or his book.

National Review has mentioned Murray three times, but has not yet mentioned his current book.

Los Angeles Times: No.

Washington Post: Yes.

The Post gave Facing Reality a reasonable length review ten days after publication. The reviewer sought to make it sound boring and avoided mentioning almost all the interesting facts in it, but the Post deserves credit for engaging.

A well-worn argument about race, intelligence and violence

By Theodore R. Johnson

Theodore R. Johnson is a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and the author of “When the Stars Begin to Fall: Overcoming Racism and Renewing the Promise of America.”

June 25, 2021|Updated June 25, 2021 at 8:04 a.m. EDT

… Charles Murray, co-author of the contentious 1994 book “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life,” doesn’t so much enter the fray as he stakes out his well-trod turf. In his latest offering, “Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America,” Murray doubles down on the assertions from the most controversial chapters in “The Bell Curve” by declaring two things: Black Americans, as a group, have lower cognitive ability than White Americans, and Black Americans — again, as a group — are more criminally violent than other races and ethnicities. His argument is straightforward in its proclamation that to resolve society’s wicked problems, we must first accept that group differences in cognition and adverse social behaviors, not systemic racism, bear a significant share of the responsibility for racial socioeconomic disparities.

Taki’s Magazine: Yes.

Economist Glenn Loury interviewed Murray for his podcast.

Coleman Hughes had Murray on his podcast.

John McWhorter reviewed Facing Reality on his newsletter.

Michael Barone wrote about it in his column in the Washington Examiner.

The Ricochet podcast with James Lileks, Peter Robinson & Rob Long interviewed Murray.

Law & Liberty has a review by R. Shep Melnick.

 
Hide 105 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Man, this is bad. Really bad. If the establishment doesn’t start paying attention, there will probably be an increase in white identity politics!!!

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • LOL: SIMP simp, Gabe Ruth
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    @JimDandy


    Man, this is bad. Really bad. If the establishment doesn’t start paying attention, there will probably be an increase in white identity politics!!!
     
    Then s'all good.

    Replies: @JimDandy

  2. Some people don’t want to *notice* anything that disturbs their comfortable world view.

    Charles Murray has *noticed* things that are very disturbing to some people’s world view.

    Hence… they are doing their best *not* to notice.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Technite78

    As the Post points out Murray disturbs nothing.

    If he hadn't disowned all his friends he might but he did - and most crucially continues to - so he doesn't.

    One suspects he prefers it that way on some level but on another the realization has slowly dawned that things aren't working out the way he'd hoped they would for that approach.

    Murray has made himself a whom instead of a who.

    Many such cases.

    , @Anonymous
    @Technite78

    # cognitive dissonance

    That's why the normally avuncular Sailer is so reviled.

    , @Inquiring Mind
    @Technite78

    Have others noticed that a conservative-libertarian-alt right-iconoclast-noticing Web site is "protected" from becoming an "echo chamber" by persons who will reliably post contrary opinions? I have them on my "Commenters to Ignore" list, a welcome feature on unz.com to resist the impulse to "reply to trolls" that I cannot more highly recommend (I recommend using the ignore list; I don't recommend replying to commenters with the same, repeated, tired counter arguments)..

    It is claimed that the State of Israel actually supports or funds people to comment on Web sites where Israel is in any way criticized -- the word for this is Hasbarah? I can see why the Israelis do this given them being a tiny country in a sea of -- you get the idea as to why they feel they need to do this, even if you are critical of Israel yourself.

    But generic "Hasbarah" is conducted by the Liberal Establishment/Deep State/Cathedral on sites like this and others? It is like the Liberal Establishment/Deep State/Cathedral cannot just ignore such sites and let them become echo chambers of self-affirmation of malcontents? Not that their arguments change any minds, but by riling people up, it plants enough seeds of doubt or maybe just because reasons that people who disagree cannot just be ignored and left alone?

    You ever notice that if there is slightest "attack surface" to any of the arguments advanced by iSteve or his readers, the Hasbarah commenters "come out of the woodwork"? But if the argument is air tight or if the counter argument is air tight, the Hasbarah simply goes radio silent. They for sure don't respond, yes, you have a point there, but . . . They just keep quiet to "straighten us out another day."

    Yes, this "shunning" of Charles Murray is a form of suppression. But ever stop to think that if there were an effective rebuttal, refutation, counter-argument or "debunking" (debunk -- gosh how I hate that smug word, it drips of the stupid grins on the Texas Democrats on their chartered jet fleeing Texas -- they look like Faculty Senators at a major university of customers of a Whole Foods and I don't know how their Republican colleagues can stand being around them), if there were such an argument, there would be all manner of published reviews?

    The critics of Charles Murray are silent because they have been silenced by that book. This doesn't mean they won't pour out of the woodwork the next time around, but because they having nothing bad to say, they won't say anything.

  3. Not a surprise.

    Let dangerous ideas die in silence.

    • Replies: @Philo
    @lavoisier

    But the silenced ideas do not die: they sleep uneasily.

  4. @Technite78
    Some people don't want to *notice* anything that disturbs their comfortable world view.

    Charles Murray has *noticed* things that are very disturbing to some people's world view.

    Hence... they are doing their best *not* to notice.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Anonymous, @Inquiring Mind

    As the Post points out Murray disturbs nothing.

    If he hadn’t disowned all his friends he might but he did – and most crucially continues to – so he doesn’t.

    One suspects he prefers it that way on some level but on another the realization has slowly dawned that things aren’t working out the way he’d hoped they would for that approach.

    Murray has made himself a whom instead of a who.

    Many such cases.

  5. My god, black people in America tend to score lower on IQ tests and commit more crime. Recognising these two facts doesn’t mean that you can’t blame all white people, past, present and future.

    I suppose, what do you write in the review except “he is right, but we don’t like to talk about it.”

    The interesting question is “why not?”

    The obvious answer is that, floating at the back of the mind of all of the people who can’t find the courage to engage, is the idea that the cause is the “genetic deficiency” of black people and that this makes them less worthy.

    I assume this because only an internal demon that scary is likely to distract someone from recognising such obvious facts.

    If you want to find a person with deep, internalised and misanthropic racism, find someone who can’t even acknowledge that black Americans commit more crime than their proportion of the population. They are blocked.

    These people sound like an Iranian cleric arguing that homosexuality does not exist in Iran, yet finding reason to go on viewings of the local Basij militia gym each week. The obvious reaction should be “come on guys, who do you think you are kidding?”

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, it's worth noting that even John McWhorter who is reasonably based and certainly fairly smart gets thrown by the "difference in avg intelligence" claim.

    He understands exactly what Murray says but somehow can't make the leap that it's "ok".


    Finally, Murray urges that we open up to thinking of black people as less intelligent – on the average, mind you, but still – but approach each black person as an individual. To wit, one is to be as ready for a black person to be brilliant as we are for an Asian or white one to be, despite a baseline assumption that black people are generally less intell…

    See how this doesn’t work? It’s a homily – the way we would like it to be even though it never will. “Black people aren’t as smart. But this one might be a genius!” A brave new world indeed.
    ...
    Aw. I have known good people who truly believe in this argument, but it doesn’t go through for me. This is why: in the end, Murray avoids stating too directly what the obvious implication of his argument is. He thinks that we need to accept an America in which black people are rarely encountered in jobs requiring serious smarts. We need to accept an America in which almost no black people are physicists or other practitioners in STEM, have top-level jobs in government, or are admitted to top-level graduate programs at all. Black people will invent little, there will be many fewer black doctors and lawyers, and many fewer black experts in, well, anything considered really intellectually challenging.

    In other words, Murray thinks – although I doubt he conceives of it in just this way – that beyond entertainment and sports, we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960 — except now, we are to consider this level of participation the best black people can do anyway.

    https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/why-charles-murrays-new-book-is-his

     

    That part demonstrates that he understands ... as much as he doesn't really want to, but here's where it goes off:


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.

    Murray’s book is arguing that we need to agree with her.
     
    Here he suddenly forgot that we're talking about individuals. Murray's book doesn't argue that. There's just no reason to have race in this at all. Just have each person do the best they can and we're good to go. There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It's always been the case. We've been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn't collapsed society.

    Murray is only identifying something that's always been true. And in this case the truth can set us free of feeling that we have to close all performance gaps.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Triteleia Laxa, @Rob, @Stan d Mute, @rebel yell, @lavoisier

  6. Anonymous[658] • Disclaimer says:

    Surely no one disputes the voluminous GOVERNMENT data on black criminal violence in The United States ?

    The dissembling and obfuscation that characterizes most discussions of the subject is not denying the reality of the scourge of black male crime.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    No.

    It is.

  7. Anonymous[658] • Disclaimer says:
    @Technite78
    Some people don't want to *notice* anything that disturbs their comfortable world view.

    Charles Murray has *noticed* things that are very disturbing to some people's world view.

    Hence... they are doing their best *not* to notice.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Anonymous, @Inquiring Mind

    # cognitive dissonance

    That’s why the normally avuncular Sailer is so reviled.

  8. ms. Megan Garber, pronouns= ((()))),

    Does lil miss realize she’s speaking to a tenured Harvard professor about findings that NO ONE there wanted to find?
    Lil missy facts don’t go away just by ignoring data, petulantly plugging your ears and shrieking “lalala” at Krakatoa volume levels. What is your basis for saying that Murray was out of line for saying whites handle complexity better than blacks? Murray also found Asians are better still ON AVERAGE. Does Megan Garber have new peer reviewed research findings? That’s right just willful disregard of reality?

  9. WSJ with Gerry Baker on Fox Business interviewed him for 30 minutes .I was surprised but very pleased

  10. The text is corrupt: there are repeats.

    • Replies: @Thucydides
    @Thucydides

    Now fixed.

  11. Thanks for keeping track, Steve, keeping em honest. Something I noticed among your latest postings is the increase in traffic fatalities. I think 37% black and 9% white. I’m not sure how these statistics are counted. (Fatality of the driver who caused the accident or just fatalities incolving car crashes) but if it is simply traffic fatalities the 37% increase might be the cause of the 9% increase. Meaning black exuberance has caused a 9% increase among fatal car crashes for whites. Anyway, a possibility.

  12. @JimDandy
    Man, this is bad. Really bad. If the establishment doesn't start paying attention, there will probably be an increase in white identity politics!!!

    Replies: @Daniel H

    Man, this is bad. Really bad. If the establishment doesn’t start paying attention, there will probably be an increase in white identity politics!!!

    Then s’all good.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Daniel H

    Don't let Murray hear you say that.

  13. @Triteleia Laxa
    My god, black people in America tend to score lower on IQ tests and commit more crime. Recognising these two facts doesn't mean that you can't blame all white people, past, present and future.

    I suppose, what do you write in the review except "he is right, but we don't like to talk about it."

    The interesting question is "why not?"

    The obvious answer is that, floating at the back of the mind of all of the people who can't find the courage to engage, is the idea that the cause is the "genetic deficiency" of black people and that this makes them less worthy.

    I assume this because only an internal demon that scary is likely to distract someone from recognising such obvious facts.

    If you want to find a person with deep, internalised and misanthropic racism, find someone who can't even acknowledge that black Americans commit more crime than their proportion of the population. They are blocked.

    These people sound like an Iranian cleric arguing that homosexuality does not exist in Iran, yet finding reason to go on viewings of the local Basij militia gym each week. The obvious reaction should be "come on guys, who do you think you are kidding?"

    Replies: @vhrm

    Well, it’s worth noting that even John McWhorter who is reasonably based and certainly fairly smart gets thrown by the “difference in avg intelligence” claim.

    He understands exactly what Murray says but somehow can’t make the leap that it’s “ok”.

    Finally, Murray urges that we open up to thinking of black people as less intelligent – on the average, mind you, but still – but approach each black person as an individual. To wit, one is to be as ready for a black person to be brilliant as we are for an Asian or white one to be, despite a baseline assumption that black people are generally less intell…

    See how this doesn’t work? It’s a homily – the way we would like it to be even though it never will. “Black people aren’t as smart. But this one might be a genius!” A brave new world indeed.

    Aw. I have known good people who truly believe in this argument, but it doesn’t go through for me. This is why: in the end, Murray avoids stating too directly what the obvious implication of his argument is. He thinks that we need to accept an America in which black people are rarely encountered in jobs requiring serious smarts. We need to accept an America in which almost no black people are physicists or other practitioners in STEM, have top-level jobs in government, or are admitted to top-level graduate programs at all. Black people will invent little, there will be many fewer black doctors and lawyers, and many fewer black experts in, well, anything considered really intellectually challenging.

    In other words, Murray thinks – although I doubt he conceives of it in just this way – that beyond entertainment and sports, we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960 — except now, we are to consider this level of participation the best black people can do anyway.

    https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/why-charles-murrays-new-book-is-his

    That part demonstrates that he understands … as much as he doesn’t really want to, but here’s where it goes off:

    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.

    Murray’s book is arguing that we need to agree with her.

    Here he suddenly forgot that we’re talking about individuals. Murray’s book doesn’t argue that. There’s just no reason to have race in this at all. Just have each person do the best they can and we’re good to go. There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It’s always been the case. We’ve been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn’t collapsed society.

    Murray is only identifying something that’s always been true. And in this case the truth can set us free of feeling that we have to close all performance gaps.

    • Thanks: Gabe Ruth
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @vhrm

    We, kimosabe?

    Who is this we? Murray is an individualist. It he concerned himself with collectives he, and we, might not be in this fix.

    But he didn't and doesn't. He had that luxury. It is unlikely that our posterity will.

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @vhrm

    Exactly, but people like McWhorter haven't been able to get to that stage, because they are scared of processing the reality, because they fear it would lead to them making more radical conclusions.

    As you imply, so what if some people are smarter than others? It is just a fact and it isn't the end of the world. So what also if that pattern correlates with skin colour? I am sure it correlates with many things.

    Truths which are hidden and left unspoken are a lot scarier than ones which are noticed and made ordinary.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Rob
    @vhrm


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

     

    This, and one (two?) other examples are more evidence for the contention that “everyone knows.” Why would the schoolteacher say that, unless she had noticed it to be the case. Certainly mainstream culture never told her that, but she’s a teacher. She’s seen a lot of kids, so she’s noticed it.

    Everyone knows. Everyone who has been to school with both knows. Maybe midwits who went to fairly unselective colleges can think that “of course the blacks at this school are dumber - they get affirmative action” without then wondering why they need AA. But my guess is that they know, too.

    Because lower class whites do not get as much of a benefit from mouthing platitudes as middle class+ ones do, coupled with the facts that the stakes are higher and the dimmer whites may not have learned that one just does not say that, they are willing to say so. That makes thinking blacks are dummer a class issue. No one wants to look lower class than they are, so it reinforces middle+ whites keeping the taboo.

    The fact that everyone knows, but few will say so sober is a big chunk of why they will punish people for saying it. They are not punishing taboo-breakers for saying counter-factual things. They are punishing them for failing to conform.

    Go to a nice dinner party. During a lull in the conversation say, “oh wow, guys. I just let out a massive fart. Hope my undies are clean. You’ll be smelling it soon, and I am sorry.” Unless the people you know are cooler than average, there will be an uncomfortable silence, and people will not be colder to you than they were before. Do you think that’s because they’ve never farted. Some of them have farted at that very dinner. They will punish you because one just does not say that In reality, I know you will neither do that nor say blacks average dumber.

    Another reason they’ll punish you for saying blacks are dumb is that they believe it, too, but are to scared to say so. When you say it, you make them feel like cowards, and no one likes that feeling.


    There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It’s always been the case. We’ve been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn’t collapsed society.
     
    It hasn’t collapsed society wrt to race because of the Great Taboo. As to families? Got any siblings? In a conversation, say “but I would think that. I’m the smart one.” True or not sibs won’t react super-well to that. Plus, in families, people love each other. Like differences between men and woman, there are a lot of warm feelings between the two. People who strongly dislike the other sex are losers. A single sex America would not be long for this world. A single race America is a fantasy that people will not even allow themselves to have. It is a realistic fantasy, except for the process of attaining it, in that it would be viable, preferable to reality, and could perpetuate itself in perpetuity. Except hat the capitalists would crave cheap labor and the upper middle class+, docile maids.

    Replies: @Anon, @vhrm

    , @Stan d Mute
    @vhrm


    we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960
     
    The italicized above tells us everything about McWhorter’s thought process. Negroes are incapable of achievement above and beyond “what’s allowed.”

    He is either self-limiting or conceding inferiority.

    Was Ford “allowed” to disrupt manufacturing in Detriot? Or did he just have agency and DO it?

    Replies: @vhrm

    , @rebel yell
    @vhrm

    In principle, you can judge each individual as you find them while still being cognizant of group differences.
    In practice, people won't do this. It's too cumbersome and takes too much extra effort. If you try to recognize and work with the occasional "okay" black you will get burned many times interacting with blacks who turn out to be very "not okay". Much easier, and safer, to avoid all blacks.
    So the practical conclusion is that separation is best, even if it is unfair to individual "okay" blacks.
    This is why liberals can't go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anon, @Goddard, @Jim Don Bob

    , @lavoisier
    @vhrm

    The primary problem is not that blacks are on average less cognitively capable than whites.

    The primary problem is their out of control criminalitiy.

    If blacks, as a class, were peaceful people with a little lower average intelligence than whites we would not be having the problems we are facing.

    It is their criminal behavior that makes them people to fear and to avoid.

    Facing the black question means facing the color of crime.

    Replies: @anon

  14. RE: the Charles Murray book review blackout.

    One of the worst things about the neo Marxist MSM propaganda Narrative is not simply the many lies they continuously propagate, but the total intentional suppression of “news” and views they want to shitcan.

    So the worst sins are the sins of omission.

    The Truth is so buried in Lies it never sees daylight.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Muggles

    Who's stopping them?

    , @Nicholas Stix
    @Muggles

    Charles Murray is, to be sure, one of the most important social scientists alive, so this is not good news. On the other hand, his years-long triangulation campaign, sucking up to his enemies, has me crying crocodile tears for him.

    According to reviewer F. Roger Devlin, Murray wrote his book, The State of White America (not to be confused with my earlier, eponymous report), in which he crapped all over working-class, White men, just so that his msm/antiversity enemies would again consent to review his books. How’d that work out for him?

    Then he crapped all over Trump in 2016, even though he supported Trump’s positions.

    And Murray confessed, nay bragged, several years ago, in a speech at AEI to fudging the numbers on the heritability of IQ in The Bell Curve. (“It was fun”--oops, wrong perp.)

    If only he consistently believed in truth, instead of caste privilege.

    The only thing that’s for sure is that the Right is a bloody mess—intellectually, morally, politically, you name it. Everyone’s running around with one bloody knife in his hand, and a second knife in his own back.

    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2020/09/charles-murray-i-am-brahmin-yet-harvard.html

    Replies: @anon

  15. @Thucydides
    The text is corrupt: there are repeats.

    Replies: @Thucydides

    Now fixed.

  16. @Anonymous
    Surely no one disputes the voluminous GOVERNMENT data on black criminal violence in The United States ?

    The dissembling and obfuscation that characterizes most discussions of the subject is not denying the reality of the scourge of black male crime.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    No.

    It is.

  17. @Muggles
    RE: the Charles Murray book review blackout.

    One of the worst things about the neo Marxist MSM propaganda Narrative is not simply the many lies they continuously propagate, but the total intentional suppression of "news" and views they want to shitcan.

    So the worst sins are the sins of omission.

    The Truth is so buried in Lies it never sees daylight.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Nicholas Stix

    Who’s stopping them?

  18. @vhrm
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, it's worth noting that even John McWhorter who is reasonably based and certainly fairly smart gets thrown by the "difference in avg intelligence" claim.

    He understands exactly what Murray says but somehow can't make the leap that it's "ok".


    Finally, Murray urges that we open up to thinking of black people as less intelligent – on the average, mind you, but still – but approach each black person as an individual. To wit, one is to be as ready for a black person to be brilliant as we are for an Asian or white one to be, despite a baseline assumption that black people are generally less intell…

    See how this doesn’t work? It’s a homily – the way we would like it to be even though it never will. “Black people aren’t as smart. But this one might be a genius!” A brave new world indeed.
    ...
    Aw. I have known good people who truly believe in this argument, but it doesn’t go through for me. This is why: in the end, Murray avoids stating too directly what the obvious implication of his argument is. He thinks that we need to accept an America in which black people are rarely encountered in jobs requiring serious smarts. We need to accept an America in which almost no black people are physicists or other practitioners in STEM, have top-level jobs in government, or are admitted to top-level graduate programs at all. Black people will invent little, there will be many fewer black doctors and lawyers, and many fewer black experts in, well, anything considered really intellectually challenging.

    In other words, Murray thinks – although I doubt he conceives of it in just this way – that beyond entertainment and sports, we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960 — except now, we are to consider this level of participation the best black people can do anyway.

    https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/why-charles-murrays-new-book-is-his

     

    That part demonstrates that he understands ... as much as he doesn't really want to, but here's where it goes off:


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.

    Murray’s book is arguing that we need to agree with her.
     
    Here he suddenly forgot that we're talking about individuals. Murray's book doesn't argue that. There's just no reason to have race in this at all. Just have each person do the best they can and we're good to go. There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It's always been the case. We've been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn't collapsed society.

    Murray is only identifying something that's always been true. And in this case the truth can set us free of feeling that we have to close all performance gaps.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Triteleia Laxa, @Rob, @Stan d Mute, @rebel yell, @lavoisier

    We, kimosabe?

    Who is this we? Murray is an individualist. It he concerned himself with collectives he, and we, might not be in this fix.

    But he didn’t and doesn’t. He had that luxury. It is unlikely that our posterity will.

  19. @vhrm
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, it's worth noting that even John McWhorter who is reasonably based and certainly fairly smart gets thrown by the "difference in avg intelligence" claim.

    He understands exactly what Murray says but somehow can't make the leap that it's "ok".


    Finally, Murray urges that we open up to thinking of black people as less intelligent – on the average, mind you, but still – but approach each black person as an individual. To wit, one is to be as ready for a black person to be brilliant as we are for an Asian or white one to be, despite a baseline assumption that black people are generally less intell…

    See how this doesn’t work? It’s a homily – the way we would like it to be even though it never will. “Black people aren’t as smart. But this one might be a genius!” A brave new world indeed.
    ...
    Aw. I have known good people who truly believe in this argument, but it doesn’t go through for me. This is why: in the end, Murray avoids stating too directly what the obvious implication of his argument is. He thinks that we need to accept an America in which black people are rarely encountered in jobs requiring serious smarts. We need to accept an America in which almost no black people are physicists or other practitioners in STEM, have top-level jobs in government, or are admitted to top-level graduate programs at all. Black people will invent little, there will be many fewer black doctors and lawyers, and many fewer black experts in, well, anything considered really intellectually challenging.

    In other words, Murray thinks – although I doubt he conceives of it in just this way – that beyond entertainment and sports, we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960 — except now, we are to consider this level of participation the best black people can do anyway.

    https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/why-charles-murrays-new-book-is-his

     

    That part demonstrates that he understands ... as much as he doesn't really want to, but here's where it goes off:


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.

    Murray’s book is arguing that we need to agree with her.
     
    Here he suddenly forgot that we're talking about individuals. Murray's book doesn't argue that. There's just no reason to have race in this at all. Just have each person do the best they can and we're good to go. There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It's always been the case. We've been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn't collapsed society.

    Murray is only identifying something that's always been true. And in this case the truth can set us free of feeling that we have to close all performance gaps.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Triteleia Laxa, @Rob, @Stan d Mute, @rebel yell, @lavoisier

    Exactly, but people like McWhorter haven’t been able to get to that stage, because they are scared of processing the reality, because they fear it would lead to them making more radical conclusions.

    As you imply, so what if some people are smarter than others? It is just a fact and it isn’t the end of the world. So what also if that pattern correlates with skin colour? I am sure it correlates with many things.

    Truths which are hidden and left unspoken are a lot scarier than ones which are noticed and made ordinary.

    • Agree: Desiderius, vhrm
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Triteleia Laxa

    HBD globalist. What a sight to behold.

    Has it ever dawned on you that most of the world puts family first. Deracinated eggheads are not the future. The world is - and always was - tribal because race is an extended family, and normal people put family first.

    You may see yourself as post racial, but the rest of the world - including intelligent non-whites - most definitely does not. The fact that you and so many others here can't see that is astonishing.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @vhrm

  20. The Japanese call this tactic “mokusatsu” – killing with silence. It is one of the most-used tools in the authoritarian toolkit.

  21. Get the feeling two Americas are emerging?

    It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to realize that we’ve got most of the guns and most of the combat arms vets, and that the only fighters the other side has got are infamously unable to hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle.

    …now you know why they freaked about January 6th. All we have to do is wake up, and we’ve won.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Colin Wright

    All this stuff is fantasy. There is no tradition of political action on the part of the US armed forces. The police and the military will follow orders of whoever pays the bills. The Woke Megacorps pay the bills. They shot Ashli Babbitt. They will shoot you.

    The number of rightists who are prepared to die to resist them, and that are smart enough to not immediately shoot themselves in the foot, is vanishingly low. And with attrition from contact with the Feds, they would shrink to zero pretty quickly. My guess would be that when it comes to combat arms vets younger than 40, their median voter is probably politically closer to Joe Biden than he is to the median poster on Unz.com.

    The left is freaked out about January 6th for the same reason Kerensky was freaked out about Kornilov. The left always overestimates the risk of the counter-revolution. It always sees itself as the brave and outgunned resistance.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  22. anonymous[878] • Disclaimer says:

    And it’s certainly topical and relevant regarding current news.

    Steve,

    Can you offer us your best argument (concise is fine) for why anyone should review Murray’s book, and for why anyone should read it? “Topical and relevant regarding current news” don’t seem quite compelling enough. You don’t even describe his thesis or the book’s contribution (if any) to knowledge.

    I mean, I want to read it, on the basis of the mere fact that you seem to think it is important, and because “race” seems to be dominating the public discourse more than ever nowadays. But why should I read that rather than anything else on the topic—or, for that matter, rather than anything else Murray has written?

    More importantly perhaps, why should middle and upper class liberals and/or Democrats read it? I would like to direct some of them to a book or piece of writing that may enlighten them or even challenge their world view. If you could have them read one book, is this the one? Why? I need arguments to convey.

  23. [MORE]

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @Desiderius

    What, exactly, is your point? FIFTY years ago, Detriot was the richest city in the world and had been for decades.

    https://www.quora.com/In-the-1950s-Detroit-was-the-wealthiest-city-in-the-world-What-happened-to-Detroit

    In 2002, (Canadian communist) Gov Granholm presided over an economy worse than Mississippi.

    If you want to know where your Boomer America is going, look no further than Detriot.

    But all you have ever done is laugh at Detriot. It’s been the butt of Boomer jokes since Robin Williams (a Detrioter) or earlier. HaHa! Look at the poor honkies fleeing for their lives in Michigan! The rubes!

    You will reap what you have sown motherfuckers.

    Steve, I expect whimming, so whim away. I’ve had too much truth serum tonight to hold back. The sight of 90% of you Boomers in Costco wearing masks while literally nobody else wore one got to me today..

    Replies: @Alden

  24. [MORE]

  25. Murray wrote a book about TWO TOTAL TABOO TOPICS. Of course, media cannot positively review this and thus promote PREJUDICE against low IQ high crime ‘minorities”.

    This conundrum can only be solved if we PERMIT #TrueSpeech, if #RacistFacts can be spoken and thought. This black out will continue, as long as official gag orders remain, in writing, in media style books (sincerity DOT net exposes this). Police, teachers, judges, prison wards, they all are under official mandates to not tell the truth to the tax payer who pays for their salary.

    We must fight to permit unrestrained #TrueSpeech. This includes race of a perpetrator, and crime statistics by race, academic and disciplinary school performance of Blacks.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @TruthRevolution.net


    We must fight to permit unrestrained #TrueSpeech. This includes race of a perpetrator, and crime statistics by race, academic and disciplinary school performance of Blacks.
     
    Truly, as someone who has survived Detriot 1967, you amuse me.

    You are about 70 years too late, but cute nonetheless..

    Replies: @TruthRevolution.net

  26. Rob says:
    @vhrm
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, it's worth noting that even John McWhorter who is reasonably based and certainly fairly smart gets thrown by the "difference in avg intelligence" claim.

    He understands exactly what Murray says but somehow can't make the leap that it's "ok".


    Finally, Murray urges that we open up to thinking of black people as less intelligent – on the average, mind you, but still – but approach each black person as an individual. To wit, one is to be as ready for a black person to be brilliant as we are for an Asian or white one to be, despite a baseline assumption that black people are generally less intell…

    See how this doesn’t work? It’s a homily – the way we would like it to be even though it never will. “Black people aren’t as smart. But this one might be a genius!” A brave new world indeed.
    ...
    Aw. I have known good people who truly believe in this argument, but it doesn’t go through for me. This is why: in the end, Murray avoids stating too directly what the obvious implication of his argument is. He thinks that we need to accept an America in which black people are rarely encountered in jobs requiring serious smarts. We need to accept an America in which almost no black people are physicists or other practitioners in STEM, have top-level jobs in government, or are admitted to top-level graduate programs at all. Black people will invent little, there will be many fewer black doctors and lawyers, and many fewer black experts in, well, anything considered really intellectually challenging.

    In other words, Murray thinks – although I doubt he conceives of it in just this way – that beyond entertainment and sports, we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960 — except now, we are to consider this level of participation the best black people can do anyway.

    https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/why-charles-murrays-new-book-is-his

     

    That part demonstrates that he understands ... as much as he doesn't really want to, but here's where it goes off:


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.

    Murray’s book is arguing that we need to agree with her.
     
    Here he suddenly forgot that we're talking about individuals. Murray's book doesn't argue that. There's just no reason to have race in this at all. Just have each person do the best they can and we're good to go. There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It's always been the case. We've been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn't collapsed society.

    Murray is only identifying something that's always been true. And in this case the truth can set us free of feeling that we have to close all performance gaps.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Triteleia Laxa, @Rob, @Stan d Mute, @rebel yell, @lavoisier

    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

    This, and one (two?) other examples are more evidence for the contention that “everyone knows.” Why would the schoolteacher say that, unless she had noticed it to be the case. Certainly mainstream culture never told her that, but she’s a teacher. She’s seen a lot of kids, so she’s noticed it.

    Everyone knows. Everyone who has been to school with both knows. Maybe midwits who went to fairly unselective colleges can think that “of course the blacks at this school are dumber – they get affirmative action” without then wondering why they need AA. But my guess is that they know, too.

    Because lower class whites do not get as much of a benefit from mouthing platitudes as middle class+ ones do, coupled with the facts that the stakes are higher and the dimmer whites may not have learned that one just does not say that, they are willing to say so. That makes thinking blacks are dummer a class issue. No one wants to look lower class than they are, so it reinforces middle+ whites keeping the taboo.

    The fact that everyone knows, but few will say so sober is a big chunk of why they will punish people for saying it. They are not punishing taboo-breakers for saying counter-factual things. They are punishing them for failing to conform.

    Go to a nice dinner party. During a lull in the conversation say, “oh wow, guys. I just let out a massive fart. Hope my undies are clean. You’ll be smelling it soon, and I am sorry.” Unless the people you know are cooler than average, there will be an uncomfortable silence, and people will not be colder to you than they were before. Do you think that’s because they’ve never farted. Some of them have farted at that very dinner. They will punish you because one just does not say that In reality, I know you will neither do that nor say blacks average dumber.

    Another reason they’ll punish you for saying blacks are dumb is that they believe it, too, but are to scared to say so. When you say it, you make them feel like cowards, and no one likes that feeling.

    There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It’s always been the case. We’ve been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn’t collapsed society.

    It hasn’t collapsed society wrt to race because of the Great Taboo. As to families? Got any siblings? In a conversation, say “but I would think that. I’m the smart one.” True or not sibs won’t react super-well to that. Plus, in families, people love each other. Like differences between men and woman, there are a lot of warm feelings between the two. People who strongly dislike the other sex are losers. A single sex America would not be long for this world. A single race America is a fantasy that people will not even allow themselves to have. It is a realistic fantasy, except for the process of attaining it, in that it would be viable, preferable to reality, and could perpetuate itself in perpetuity. Except hat the capitalists would crave cheap labor and the upper middle class+, docile maids.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Thanks: martin_2
    • Replies: @Anon
    @Rob


    A single race America is a fantasy that people will not even allow themselves to have. It is a realistic fantasy, except for the process of attaining it, in that it would be viable, preferable to reality, and could perpetuate itself in perpetuity. Except hat the capitalists would crave cheap labor and the upper middle class+, docile maids.
     
    In such circumstances, political Jewry would find it more challenging to continue as a distinct group.
    , @vhrm
    @Rob

    i'm coming at you from all directions! (though i apologize for not pulling this response into a particularly cohesive thrust).

    You said:


    This, and one (two?) other examples are more evidence for the contention that “everyone knows.” Why would the schoolteacher say that, unless she had noticed it to be the case. Certainly mainstream culture never told her that, but she’s a teacher. She’s seen a lot of kids, so she’s noticed it.
     
    She noticed that the her black students weren't doing as well and intuited it that there was something about them that was different or made them perform worse on analytical stuff.

    McWorther then says:

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.
     
    But, i think he's wrong. She's not saying that black people aren't SUPPOSED to be smart in that way, just that they AREN'T. The rest of it is her explanation of the things that she's "noticed". She probably doesn't know that she's describing intelligence or that IQ research would also explain what she noticed because IQ (not just racial differences but IQ at all ) has been radioactive in polite circles since at least the Bell Curve in 1994, so probably for her whole professional life.

    Everyone knows. Everyone who has been to school with both knows.
     
    I disagree in a couple of ways. Firstly most people haven't been to schools with significant numbers of both. Also, while teachers probably know there's a difference, normal people don't really understand what intelligence is or what impact it has or how it relates to success. It's not that obvious if you haven't looked into it or had it pointed out. Some people do well in school because of hard work, some because they're smart anyway. Cultural issues also cloud the issue. Also the story of Affirmative Action sounds entirely plausible. That's partly why it was passed. It really did take some decades to sort things out, but as you know that's not something that one would even know unless you have some reason to really look into it and then you do so deep enough to actually get to heretic material like Murray and iSteve. A casual inquiry will just leave one believing the mainstream view that it's about lack of early life opportunity and enrichment etc.

    The fact that everyone knows, but few will say so sober is a big chunk of why they will punish people for saying it.

     

    As mentioned i don't think everyone knows, though maybe many people might have some feelings along those lines. And i wouldn't say it a large dinner party, but i have certainly said it to various degrees to some double digit number of people over the past several years and encourage everyone here to do so when the risk is not too high.
    Note, that if one is to have some hope of success with the kind of people you mention then put the whole thing out there. This will explain their observations in a way that alleviates guilt.
    When i say "the whole thing" i mean the fairly modest and non-hateful observation that intelligence exists; IQ measures it reasonably; it reasonably correlates with success esp. in the professions; it varies some between races but there's a lot of overalap; it's just like other traits: e.g. height between men and women. a 5'10 woman is taller than a 5'9 guy, but on average men are taller than women. We all know this and deal with it. With IQ and race it's the same. it explains the gaps pretty well in terms of SAT scores, income, etc. "No it doesn't mean that you should be racist; just treat individuals fairly".

    It hasn’t collapsed society wrt to race because of the Great Taboo. As to families? Got any siblings? In a conversation, say “but I would think that. I’m the smart one.” True or not sibs won’t react super-well to that. Plus, in families, people love each other.

     

    If one sib is IQ 105 and the other is IQ 120 it is what it is whether you say it or not. And if sib_120 or the parents shame sib_105 for not making it into law school like sib_120 that's totally unfair and a crappy thing to do.

    THAT's sort of what society what blank slatists did before wokeness came online. Now it's more like yelling at sib_120 for sabotaging sib_105's life in some way that nobody can identify.

    We don't have to be super explicit with everyone, just back off on the gaslighting.

    Also, people in society "love" each other... or at least tolerate each other's differences most of the time. By the way you write and argue i'm going to guess that you're pretty smart; well above average. So, unless you're in a near literal ivory tower, most of the people of all races that you've dealt with in your life have been less smart then you. Many of them a LOT less smart. And yet you've probably made due and so have they. As a society we've by necessity dealt with smarter and dumber people living together and it's rare that it comes up explicitly and when it does it's usually handled relatively tastefully.

    HBD and IQ doesn't change the world we've always lived it at all nor does it mean that we have to became Gattaca or make everyone wear tags with their IQ score on it. But it IS a powerful tool against CRT and "equity" and it has to be deployed.

    As i've said elsewhere, it's not even about convincing CRT proponents, we just need to inoculate a large enough part of people of good conscience, especially on the right side of the curve where decision makers tend to be, so that they have an alternative frame and can't be bamboozled or bullied by the wokesters.

    Replies: @martin_2, @Rob

  27. @vhrm
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, it's worth noting that even John McWhorter who is reasonably based and certainly fairly smart gets thrown by the "difference in avg intelligence" claim.

    He understands exactly what Murray says but somehow can't make the leap that it's "ok".


    Finally, Murray urges that we open up to thinking of black people as less intelligent – on the average, mind you, but still – but approach each black person as an individual. To wit, one is to be as ready for a black person to be brilliant as we are for an Asian or white one to be, despite a baseline assumption that black people are generally less intell…

    See how this doesn’t work? It’s a homily – the way we would like it to be even though it never will. “Black people aren’t as smart. But this one might be a genius!” A brave new world indeed.
    ...
    Aw. I have known good people who truly believe in this argument, but it doesn’t go through for me. This is why: in the end, Murray avoids stating too directly what the obvious implication of his argument is. He thinks that we need to accept an America in which black people are rarely encountered in jobs requiring serious smarts. We need to accept an America in which almost no black people are physicists or other practitioners in STEM, have top-level jobs in government, or are admitted to top-level graduate programs at all. Black people will invent little, there will be many fewer black doctors and lawyers, and many fewer black experts in, well, anything considered really intellectually challenging.

    In other words, Murray thinks – although I doubt he conceives of it in just this way – that beyond entertainment and sports, we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960 — except now, we are to consider this level of participation the best black people can do anyway.

    https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/why-charles-murrays-new-book-is-his

     

    That part demonstrates that he understands ... as much as he doesn't really want to, but here's where it goes off:


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.

    Murray’s book is arguing that we need to agree with her.
     
    Here he suddenly forgot that we're talking about individuals. Murray's book doesn't argue that. There's just no reason to have race in this at all. Just have each person do the best they can and we're good to go. There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It's always been the case. We've been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn't collapsed society.

    Murray is only identifying something that's always been true. And in this case the truth can set us free of feeling that we have to close all performance gaps.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Triteleia Laxa, @Rob, @Stan d Mute, @rebel yell, @lavoisier

    we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960

    The italicized above tells us everything about McWhorter’s thought process. Negroes are incapable of achievement above and beyond “what’s allowed.”

    He is either self-limiting or conceding inferiority.

    Was Ford “allowed” to disrupt manufacturing in Detriot? Or did he just have agency and DO it?

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @Stan d Mute

    That's what's so interesting about his review. He basically accepts the arguments of the book and goes out of his way to lay them out and demonstrates that he understands them and agrees with them.
    He's on the line of fully endorsing it but then doesn't because it just feels bad, its motives seem suspect and, though he doesn't say so, racists and idiots might like it.

    These things are now in his brain and, since he's pretty smart and fairly logical and not a charlatan, they'll continue working on him.

    Considering that he's a black guy and he's writing in public, even as a conservative, it's quite impressive how far he went on such an explosive issue.

    If even, say, a quarter each of the NYT editorial board members, editors and college presidents read and "processed" his whole review it could change the world.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Gabe Ruth

  28. @Daniel H
    @JimDandy


    Man, this is bad. Really bad. If the establishment doesn’t start paying attention, there will probably be an increase in white identity politics!!!
     
    Then s'all good.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    Don’t let Murray hear you say that.

  29. Murray, who disputes the SPLC’s assessment of him…

    He shouldn’t waste time disputing their “assessment” of him. They’re a hate group and they hate him.

  30. I told you that this would happen when the book came out. The war is over. The other side won. They don’t have address the arguments of the vanquished.

    Time to start thinking of how to move forward as dissidents.

  31. Anon[446] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rob
    @vhrm


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

     

    This, and one (two?) other examples are more evidence for the contention that “everyone knows.” Why would the schoolteacher say that, unless she had noticed it to be the case. Certainly mainstream culture never told her that, but she’s a teacher. She’s seen a lot of kids, so she’s noticed it.

    Everyone knows. Everyone who has been to school with both knows. Maybe midwits who went to fairly unselective colleges can think that “of course the blacks at this school are dumber - they get affirmative action” without then wondering why they need AA. But my guess is that they know, too.

    Because lower class whites do not get as much of a benefit from mouthing platitudes as middle class+ ones do, coupled with the facts that the stakes are higher and the dimmer whites may not have learned that one just does not say that, they are willing to say so. That makes thinking blacks are dummer a class issue. No one wants to look lower class than they are, so it reinforces middle+ whites keeping the taboo.

    The fact that everyone knows, but few will say so sober is a big chunk of why they will punish people for saying it. They are not punishing taboo-breakers for saying counter-factual things. They are punishing them for failing to conform.

    Go to a nice dinner party. During a lull in the conversation say, “oh wow, guys. I just let out a massive fart. Hope my undies are clean. You’ll be smelling it soon, and I am sorry.” Unless the people you know are cooler than average, there will be an uncomfortable silence, and people will not be colder to you than they were before. Do you think that’s because they’ve never farted. Some of them have farted at that very dinner. They will punish you because one just does not say that In reality, I know you will neither do that nor say blacks average dumber.

    Another reason they’ll punish you for saying blacks are dumb is that they believe it, too, but are to scared to say so. When you say it, you make them feel like cowards, and no one likes that feeling.


    There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It’s always been the case. We’ve been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn’t collapsed society.
     
    It hasn’t collapsed society wrt to race because of the Great Taboo. As to families? Got any siblings? In a conversation, say “but I would think that. I’m the smart one.” True or not sibs won’t react super-well to that. Plus, in families, people love each other. Like differences between men and woman, there are a lot of warm feelings between the two. People who strongly dislike the other sex are losers. A single sex America would not be long for this world. A single race America is a fantasy that people will not even allow themselves to have. It is a realistic fantasy, except for the process of attaining it, in that it would be viable, preferable to reality, and could perpetuate itself in perpetuity. Except hat the capitalists would crave cheap labor and the upper middle class+, docile maids.

    Replies: @Anon, @vhrm

    A single race America is a fantasy that people will not even allow themselves to have. It is a realistic fantasy, except for the process of attaining it, in that it would be viable, preferable to reality, and could perpetuate itself in perpetuity. Except hat the capitalists would crave cheap labor and the upper middle class+, docile maids.

    In such circumstances, political Jewry would find it more challenging to continue as a distinct group.

  32. @Desiderius


    https://twitter.com/Peter_Nimitz/status/1416529051229982724?s=20

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    What, exactly, is your point? FIFTY years ago, Detriot was the richest city in the world and had been for decades.

    https://www.quora.com/In-the-1950s-Detroit-was-the-wealthiest-city-in-the-world-What-happened-to-Detroit

    In 2002, (Canadian communist) Gov Granholm presided over an economy worse than Mississippi.

    If you want to know where your Boomer America is going, look no further than Detriot.

    But all you have ever done is laugh at Detriot. It’s been the butt of Boomer jokes since Robin Williams (a Detrioter) or earlier. HaHa! Look at the poor honkies fleeing for their lives in Michigan! The rubes!

    You will reap what you have sown motherfuckers.

    Steve, I expect whimming, so whim away. I’ve had too much truth serum tonight to hold back. The sight of 90% of you Boomers in Costco wearing masks while literally nobody else wore one got to me today..

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Stan d Mute

    Slight quibble. Detroit was the riches city in the world 70 and 80 years ago. By 1971 50 years ago it was well on its way to ruin.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

  33. Charles Murray wouldn’t be seen with the general White reader who buys his books. He wouldn’t want to be seen with any of us.

    The only opinion he cares about is from “elite” clown-world inhabitants.

    Here we see the average Bilderberger/Davos member he yearns to impress.

    • Disagree: PaceLaw
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @RichardTaylor

    Murray ain't the only one. Steve and many commentators around here live in the same fantasy world.

    They wilfully refuse to acknowledge the reality that non-whites are (correctly) tribal. Being the clever, special snowflakes they are, they hate the idea of being lumped together with whites as a group.

    It's shocking that so many iSteve commentators seem to hate poor whites as much liberals.

  34. @Stan d Mute
    @vhrm


    we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960
     
    The italicized above tells us everything about McWhorter’s thought process. Negroes are incapable of achievement above and beyond “what’s allowed.”

    He is either self-limiting or conceding inferiority.

    Was Ford “allowed” to disrupt manufacturing in Detriot? Or did he just have agency and DO it?

    Replies: @vhrm

    That’s what’s so interesting about his review. He basically accepts the arguments of the book and goes out of his way to lay them out and demonstrates that he understands them and agrees with them.
    He’s on the line of fully endorsing it but then doesn’t because it just feels bad, its motives seem suspect and, though he doesn’t say so, racists and idiots might like it.

    These things are now in his brain and, since he’s pretty smart and fairly logical and not a charlatan, they’ll continue working on him.

    Considering that he’s a black guy and he’s writing in public, even as a conservative, it’s quite impressive how far he went on such an explosive issue.

    If even, say, a quarter each of the NYT editorial board members, editors and college presidents read and “processed” his whole review it could change the world.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @vhrm


    If even, say, a quarter each of the NYT editorial board members, editors and college presidents read and “processed” his whole review it could change the world.
     
    Upon which I am entirely confident that you are a Boomer.

    Give it the fuck up. You are NOT going to‘change the world’. You don’t have a goddamn clue how or why or what the fuck is the purpose of evolution (ie Nature).

    Your lot would have been infinitely ahead by breeding sheep or cattle. Even the pathetic females who bred DOGS and CATS are further ahead than 99.9% of boomers.

    Deny Biology to your heart’s content Boomers. At some point, dissecting that damn frog will prove itself real to you.

    Replies: @vhrm

    , @Gabe Ruth
    @vhrm

    It's mighty white of you to think that, but I'm afraid if he can ignore his lyin' eyes at this point, no book is really going to change his view. Disappointing, because I know he is a pretty smart and fairly honest guy (for a pundit).

  35. @TruthRevolution.net
    Murray wrote a book about TWO TOTAL TABOO TOPICS. Of course, media cannot positively review this and thus promote PREJUDICE against low IQ high crime 'minorities".

    This conundrum can only be solved if we PERMIT #TrueSpeech, if #RacistFacts can be spoken and thought. This black out will continue, as long as official gag orders remain, in writing, in media style books (sincerity DOT net exposes this). Police, teachers, judges, prison wards, they all are under official mandates to not tell the truth to the tax payer who pays for their salary.

    We must fight to permit unrestrained #TrueSpeech. This includes race of a perpetrator, and crime statistics by race, academic and disciplinary school performance of Blacks.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    We must fight to permit unrestrained #TrueSpeech. This includes race of a perpetrator, and crime statistics by race, academic and disciplinary school performance of Blacks.

    Truly, as someone who has survived Detriot 1967, you amuse me.

    You are about 70 years too late, but cute nonetheless..

    • Replies: @TruthRevolution.net
    @Stan d Mute

    Absolutely, we and sincerity dot net document that since the 1950ies, and including Richart M Nixon, omission and lies were considered noble to avoid (correct) prejudice against Blacks.
    We should nipped this in the bud, maybe since Boas and Margreth Mead.
    But better late than never.

    Insisting on rights to #TrueSpech seems more justified than abstract FreeSpeech

  36. Anon[894] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve been running Twitter searches, and the book’s been unpersoned there also.

    It’s telling that the media isn’t running debunkings or takedowns or fainting-couch pieces on how such racist shit can be allowed to be published. They are not shy about going on and on about other things related to modern American Nazis and racists. Why the exception here. Silence. Crickets. Tachy goes to Coventry.

    I suppose that to debunk that blacks have substantially lower cognitive ability (on average) and are substantially more criminal and antisocial, you’d first have to state these slanders. But the strategy now is obfuscation, not debunking. No SATs anymore. Crime statistics? Racist, we have to get to work on that (Canada already doesn’t keep racial crime stats). Mug shots? Substantially taken care of already.

    Reading Twitter and blog posts, I am surprised by how many obviously smart and generally well-informed people, when they reference IQ, do so in a way that shows that they genuinely believe that any insinuation of a gap is 100 percent made-up and racist.

    The 2017 Turkheimer-Harden-Nisbett articles in Vox were a major faux pas: Progressives talking opening about it. This cannot be allowed to happen again … except Harden has a book called The Genetic Lottery coming out in the fall. She’s a card-carrying Jewish progressive endogamously married to another Jewish progressive academic. How is the media going to deal with a book that as far as I can tell says, “Blacks are genetically dumber, it’s not their fault, white IQ is an unearned privilege, whites thus should pay money to blacks” (she won’t put it quite that bluntly, but this is the between-the-lines from her pre-publication op-ed pieces).

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @Anon


    The 2017 Turkheimer-Harden-Nisbett articles in Vox were a major faux pas: Progressives talking opening about it. This cannot be allowed to happen again … except Harden has a book called The Genetic Lottery coming out in the fall. She’s a card-carrying Jewish progressive endogamously married to another Jewish progressive academic.
     
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1408092417941655554

    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1072540916949364737

    https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1416437300725178368
    https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1416439780313813002

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    , @MEH 0910
    @Anon


    (she won’t put it quite that bluntly, but this is the between-the-lines from her pre-publication op-ed pieces).
     
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1326218484695658496
  37. @vhrm
    @Stan d Mute

    That's what's so interesting about his review. He basically accepts the arguments of the book and goes out of his way to lay them out and demonstrates that he understands them and agrees with them.
    He's on the line of fully endorsing it but then doesn't because it just feels bad, its motives seem suspect and, though he doesn't say so, racists and idiots might like it.

    These things are now in his brain and, since he's pretty smart and fairly logical and not a charlatan, they'll continue working on him.

    Considering that he's a black guy and he's writing in public, even as a conservative, it's quite impressive how far he went on such an explosive issue.

    If even, say, a quarter each of the NYT editorial board members, editors and college presidents read and "processed" his whole review it could change the world.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Gabe Ruth

    If even, say, a quarter each of the NYT editorial board members, editors and college presidents read and “processed” his whole review it could change the world.

    Upon which I am entirely confident that you are a Boomer.

    Give it the fuck up. You are NOT going to‘change the world’. You don’t have a goddamn clue how or why or what the fuck is the purpose of evolution (ie Nature).

    Your lot would have been infinitely ahead by breeding sheep or cattle. Even the pathetic females who bred DOGS and CATS are further ahead than 99.9% of boomers.

    Deny Biology to your heart’s content Boomers. At some point, dissecting that damn frog will prove itself real to you.

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @Stan d Mute

    About an hour before you wrote this comment you'd already said in another that you'd "had too much truth serum tonight to hold back" so i'll take your current comment in that spirit, but some of your statements are an interesting prompt, even if i don't know quite what you're saying.

    I'm not a Boomer, not that there's anything wrong with that.


    Give it the fuck up. You are NOT going to‘change the world’.
     
    I'm not going to personally change the world, however note how much the world has changed over the past several decades even on "culture war" stuff. Go back 20 years to the year 2000.
    Who would have predicted that over the next 20 years:
    - same sex marriage anywhere in the US, let alone everywhere?
    - Black(ish) man would be President of the United States
    - that Democrats would spend 4+ years obsessing that the Republican President is a stooge of Russia and impeaching him over it
    - Bruce Jenner declares he's a woman and runs for Governor of California as a Republican and it's not even that big of a deal.

    The world changes. Why not try influence that?

    You don’t have a goddamn clue how or why or what the fuck is the purpose of evolution (ie Nature).

     

    AFAICT there is no purpose to evolution. It's just a fancy long running chemical reaction.

    Your lot would have been infinitely ahead by breeding sheep or cattle. Even the pathetic females who bred DOGS and CATS are further ahead than 99.9% of boomers.

    Deny Biology to your heart’s content Boomers. At some point, dissecting that damn frog will prove itself real to you.
     
    Ok i'm really not sure what you were getting at here so i'll leave it at that.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

  38. All publicity is good publicity.

  39. Well, it’s worth noting that damn near half of the people identified who have reviewed the book are black (Loury, McWhorter and Hughes), which is really saying something since the focus of the book is the maladaptive behavior of the majority of blacks. They should be given credit for being willing to engage with it, as opposed to the cowardice of main stream publications such as the NYTimes, the Atlantic and WSJ.

  40. @Triteleia Laxa
    @vhrm

    Exactly, but people like McWhorter haven't been able to get to that stage, because they are scared of processing the reality, because they fear it would lead to them making more radical conclusions.

    As you imply, so what if some people are smarter than others? It is just a fact and it isn't the end of the world. So what also if that pattern correlates with skin colour? I am sure it correlates with many things.

    Truths which are hidden and left unspoken are a lot scarier than ones which are noticed and made ordinary.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    HBD globalist. What a sight to behold.

    Has it ever dawned on you that most of the world puts family first. Deracinated eggheads are not the future. The world is – and always was – tribal because race is an extended family, and normal people put family first.

    You may see yourself as post racial, but the rest of the world – including intelligent non-whites – most definitely does not. The fact that you and so many others here can’t see that is astonishing.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I don't know what you think your reply has to do with my comment, but you couldn't be more ignorant about the rest of the world if you tried.

    Replies: @Anon, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @vhrm
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Has it ever dawned on you that most of the world puts family first. Deracinated eggheads are not the future.

     

    I think post WWII history suggests that "deracinated eggheads" ARE the future. Like the German rocket scientists that were key to the space and nuclear race for the United States. And the veritable UN that has been our STEM college and graduate programs and also significant parts of our tech and biotech industries for the past few decades.

    Heck even "deracinated" farm workers and laborers (e.g. the ones invading Europe from the ME and Africa and the ones invading the US from the South) seem to be having quite the moment, as much as i wish they weren't.


    The world is – and always was – tribal because race is an extended family, and normal people put family first.

    You may see yourself as post racial, but the rest of the world – including intelligent non-whites – most definitely does not. The fact that you and so many others here can’t see that is astonishing.

     

    There's no question that the world was very tribal and that most of the world is a lot more racist than American whites, but it doesn't follow that that's the right way to be.
    Compared to our ancestors from a couple thousand years ago even the most strident White Nationalist would be a crazy "globalist" for lumping together so many obviously different tribes that should never be dealt with because they're inferior, unwashed, uncultured and can never be trusted.

    I understand the concentric circle model but why draw the line now at the final 5 - 10 "tribes" instead of the 100, 1000 or 10000 tribes that once were?

    (i'm not an entirely kumbaya "we are the world" type, but the modern world, esp the US has some significant "melting pot" going on and that can't be denied)

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  41. @RichardTaylor
    Charles Murray wouldn't be seen with the general White reader who buys his books. He wouldn't want to be seen with any of us.

    The only opinion he cares about is from "elite" clown-world inhabitants.

    Here we see the average Bilderberger/Davos member he yearns to impress.

    https://kriscantu.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Clown-World-yt3.png

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Murray ain’t the only one. Steve and many commentators around here live in the same fantasy world.

    They wilfully refuse to acknowledge the reality that non-whites are (correctly) tribal. Being the clever, special snowflakes they are, they hate the idea of being lumped together with whites as a group.

    It’s shocking that so many iSteve commentators seem to hate poor whites as much liberals.

    • Agree: RichardTaylor
  42. vhrm says:
    @Rob
    @vhrm


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

     

    This, and one (two?) other examples are more evidence for the contention that “everyone knows.” Why would the schoolteacher say that, unless she had noticed it to be the case. Certainly mainstream culture never told her that, but she’s a teacher. She’s seen a lot of kids, so she’s noticed it.

    Everyone knows. Everyone who has been to school with both knows. Maybe midwits who went to fairly unselective colleges can think that “of course the blacks at this school are dumber - they get affirmative action” without then wondering why they need AA. But my guess is that they know, too.

    Because lower class whites do not get as much of a benefit from mouthing platitudes as middle class+ ones do, coupled with the facts that the stakes are higher and the dimmer whites may not have learned that one just does not say that, they are willing to say so. That makes thinking blacks are dummer a class issue. No one wants to look lower class than they are, so it reinforces middle+ whites keeping the taboo.

    The fact that everyone knows, but few will say so sober is a big chunk of why they will punish people for saying it. They are not punishing taboo-breakers for saying counter-factual things. They are punishing them for failing to conform.

    Go to a nice dinner party. During a lull in the conversation say, “oh wow, guys. I just let out a massive fart. Hope my undies are clean. You’ll be smelling it soon, and I am sorry.” Unless the people you know are cooler than average, there will be an uncomfortable silence, and people will not be colder to you than they were before. Do you think that’s because they’ve never farted. Some of them have farted at that very dinner. They will punish you because one just does not say that In reality, I know you will neither do that nor say blacks average dumber.

    Another reason they’ll punish you for saying blacks are dumb is that they believe it, too, but are to scared to say so. When you say it, you make them feel like cowards, and no one likes that feeling.


    There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It’s always been the case. We’ve been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn’t collapsed society.
     
    It hasn’t collapsed society wrt to race because of the Great Taboo. As to families? Got any siblings? In a conversation, say “but I would think that. I’m the smart one.” True or not sibs won’t react super-well to that. Plus, in families, people love each other. Like differences between men and woman, there are a lot of warm feelings between the two. People who strongly dislike the other sex are losers. A single sex America would not be long for this world. A single race America is a fantasy that people will not even allow themselves to have. It is a realistic fantasy, except for the process of attaining it, in that it would be viable, preferable to reality, and could perpetuate itself in perpetuity. Except hat the capitalists would crave cheap labor and the upper middle class+, docile maids.

    Replies: @Anon, @vhrm

    i’m coming at you from all directions! (though i apologize for not pulling this response into a particularly cohesive thrust).

    You said:

    This, and one (two?) other examples are more evidence for the contention that “everyone knows.” Why would the schoolteacher say that, unless she had noticed it to be the case. Certainly mainstream culture never told her that, but she’s a teacher. She’s seen a lot of kids, so she’s noticed it.

    She noticed that the her black students weren’t doing as well and intuited it that there was something about them that was different or made them perform worse on analytical stuff.

    McWorther then says:

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.

    But, i think he’s wrong. She’s not saying that black people aren’t SUPPOSED to be smart in that way, just that they AREN’T. The rest of it is her explanation of the things that she’s “noticed”. She probably doesn’t know that she’s describing intelligence or that IQ research would also explain what she noticed because IQ (not just racial differences but IQ at all ) has been radioactive in polite circles since at least the Bell Curve in 1994, so probably for her whole professional life.

    Everyone knows. Everyone who has been to school with both knows.

    I disagree in a couple of ways. Firstly most people haven’t been to schools with significant numbers of both. Also, while teachers probably know there’s a difference, normal people don’t really understand what intelligence is or what impact it has or how it relates to success. It’s not that obvious if you haven’t looked into it or had it pointed out. Some people do well in school because of hard work, some because they’re smart anyway. Cultural issues also cloud the issue. Also the story of Affirmative Action sounds entirely plausible. That’s partly why it was passed. It really did take some decades to sort things out, but as you know that’s not something that one would even know unless you have some reason to really look into it and then you do so deep enough to actually get to heretic material like Murray and iSteve. A casual inquiry will just leave one believing the mainstream view that it’s about lack of early life opportunity and enrichment etc.

    The fact that everyone knows, but few will say so sober is a big chunk of why they will punish people for saying it.

    As mentioned i don’t think everyone knows, though maybe many people might have some feelings along those lines. And i wouldn’t say it a large dinner party, but i have certainly said it to various degrees to some double digit number of people over the past several years and encourage everyone here to do so when the risk is not too high.
    Note, that if one is to have some hope of success with the kind of people you mention then put the whole thing out there. This will explain their observations in a way that alleviates guilt.
    When i say “the whole thing” i mean the fairly modest and non-hateful observation that intelligence exists; IQ measures it reasonably; it reasonably correlates with success esp. in the professions; it varies some between races but there’s a lot of overalap; it’s just like other traits: e.g. height between men and women. a 5’10 woman is taller than a 5’9 guy, but on average men are taller than women. We all know this and deal with it. With IQ and race it’s the same. it explains the gaps pretty well in terms of SAT scores, income, etc. “No it doesn’t mean that you should be racist; just treat individuals fairly”.

    It hasn’t collapsed society wrt to race because of the Great Taboo. As to families? Got any siblings? In a conversation, say “but I would think that. I’m the smart one.” True or not sibs won’t react super-well to that. Plus, in families, people love each other.

    If one sib is IQ 105 and the other is IQ 120 it is what it is whether you say it or not. And if sib_120 or the parents shame sib_105 for not making it into law school like sib_120 that’s totally unfair and a crappy thing to do.

    THAT’s sort of what society what blank slatists did before wokeness came online. Now it’s more like yelling at sib_120 for sabotaging sib_105’s life in some way that nobody can identify.

    We don’t have to be super explicit with everyone, just back off on the gaslighting.

    Also, people in society “love” each other… or at least tolerate each other’s differences most of the time. By the way you write and argue i’m going to guess that you’re pretty smart; well above average. So, unless you’re in a near literal ivory tower, most of the people of all races that you’ve dealt with in your life have been less smart then you. Many of them a LOT less smart. And yet you’ve probably made due and so have they. As a society we’ve by necessity dealt with smarter and dumber people living together and it’s rare that it comes up explicitly and when it does it’s usually handled relatively tastefully.

    HBD and IQ doesn’t change the world we’ve always lived it at all nor does it mean that we have to became Gattaca or make everyone wear tags with their IQ score on it. But it IS a powerful tool against CRT and “equity” and it has to be deployed.

    As i’ve said elsewhere, it’s not even about convincing CRT proponents, we just need to inoculate a large enough part of people of good conscience, especially on the right side of the curve where decision makers tend to be, so that they have an alternative frame and can’t be bamboozled or bullied by the wokesters.

    • Replies: @martin_2
    @vhrm

    Why not do as I do when given the opportunity and tell superior white liberal goody goody types that white brains are on average one cubic inch SMALLER than Oriental brains, that whites have an average IQ about five points lower than Orientals, that Orientals do all the things we associate with having higher IQs such as lower crime, greater academic achievement, more stable families, etc, that Darwin's theory exactly predicts this kind of variation in a species when it becomes geographically splintered. Just don't mention blacks at all.

    Besides upsetting them, they won't know how to respond, since saying anything positive about white people would be racist.

    Replies: @Anon, @Rob

    , @Rob
    @vhrm


    As i’ve said elsewhere, it’s not even about convincing CRT proponents, we just need to inoculate a large enough part of people of good conscience, especially on the right side of the curve where decision makers tend to be, so that they have an alternative frame and can’t be bamboozled or bullied by the wokesters.

     

    This I agree with completely.
  43. @Stan d Mute
    @Desiderius

    What, exactly, is your point? FIFTY years ago, Detriot was the richest city in the world and had been for decades.

    https://www.quora.com/In-the-1950s-Detroit-was-the-wealthiest-city-in-the-world-What-happened-to-Detroit

    In 2002, (Canadian communist) Gov Granholm presided over an economy worse than Mississippi.

    If you want to know where your Boomer America is going, look no further than Detriot.

    But all you have ever done is laugh at Detriot. It’s been the butt of Boomer jokes since Robin Williams (a Detrioter) or earlier. HaHa! Look at the poor honkies fleeing for their lives in Michigan! The rubes!

    You will reap what you have sown motherfuckers.

    Steve, I expect whimming, so whim away. I’ve had too much truth serum tonight to hold back. The sight of 90% of you Boomers in Costco wearing masks while literally nobody else wore one got to me today..

    Replies: @Alden

    Slight quibble. Detroit was the riches city in the world 70 and 80 years ago. By 1971 50 years ago it was well on its way to ruin.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @Alden

    Really bro? You have to quibble on such a picayune?

    What really motivated you to reply?

  44. @vhrm
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, it's worth noting that even John McWhorter who is reasonably based and certainly fairly smart gets thrown by the "difference in avg intelligence" claim.

    He understands exactly what Murray says but somehow can't make the leap that it's "ok".


    Finally, Murray urges that we open up to thinking of black people as less intelligent – on the average, mind you, but still – but approach each black person as an individual. To wit, one is to be as ready for a black person to be brilliant as we are for an Asian or white one to be, despite a baseline assumption that black people are generally less intell…

    See how this doesn’t work? It’s a homily – the way we would like it to be even though it never will. “Black people aren’t as smart. But this one might be a genius!” A brave new world indeed.
    ...
    Aw. I have known good people who truly believe in this argument, but it doesn’t go through for me. This is why: in the end, Murray avoids stating too directly what the obvious implication of his argument is. He thinks that we need to accept an America in which black people are rarely encountered in jobs requiring serious smarts. We need to accept an America in which almost no black people are physicists or other practitioners in STEM, have top-level jobs in government, or are admitted to top-level graduate programs at all. Black people will invent little, there will be many fewer black doctors and lawyers, and many fewer black experts in, well, anything considered really intellectually challenging.

    In other words, Murray thinks – although I doubt he conceives of it in just this way – that beyond entertainment and sports, we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960 — except now, we are to consider this level of participation the best black people can do anyway.

    https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/why-charles-murrays-new-book-is-his

     

    That part demonstrates that he understands ... as much as he doesn't really want to, but here's where it goes off:


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.

    Murray’s book is arguing that we need to agree with her.
     
    Here he suddenly forgot that we're talking about individuals. Murray's book doesn't argue that. There's just no reason to have race in this at all. Just have each person do the best they can and we're good to go. There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It's always been the case. We've been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn't collapsed society.

    Murray is only identifying something that's always been true. And in this case the truth can set us free of feeling that we have to close all performance gaps.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Triteleia Laxa, @Rob, @Stan d Mute, @rebel yell, @lavoisier

    In principle, you can judge each individual as you find them while still being cognizant of group differences.
    In practice, people won’t do this. It’s too cumbersome and takes too much extra effort. If you try to recognize and work with the occasional “okay” black you will get burned many times interacting with blacks who turn out to be very “not okay”. Much easier, and safer, to avoid all blacks.
    So the practical conclusion is that separation is best, even if it is unfair to individual “okay” blacks.
    This is why liberals can’t go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @rebel yell

    Except in living and schooling arrangements.

    Massacring people in the streets and abandoning care of children to the state is barbaric.

    , @anon
    @rebel yell


    This is why liberals can’t go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.
     
    How exactly does it lead to segregation?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @rebel yell

    , @Goddard
    @rebel yell


    Much easier, and safer, to avoid all blacks.
     
    That’s my thinking also. In public, avoid, slip away, steer clear, lie low. When engagement is inevitable, show firmness of purpose and respect but never be taken in by the verbally adroit and the winning personality. “I will do business with you but will not be your bosom buddy—the gulf is too wide, the risk too great.”
    , @Jim Don Bob
    @rebel yell

    Speaking of segregation, a relative lives in Providence, RI. I sent here this article about "affinity groups" in Providence schools.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/07/ramona-bessinger-update-providence-union-head-confirms-teacher-affinity-group-segregation-historical-books-destroyed-holocaust-education-ended/

    I guess 'affinity grouping' is the new name for segregation.

  45. @Stan d Mute
    @vhrm


    If even, say, a quarter each of the NYT editorial board members, editors and college presidents read and “processed” his whole review it could change the world.
     
    Upon which I am entirely confident that you are a Boomer.

    Give it the fuck up. You are NOT going to‘change the world’. You don’t have a goddamn clue how or why or what the fuck is the purpose of evolution (ie Nature).

    Your lot would have been infinitely ahead by breeding sheep or cattle. Even the pathetic females who bred DOGS and CATS are further ahead than 99.9% of boomers.

    Deny Biology to your heart’s content Boomers. At some point, dissecting that damn frog will prove itself real to you.

    Replies: @vhrm

    About an hour before you wrote this comment you’d already said in another that you’d “had too much truth serum tonight to hold back” so i’ll take your current comment in that spirit, but some of your statements are an interesting prompt, even if i don’t know quite what you’re saying.

    I’m not a Boomer, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    Give it the fuck up. You are NOT going to‘change the world’.

    I’m not going to personally change the world, however note how much the world has changed over the past several decades even on “culture war” stuff. Go back 20 years to the year 2000.
    Who would have predicted that over the next 20 years:
    – same sex marriage anywhere in the US, let alone everywhere?
    – Black(ish) man would be President of the United States
    – that Democrats would spend 4+ years obsessing that the Republican President is a stooge of Russia and impeaching him over it
    – Bruce Jenner declares he’s a woman and runs for Governor of California as a Republican and it’s not even that big of a deal.

    The world changes. Why not try influence that?

    You don’t have a goddamn clue how or why or what the fuck is the purpose of evolution (ie Nature).

    AFAICT there is no purpose to evolution. It’s just a fancy long running chemical reaction.

    Your lot would have been infinitely ahead by breeding sheep or cattle. Even the pathetic females who bred DOGS and CATS are further ahead than 99.9% of boomers.

    Deny Biology to your heart’s content Boomers. At some point, dissecting that damn frog will prove itself real to you.

    Ok i’m really not sure what you were getting at here so i’ll leave it at that.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @vhrm

    If you’re not a boomer and not a Silent geezer I’d encourage a large dose of my truth serum. Otherwise, I’ll assume that you are a millennial and understand why you simply can’t understand.

  46. @vhrm
    @Stan d Mute

    About an hour before you wrote this comment you'd already said in another that you'd "had too much truth serum tonight to hold back" so i'll take your current comment in that spirit, but some of your statements are an interesting prompt, even if i don't know quite what you're saying.

    I'm not a Boomer, not that there's anything wrong with that.


    Give it the fuck up. You are NOT going to‘change the world’.
     
    I'm not going to personally change the world, however note how much the world has changed over the past several decades even on "culture war" stuff. Go back 20 years to the year 2000.
    Who would have predicted that over the next 20 years:
    - same sex marriage anywhere in the US, let alone everywhere?
    - Black(ish) man would be President of the United States
    - that Democrats would spend 4+ years obsessing that the Republican President is a stooge of Russia and impeaching him over it
    - Bruce Jenner declares he's a woman and runs for Governor of California as a Republican and it's not even that big of a deal.

    The world changes. Why not try influence that?

    You don’t have a goddamn clue how or why or what the fuck is the purpose of evolution (ie Nature).

     

    AFAICT there is no purpose to evolution. It's just a fancy long running chemical reaction.

    Your lot would have been infinitely ahead by breeding sheep or cattle. Even the pathetic females who bred DOGS and CATS are further ahead than 99.9% of boomers.

    Deny Biology to your heart’s content Boomers. At some point, dissecting that damn frog will prove itself real to you.
     
    Ok i'm really not sure what you were getting at here so i'll leave it at that.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    If you’re not a boomer and not a Silent geezer I’d encourage a large dose of my truth serum. Otherwise, I’ll assume that you are a millennial and understand why you simply can’t understand.

  47. @Alden
    @Stan d Mute

    Slight quibble. Detroit was the riches city in the world 70 and 80 years ago. By 1971 50 years ago it was well on its way to ruin.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Really bro? You have to quibble on such a picayune?

    What really motivated you to reply?

  48. @vhrm
    @Rob

    i'm coming at you from all directions! (though i apologize for not pulling this response into a particularly cohesive thrust).

    You said:


    This, and one (two?) other examples are more evidence for the contention that “everyone knows.” Why would the schoolteacher say that, unless she had noticed it to be the case. Certainly mainstream culture never told her that, but she’s a teacher. She’s seen a lot of kids, so she’s noticed it.
     
    She noticed that the her black students weren't doing as well and intuited it that there was something about them that was different or made them perform worse on analytical stuff.

    McWorther then says:

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.
     
    But, i think he's wrong. She's not saying that black people aren't SUPPOSED to be smart in that way, just that they AREN'T. The rest of it is her explanation of the things that she's "noticed". She probably doesn't know that she's describing intelligence or that IQ research would also explain what she noticed because IQ (not just racial differences but IQ at all ) has been radioactive in polite circles since at least the Bell Curve in 1994, so probably for her whole professional life.

    Everyone knows. Everyone who has been to school with both knows.
     
    I disagree in a couple of ways. Firstly most people haven't been to schools with significant numbers of both. Also, while teachers probably know there's a difference, normal people don't really understand what intelligence is or what impact it has or how it relates to success. It's not that obvious if you haven't looked into it or had it pointed out. Some people do well in school because of hard work, some because they're smart anyway. Cultural issues also cloud the issue. Also the story of Affirmative Action sounds entirely plausible. That's partly why it was passed. It really did take some decades to sort things out, but as you know that's not something that one would even know unless you have some reason to really look into it and then you do so deep enough to actually get to heretic material like Murray and iSteve. A casual inquiry will just leave one believing the mainstream view that it's about lack of early life opportunity and enrichment etc.

    The fact that everyone knows, but few will say so sober is a big chunk of why they will punish people for saying it.

     

    As mentioned i don't think everyone knows, though maybe many people might have some feelings along those lines. And i wouldn't say it a large dinner party, but i have certainly said it to various degrees to some double digit number of people over the past several years and encourage everyone here to do so when the risk is not too high.
    Note, that if one is to have some hope of success with the kind of people you mention then put the whole thing out there. This will explain their observations in a way that alleviates guilt.
    When i say "the whole thing" i mean the fairly modest and non-hateful observation that intelligence exists; IQ measures it reasonably; it reasonably correlates with success esp. in the professions; it varies some between races but there's a lot of overalap; it's just like other traits: e.g. height between men and women. a 5'10 woman is taller than a 5'9 guy, but on average men are taller than women. We all know this and deal with it. With IQ and race it's the same. it explains the gaps pretty well in terms of SAT scores, income, etc. "No it doesn't mean that you should be racist; just treat individuals fairly".

    It hasn’t collapsed society wrt to race because of the Great Taboo. As to families? Got any siblings? In a conversation, say “but I would think that. I’m the smart one.” True or not sibs won’t react super-well to that. Plus, in families, people love each other.

     

    If one sib is IQ 105 and the other is IQ 120 it is what it is whether you say it or not. And if sib_120 or the parents shame sib_105 for not making it into law school like sib_120 that's totally unfair and a crappy thing to do.

    THAT's sort of what society what blank slatists did before wokeness came online. Now it's more like yelling at sib_120 for sabotaging sib_105's life in some way that nobody can identify.

    We don't have to be super explicit with everyone, just back off on the gaslighting.

    Also, people in society "love" each other... or at least tolerate each other's differences most of the time. By the way you write and argue i'm going to guess that you're pretty smart; well above average. So, unless you're in a near literal ivory tower, most of the people of all races that you've dealt with in your life have been less smart then you. Many of them a LOT less smart. And yet you've probably made due and so have they. As a society we've by necessity dealt with smarter and dumber people living together and it's rare that it comes up explicitly and when it does it's usually handled relatively tastefully.

    HBD and IQ doesn't change the world we've always lived it at all nor does it mean that we have to became Gattaca or make everyone wear tags with their IQ score on it. But it IS a powerful tool against CRT and "equity" and it has to be deployed.

    As i've said elsewhere, it's not even about convincing CRT proponents, we just need to inoculate a large enough part of people of good conscience, especially on the right side of the curve where decision makers tend to be, so that they have an alternative frame and can't be bamboozled or bullied by the wokesters.

    Replies: @martin_2, @Rob

    Why not do as I do when given the opportunity and tell superior white liberal goody goody types that white brains are on average one cubic inch SMALLER than Oriental brains, that whites have an average IQ about five points lower than Orientals, that Orientals do all the things we associate with having higher IQs such as lower crime, greater academic achievement, more stable families, etc, that Darwin’s theory exactly predicts this kind of variation in a species when it becomes geographically splintered. Just don’t mention blacks at all.

    Besides upsetting them, they won’t know how to respond, since saying anything positive about white people would be racist.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Anon
    @martin_2


    that whites have an average IQ about five points lower than Orientals, that Orientals do all the things we associate with having higher IQs such as lower crime, greater academic achievement, more stable families, etc,
     
    If Oriental IQ is so much higher than White IQ, then why are Oriental societies more corrupt? Why aren’t they as good with the rule of law? Why aren’t they as creative as Whites are? Also, are their brains larger than Jewish brains in particular?
    , @Rob
    @martin_2

    Holy poop, Batman! That is brilliant. The only flaw is that when people know (or “know”) arguments that they won’t make, because they are not socially acceptable, winning the argument does not convince them. Like we are in a race. You do not run as fast as you can, and I beat you. Are you convinced i’m faster?

  49. @Stan d Mute
    @TruthRevolution.net


    We must fight to permit unrestrained #TrueSpeech. This includes race of a perpetrator, and crime statistics by race, academic and disciplinary school performance of Blacks.
     
    Truly, as someone who has survived Detriot 1967, you amuse me.

    You are about 70 years too late, but cute nonetheless..

    Replies: @TruthRevolution.net

    Absolutely, we and sincerity dot net document that since the 1950ies, and including Richart M Nixon, omission and lies were considered noble to avoid (correct) prejudice against Blacks.
    We should nipped this in the bud, maybe since Boas and Margreth Mead.
    But better late than never.

    Insisting on rights to #TrueSpech seems more justified than abstract FreeSpeech

  50. Anonymous[658] • Disclaimer says:
    @rebel yell
    @vhrm

    In principle, you can judge each individual as you find them while still being cognizant of group differences.
    In practice, people won't do this. It's too cumbersome and takes too much extra effort. If you try to recognize and work with the occasional "okay" black you will get burned many times interacting with blacks who turn out to be very "not okay". Much easier, and safer, to avoid all blacks.
    So the practical conclusion is that separation is best, even if it is unfair to individual "okay" blacks.
    This is why liberals can't go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anon, @Goddard, @Jim Don Bob

    Except in living and schooling arrangements.

    Massacring people in the streets and abandoning care of children to the state is barbaric.

  51. When it comes to schools and universities, no one really needs an opinion on whether blacks are innately less intelligent or not. Set real standards and adhere to them; blacks will succeed or not, whatever positive or negative causes might obtain. REJECT with firmness and contempt every attempt to modify standards in the quest for “equity”.

  52. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Triteleia Laxa

    HBD globalist. What a sight to behold.

    Has it ever dawned on you that most of the world puts family first. Deracinated eggheads are not the future. The world is - and always was - tribal because race is an extended family, and normal people put family first.

    You may see yourself as post racial, but the rest of the world - including intelligent non-whites - most definitely does not. The fact that you and so many others here can't see that is astonishing.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @vhrm

    I don’t know what you think your reply has to do with my comment, but you couldn’t be more ignorant about the rest of the world if you tried.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I don’t know what you think your reply has to do with my comment, but you couldn’t be more ignorant about the rest of the world if you tried.
     
    Most of the world doesn’t put family first? Most of the world doesn’t think of itself racially/tribally?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Yeah, the Japanese, Chinese, Israelis, Koreans, etc., "don't see race" or consider themselves as part of a people.

    Whites who think of themselves as post racial believe that they are worldly when, in fact, they're laughably provincial.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  53. @Anon
    I've been running Twitter searches, and the book's been unpersoned there also.

    It's telling that the media isn't running debunkings or takedowns or fainting-couch pieces on how such racist shit can be allowed to be published. They are not shy about going on and on about other things related to modern American Nazis and racists. Why the exception here. Silence. Crickets. Tachy goes to Coventry.

    I suppose that to debunk that blacks have substantially lower cognitive ability (on average) and are substantially more criminal and antisocial, you'd first have to state these slanders. But the strategy now is obfuscation, not debunking. No SATs anymore. Crime statistics? Racist, we have to get to work on that (Canada already doesn't keep racial crime stats). Mug shots? Substantially taken care of already.

    Reading Twitter and blog posts, I am surprised by how many obviously smart and generally well-informed people, when they reference IQ, do so in a way that shows that they genuinely believe that any insinuation of a gap is 100 percent made-up and racist.

    The 2017 Turkheimer-Harden-Nisbett articles in Vox were a major faux pas: Progressives talking opening about it. This cannot be allowed to happen again ... except Harden has a book called The Genetic Lottery coming out in the fall. She's a card-carrying Jewish progressive endogamously married to another Jewish progressive academic. How is the media going to deal with a book that as far as I can tell says, "Blacks are genetically dumber, it's not their fault, white IQ is an unearned privilege, whites thus should pay money to blacks" (she won't put it quite that bluntly, but this is the between-the-lines from her pre-publication op-ed pieces).

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910

    The 2017 Turkheimer-Harden-Nisbett articles in Vox were a major faux pas: Progressives talking opening about it. This cannot be allowed to happen again … except Harden has a book called The Genetic Lottery coming out in the fall. She’s a card-carrying Jewish progressive endogamously married to another Jewish progressive academic.


    [MORE]

    https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1416437300725178368
    https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1416439780313813002

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1420373452595232777
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1420374863596777472
    https://twitter.com/unherd/status/1420262831602163715

  54. @rebel yell
    @vhrm

    In principle, you can judge each individual as you find them while still being cognizant of group differences.
    In practice, people won't do this. It's too cumbersome and takes too much extra effort. If you try to recognize and work with the occasional "okay" black you will get burned many times interacting with blacks who turn out to be very "not okay". Much easier, and safer, to avoid all blacks.
    So the practical conclusion is that separation is best, even if it is unfair to individual "okay" blacks.
    This is why liberals can't go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anon, @Goddard, @Jim Don Bob

    This is why liberals can’t go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.

    How exactly does it lead to segregation?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @anon

    Very naturally. As in the stereotype of "birds of a feather flock together".

    , @rebel yell
    @anon

    Most people will racially self-segregate, if given the freedom to do so. I am not among them, incidentally. Exactly because I am a "discriminating" person (as in discerning), and because I am easy-going (probably too much for my own good), I will have black acquaintances and friends.
    But I fully endorse the right of everyone else to discriminate in whatever biased way they may choose. I understand that freedom of association and freedom of choice will result in defacto segregation among much of the public and do not see that as a problem.
    I also assume that the racial divide is really all about blacks, and to a much lesser extent Mexicans. Whites and Asians mostly won't self-segregate.

  55. Oh they’ve been educated alright. Just not in a way that can even see Murray or hear his arguments.

  56. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @martin_2
    @vhrm

    Why not do as I do when given the opportunity and tell superior white liberal goody goody types that white brains are on average one cubic inch SMALLER than Oriental brains, that whites have an average IQ about five points lower than Orientals, that Orientals do all the things we associate with having higher IQs such as lower crime, greater academic achievement, more stable families, etc, that Darwin's theory exactly predicts this kind of variation in a species when it becomes geographically splintered. Just don't mention blacks at all.

    Besides upsetting them, they won't know how to respond, since saying anything positive about white people would be racist.

    Replies: @Anon, @Rob

    that whites have an average IQ about five points lower than Orientals, that Orientals do all the things we associate with having higher IQs such as lower crime, greater academic achievement, more stable families, etc,

    If Oriental IQ is so much higher than White IQ, then why are Oriental societies more corrupt? Why aren’t they as good with the rule of law? Why aren’t they as creative as Whites are? Also, are their brains larger than Jewish brains in particular?

  57. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I don't know what you think your reply has to do with my comment, but you couldn't be more ignorant about the rest of the world if you tried.

    Replies: @Anon, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I don’t know what you think your reply has to do with my comment, but you couldn’t be more ignorant about the rest of the world if you tried.

    Most of the world doesn’t put family first? Most of the world doesn’t think of itself racially/tribally?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Anon


    Most of the world doesn’t think of itself racially/tribally?
     
    Most people think of themselves in many different ways. I promise you that the average Chinese does not wake up in the morning and think to themselves "what can I do for the greatness of the Sinitic race today."

    Replies: @martin_2, @Citizen of a Silly Country

  58. @Anon
    I've been running Twitter searches, and the book's been unpersoned there also.

    It's telling that the media isn't running debunkings or takedowns or fainting-couch pieces on how such racist shit can be allowed to be published. They are not shy about going on and on about other things related to modern American Nazis and racists. Why the exception here. Silence. Crickets. Tachy goes to Coventry.

    I suppose that to debunk that blacks have substantially lower cognitive ability (on average) and are substantially more criminal and antisocial, you'd first have to state these slanders. But the strategy now is obfuscation, not debunking. No SATs anymore. Crime statistics? Racist, we have to get to work on that (Canada already doesn't keep racial crime stats). Mug shots? Substantially taken care of already.

    Reading Twitter and blog posts, I am surprised by how many obviously smart and generally well-informed people, when they reference IQ, do so in a way that shows that they genuinely believe that any insinuation of a gap is 100 percent made-up and racist.

    The 2017 Turkheimer-Harden-Nisbett articles in Vox were a major faux pas: Progressives talking opening about it. This cannot be allowed to happen again ... except Harden has a book called The Genetic Lottery coming out in the fall. She's a card-carrying Jewish progressive endogamously married to another Jewish progressive academic. How is the media going to deal with a book that as far as I can tell says, "Blacks are genetically dumber, it's not their fault, white IQ is an unearned privilege, whites thus should pay money to blacks" (she won't put it quite that bluntly, but this is the between-the-lines from her pre-publication op-ed pieces).

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910

    (she won’t put it quite that bluntly, but this is the between-the-lines from her pre-publication op-ed pieces).

  59. anonymous[749] • Disclaimer says:

    Lauren Boebert comes out in favor(implicitly) of “reparations” being paid to blacks by descendants of Southerners.

    Illustrates in so many ways how NOT to respond to “reparations” demands. First of all, you don’t agree with claims of past injustices, or of present day relevance, by saying things like, “important to remember mistakes in our history”. Second, you don’t concede that some Americans must “pay the price.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @anonymous

    Meh. The only reasonable answer is "reparations, to the small degree they are actually warranted, have been paid many times over - in the form of the wasteful government spending that blacks invariably blow on things that don't improve their lot one bit".

    Screw it. The only reparations that have any sense anymore are ones that come with a condition of one way ticket out of the USA. For this, almost no price is too high.

  60. @rebel yell
    @vhrm

    In principle, you can judge each individual as you find them while still being cognizant of group differences.
    In practice, people won't do this. It's too cumbersome and takes too much extra effort. If you try to recognize and work with the occasional "okay" black you will get burned many times interacting with blacks who turn out to be very "not okay". Much easier, and safer, to avoid all blacks.
    So the practical conclusion is that separation is best, even if it is unfair to individual "okay" blacks.
    This is why liberals can't go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anon, @Goddard, @Jim Don Bob

    Much easier, and safer, to avoid all blacks.

    That’s my thinking also. In public, avoid, slip away, steer clear, lie low. When engagement is inevitable, show firmness of purpose and respect but never be taken in by the verbally adroit and the winning personality. “I will do business with you but will not be your bosom buddy—the gulf is too wide, the risk too great.”

  61. @Technite78
    Some people don't want to *notice* anything that disturbs their comfortable world view.

    Charles Murray has *noticed* things that are very disturbing to some people's world view.

    Hence... they are doing their best *not* to notice.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Anonymous, @Inquiring Mind

    Have others noticed that a conservative-libertarian-alt right-iconoclast-noticing Web site is “protected” from becoming an “echo chamber” by persons who will reliably post contrary opinions? I have them on my “Commenters to Ignore” list, a welcome feature on unz.com to resist the impulse to “reply to trolls” that I cannot more highly recommend (I recommend using the ignore list; I don’t recommend replying to commenters with the same, repeated, tired counter arguments)..

    It is claimed that the State of Israel actually supports or funds people to comment on Web sites where Israel is in any way criticized — the word for this is Hasbarah? I can see why the Israelis do this given them being a tiny country in a sea of — you get the idea as to why they feel they need to do this, even if you are critical of Israel yourself.

    But generic “Hasbarah” is conducted by the Liberal Establishment/Deep State/Cathedral on sites like this and others? It is like the Liberal Establishment/Deep State/Cathedral cannot just ignore such sites and let them become echo chambers of self-affirmation of malcontents? Not that their arguments change any minds, but by riling people up, it plants enough seeds of doubt or maybe just because reasons that people who disagree cannot just be ignored and left alone?

    You ever notice that if there is slightest “attack surface” to any of the arguments advanced by iSteve or his readers, the Hasbarah commenters “come out of the woodwork”? But if the argument is air tight or if the counter argument is air tight, the Hasbarah simply goes radio silent. They for sure don’t respond, yes, you have a point there, but . . . They just keep quiet to “straighten us out another day.”

    Yes, this “shunning” of Charles Murray is a form of suppression. But ever stop to think that if there were an effective rebuttal, refutation, counter-argument or “debunking” (debunk — gosh how I hate that smug word, it drips of the stupid grins on the Texas Democrats on their chartered jet fleeing Texas — they look like Faculty Senators at a major university of customers of a Whole Foods and I don’t know how their Republican colleagues can stand being around them), if there were such an argument, there would be all manner of published reviews?

    The critics of Charles Murray are silent because they have been silenced by that book. This doesn’t mean they won’t pour out of the woodwork the next time around, but because they having nothing bad to say, they won’t say anything.

  62. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I don't know what you think your reply has to do with my comment, but you couldn't be more ignorant about the rest of the world if you tried.

    Replies: @Anon, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Yeah, the Japanese, Chinese, Israelis, Koreans, etc., “don’t see race” or consider themselves as part of a people.

    Whites who think of themselves as post racial believe that they are worldly when, in fact, they’re laughably provincial.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    They see themselves as part of racial groups, that is true, but they have millions of other priorities, as does everyone.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  63. Take a look at Instapundit (totally conventional conservative output) where the book is shown as a topic without editorial content. The comments often cite the “content of character” and “judge as individuals” sort of nonsense.

    A perfect illustration of conservatism’s total surrender to the Left.

  64. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:

    Just another case of neo-Bolsheviks using tactics perfected by Soviets: If you cannot reasonably and logically argue against something, make every effort to make it seem that it simply does not exist.

  65. @rebel yell
    @vhrm

    In principle, you can judge each individual as you find them while still being cognizant of group differences.
    In practice, people won't do this. It's too cumbersome and takes too much extra effort. If you try to recognize and work with the occasional "okay" black you will get burned many times interacting with blacks who turn out to be very "not okay". Much easier, and safer, to avoid all blacks.
    So the practical conclusion is that separation is best, even if it is unfair to individual "okay" blacks.
    This is why liberals can't go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anon, @Goddard, @Jim Don Bob

    Speaking of segregation, a relative lives in Providence, RI. I sent here this article about “affinity groups” in Providence schools.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/07/ramona-bessinger-update-providence-union-head-confirms-teacher-affinity-group-segregation-historical-books-destroyed-holocaust-education-ended/

    I guess ‘affinity grouping’ is the new name for segregation.

  66. Review it? At this point I’m a little surprised he could find anyone to print it and sell it

  67. Rob says:
    @martin_2
    @vhrm

    Why not do as I do when given the opportunity and tell superior white liberal goody goody types that white brains are on average one cubic inch SMALLER than Oriental brains, that whites have an average IQ about five points lower than Orientals, that Orientals do all the things we associate with having higher IQs such as lower crime, greater academic achievement, more stable families, etc, that Darwin's theory exactly predicts this kind of variation in a species when it becomes geographically splintered. Just don't mention blacks at all.

    Besides upsetting them, they won't know how to respond, since saying anything positive about white people would be racist.

    Replies: @Anon, @Rob

    Holy poop, Batman! That is brilliant. The only flaw is that when people know (or “know”) arguments that they won’t make, because they are not socially acceptable, winning the argument does not convince them. Like we are in a race. You do not run as fast as you can, and I beat you. Are you convinced i’m faster?

  68. Rob says:
    @vhrm
    @Rob

    i'm coming at you from all directions! (though i apologize for not pulling this response into a particularly cohesive thrust).

    You said:


    This, and one (two?) other examples are more evidence for the contention that “everyone knows.” Why would the schoolteacher say that, unless she had noticed it to be the case. Certainly mainstream culture never told her that, but she’s a teacher. She’s seen a lot of kids, so she’s noticed it.
     
    She noticed that the her black students weren't doing as well and intuited it that there was something about them that was different or made them perform worse on analytical stuff.

    McWorther then says:

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.
     
    But, i think he's wrong. She's not saying that black people aren't SUPPOSED to be smart in that way, just that they AREN'T. The rest of it is her explanation of the things that she's "noticed". She probably doesn't know that she's describing intelligence or that IQ research would also explain what she noticed because IQ (not just racial differences but IQ at all ) has been radioactive in polite circles since at least the Bell Curve in 1994, so probably for her whole professional life.

    Everyone knows. Everyone who has been to school with both knows.
     
    I disagree in a couple of ways. Firstly most people haven't been to schools with significant numbers of both. Also, while teachers probably know there's a difference, normal people don't really understand what intelligence is or what impact it has or how it relates to success. It's not that obvious if you haven't looked into it or had it pointed out. Some people do well in school because of hard work, some because they're smart anyway. Cultural issues also cloud the issue. Also the story of Affirmative Action sounds entirely plausible. That's partly why it was passed. It really did take some decades to sort things out, but as you know that's not something that one would even know unless you have some reason to really look into it and then you do so deep enough to actually get to heretic material like Murray and iSteve. A casual inquiry will just leave one believing the mainstream view that it's about lack of early life opportunity and enrichment etc.

    The fact that everyone knows, but few will say so sober is a big chunk of why they will punish people for saying it.

     

    As mentioned i don't think everyone knows, though maybe many people might have some feelings along those lines. And i wouldn't say it a large dinner party, but i have certainly said it to various degrees to some double digit number of people over the past several years and encourage everyone here to do so when the risk is not too high.
    Note, that if one is to have some hope of success with the kind of people you mention then put the whole thing out there. This will explain their observations in a way that alleviates guilt.
    When i say "the whole thing" i mean the fairly modest and non-hateful observation that intelligence exists; IQ measures it reasonably; it reasonably correlates with success esp. in the professions; it varies some between races but there's a lot of overalap; it's just like other traits: e.g. height between men and women. a 5'10 woman is taller than a 5'9 guy, but on average men are taller than women. We all know this and deal with it. With IQ and race it's the same. it explains the gaps pretty well in terms of SAT scores, income, etc. "No it doesn't mean that you should be racist; just treat individuals fairly".

    It hasn’t collapsed society wrt to race because of the Great Taboo. As to families? Got any siblings? In a conversation, say “but I would think that. I’m the smart one.” True or not sibs won’t react super-well to that. Plus, in families, people love each other.

     

    If one sib is IQ 105 and the other is IQ 120 it is what it is whether you say it or not. And if sib_120 or the parents shame sib_105 for not making it into law school like sib_120 that's totally unfair and a crappy thing to do.

    THAT's sort of what society what blank slatists did before wokeness came online. Now it's more like yelling at sib_120 for sabotaging sib_105's life in some way that nobody can identify.

    We don't have to be super explicit with everyone, just back off on the gaslighting.

    Also, people in society "love" each other... or at least tolerate each other's differences most of the time. By the way you write and argue i'm going to guess that you're pretty smart; well above average. So, unless you're in a near literal ivory tower, most of the people of all races that you've dealt with in your life have been less smart then you. Many of them a LOT less smart. And yet you've probably made due and so have they. As a society we've by necessity dealt with smarter and dumber people living together and it's rare that it comes up explicitly and when it does it's usually handled relatively tastefully.

    HBD and IQ doesn't change the world we've always lived it at all nor does it mean that we have to became Gattaca or make everyone wear tags with their IQ score on it. But it IS a powerful tool against CRT and "equity" and it has to be deployed.

    As i've said elsewhere, it's not even about convincing CRT proponents, we just need to inoculate a large enough part of people of good conscience, especially on the right side of the curve where decision makers tend to be, so that they have an alternative frame and can't be bamboozled or bullied by the wokesters.

    Replies: @martin_2, @Rob

    As i’ve said elsewhere, it’s not even about convincing CRT proponents, we just need to inoculate a large enough part of people of good conscience, especially on the right side of the curve where decision makers tend to be, so that they have an alternative frame and can’t be bamboozled or bullied by the wokesters.

    This I agree with completely.

  69. Economist Glenn Loury interviewed Murray for his podcast.

    Of which minutes 25-42 were unexcelled and highly recommended listening.

  70. Thanks for recognizing some more reputable sources.

  71. Big Chuck trying to redeem himself:

  72. @vhrm
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, it's worth noting that even John McWhorter who is reasonably based and certainly fairly smart gets thrown by the "difference in avg intelligence" claim.

    He understands exactly what Murray says but somehow can't make the leap that it's "ok".


    Finally, Murray urges that we open up to thinking of black people as less intelligent – on the average, mind you, but still – but approach each black person as an individual. To wit, one is to be as ready for a black person to be brilliant as we are for an Asian or white one to be, despite a baseline assumption that black people are generally less intell…

    See how this doesn’t work? It’s a homily – the way we would like it to be even though it never will. “Black people aren’t as smart. But this one might be a genius!” A brave new world indeed.
    ...
    Aw. I have known good people who truly believe in this argument, but it doesn’t go through for me. This is why: in the end, Murray avoids stating too directly what the obvious implication of his argument is. He thinks that we need to accept an America in which black people are rarely encountered in jobs requiring serious smarts. We need to accept an America in which almost no black people are physicists or other practitioners in STEM, have top-level jobs in government, or are admitted to top-level graduate programs at all. Black people will invent little, there will be many fewer black doctors and lawyers, and many fewer black experts in, well, anything considered really intellectually challenging.

    In other words, Murray thinks – although I doubt he conceives of it in just this way – that beyond entertainment and sports, we need to go back to the level of achievement that American society allowed black people in roughly 1960 — except now, we are to consider this level of participation the best black people can do anyway.

    https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/why-charles-murrays-new-book-is-his

     

    That part demonstrates that he understands ... as much as he doesn't really want to, but here's where it goes off:


    Or, watch here how gruesome it is to see a black schoolteacher openly espousing the idea that black people aren’t analytical thinkers as her colleagues nod warmly.

    Now, her idea is that black people are “communal” or “holistic” thinkers and that this is the equal of being an analytic thinker. But most of us know damned well that “analytic” thought – as in abstraction, detachment, separating the head from the heart – is, well, intelligence. This black person, in her soul-deep suspicion of “whiteness,” buys in to the idea that black people aren’t supposed to be smart in the way that those white people are.

    Murray’s book is arguing that we need to agree with her.
     
    Here he suddenly forgot that we're talking about individuals. Murray's book doesn't argue that. There's just no reason to have race in this at all. Just have each person do the best they can and we're good to go. There are smarter and dumber people in every race. In every family. It's always been the case. We've been dealing with it, well, forever and it hasn't collapsed society.

    Murray is only identifying something that's always been true. And in this case the truth can set us free of feeling that we have to close all performance gaps.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Triteleia Laxa, @Rob, @Stan d Mute, @rebel yell, @lavoisier

    The primary problem is not that blacks are on average less cognitively capable than whites.

    The primary problem is their out of control criminalitiy.

    If blacks, as a class, were peaceful people with a little lower average intelligence than whites we would not be having the problems we are facing.

    It is their criminal behavior that makes them people to fear and to avoid.

    Facing the black question means facing the color of crime.

    • Replies: @anon
    @lavoisier


    The primary problem is not that blacks are on average less cognitively capable than whites.

    The primary problem is their out of control criminalitiy.

    If blacks, as a class, were peaceful people with a little lower average intelligence than whites we would not be having the problems we are facing.
     
    If blacks had lower “intelligence” that whites, the occupation termed “crime” would have more appeal to blacks as a class than to whites as a class. That is because they would have difficult competing with Whites in more cognitively demanding legal occupations. Crime is like an ecological niche for those who cannot compete so well in the formal economy. Lower cognitive ability can drive crime.
  73. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Yeah, the Japanese, Chinese, Israelis, Koreans, etc., "don't see race" or consider themselves as part of a people.

    Whites who think of themselves as post racial believe that they are worldly when, in fact, they're laughably provincial.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    They see themselves as part of racial groups, that is true, but they have millions of other priorities, as does everyone.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Yes, they don't have to talk endlessly about race because they have homogeneous societies. It makes for far more interesting conversations.

    Seriously, it's never dawned on you why these other countries don't dwell on race? Are you really that blind?

    Replies: @Anon

  74. @Anon
    @Triteleia Laxa


    I don’t know what you think your reply has to do with my comment, but you couldn’t be more ignorant about the rest of the world if you tried.
     
    Most of the world doesn’t put family first? Most of the world doesn’t think of itself racially/tribally?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Most of the world doesn’t think of itself racially/tribally?

    Most people think of themselves in many different ways. I promise you that the average Chinese does not wake up in the morning and think to themselves “what can I do for the greatness of the Sinitic race today.”

    • Replies: @martin_2
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I disagree. Your illustration is a straw man. That is not what is meant by saying everyone other than whites is tribal.

    A few years ago a young Chinese woman was raped and murdered by a black in some or other American city. Hundreds or thousands of Chinese took to the streets in protest. Asian protests against violence inflicted on their vulnerable have also happened more recently, of course.

    We all know the script when a young white girl is murdered by a black in a similar way. The parents make a public statement condemning racism, and make a plea for more basketball courts to be built in black neighbourhoods, and the handful of whites that are brave enough to take to the streets are condemned by the media as white supremacists.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Because they don't have to, idiot. Because they've already secured their ethnic homeland.

    Are you twelve years old?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  75. anon[175] • Disclaimer says:
    @lavoisier
    @vhrm

    The primary problem is not that blacks are on average less cognitively capable than whites.

    The primary problem is their out of control criminalitiy.

    If blacks, as a class, were peaceful people with a little lower average intelligence than whites we would not be having the problems we are facing.

    It is their criminal behavior that makes them people to fear and to avoid.

    Facing the black question means facing the color of crime.

    Replies: @anon

    The primary problem is not that blacks are on average less cognitively capable than whites.

    The primary problem is their out of control criminalitiy.

    If blacks, as a class, were peaceful people with a little lower average intelligence than whites we would not be having the problems we are facing.

    If blacks had lower “intelligence” that whites, the occupation termed “crime” would have more appeal to blacks as a class than to whites as a class. That is because they would have difficult competing with Whites in more cognitively demanding legal occupations. Crime is like an ecological niche for those who cannot compete so well in the formal economy. Lower cognitive ability can drive crime.

  76. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Anon


    Most of the world doesn’t think of itself racially/tribally?
     
    Most people think of themselves in many different ways. I promise you that the average Chinese does not wake up in the morning and think to themselves "what can I do for the greatness of the Sinitic race today."

    Replies: @martin_2, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I disagree. Your illustration is a straw man. That is not what is meant by saying everyone other than whites is tribal.

    A few years ago a young Chinese woman was raped and murdered by a black in some or other American city. Hundreds or thousands of Chinese took to the streets in protest. Asian protests against violence inflicted on their vulnerable have also happened more recently, of course.

    We all know the script when a young white girl is murdered by a black in a similar way. The parents make a public statement condemning racism, and make a plea for more basketball courts to be built in black neighbourhoods, and the handful of whites that are brave enough to take to the streets are condemned by the media as white supremacists.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @martin_2


    A few years ago a young Chinese woman was raped and murdered by a black in some or other American city. Hundreds or thousands of Chinese took to the streets in protest. Asian protests against violence inflicted on their vulnerable have also happened more recently, of course.
     
    Increasingly, Asian race hustlers are blaming whites for black attacks on Asians. So they get to be tribal without the risk of being called racists.
  77. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    @rebel yell


    This is why liberals can’t go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.
     
    How exactly does it lead to segregation?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @rebel yell

    Very naturally. As in the stereotype of “birds of a feather flock together”.

  78. Anonymous[515] • Disclaimer says:

    Aside from Michael Barone’s syndicated column (article title: Charles Murray’s Two Uncomfortable Truths), I don’t think any other conservative pundits have devoted a review to “Facing Reality.”
    The usually quite ballsy Ann Coulter has only tweeted about Murray’s new book and although Tucker Carlson had Murray on, his actual 8PM show did not air the interview’s more controversial tidbits re: group differences in IQ.

    For a contrast, I’ll leave it to the far-left organization FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) to give a brief summary of the mainstream coverage Murray’s first foray into the subject of race, IQ and genetics received back in 1994:

    ” [The] ‘Controversy’ [over Murray’s new book The Bell Curve] made the covers of Newsweek (10/24/94) and the New York Times Magazine (10/9/94), took up nearly a full op-ed page in the Wall Street Journal (10/10/94), and garnered a near-rave review from the New York Times Book Review (10/16/94; Extra! Update, 12/94). [The Bell Curve also] set the agenda for discussions on such public affairs programs as Nightline (10/21/94), the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (10/28/94), the McLaughlin Group (10/21/94), Charlie Rose (11/3/94, 11/4/94), Think Tank (10/14/94), PrimeTime Live (10/27/94) and All Things Considered (10/28/94). ”

    -And I might ad that in December The Wall Street Journal published an editorial signed by 52 academics titled “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” designed to give credence to Murray’s controversial ideas. (Dec. 13, p A18.)

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anonymous


    For a contrast, I’ll leave it to the far-left organization FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) to give a brief summary of the mainstream coverage Murray’s first foray into the subject of race, IQ and genetics received back in 1994:
     
    Maybe “Facing Reality” is old news.
  79. Anonymous[200] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Lauren Boebert comes out in favor(implicitly) of “reparations” being paid to blacks by descendants of Southerners.

    https://www.twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1407365526414934017

    Illustrates in so many ways how NOT to respond to “reparations” demands. First of all, you don’t agree with claims of past injustices, or of present day relevance, by saying things like, “important to remember mistakes in our history”. Second, you don’t concede that some Americans must “pay the price.”

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Meh. The only reasonable answer is “reparations, to the small degree they are actually warranted, have been paid many times over – in the form of the wasteful government spending that blacks invariably blow on things that don’t improve their lot one bit”.

    Screw it. The only reparations that have any sense anymore are ones that come with a condition of one way ticket out of the USA. For this, almost no price is too high.

  80. @Anonymous
    Aside from Michael Barone's syndicated column (article title: Charles Murray's Two Uncomfortable Truths), I don't think any other conservative pundits have devoted a review to "Facing Reality."
    The usually quite ballsy Ann Coulter has only tweeted about Murray's new book and although Tucker Carlson had Murray on, his actual 8PM show did not air the interview's more controversial tidbits re: group differences in IQ.

    For a contrast, I'll leave it to the far-left organization FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) to give a brief summary of the mainstream coverage Murray's first foray into the subject of race, IQ and genetics received back in 1994:

    " [The] 'Controversy' [over Murray's new book The Bell Curve] made the covers of Newsweek (10/24/94) and the New York Times Magazine (10/9/94), took up nearly a full op-ed page in the Wall Street Journal (10/10/94), and garnered a near-rave review from the New York Times Book Review (10/16/94; Extra! Update, 12/94). [The Bell Curve also] set the agenda for discussions on such public affairs programs as Nightline (10/21/94), the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (10/28/94), the McLaughlin Group (10/21/94), Charlie Rose (11/3/94, 11/4/94), Think Tank (10/14/94), PrimeTime Live (10/27/94) and All Things Considered (10/28/94). "

    -And I might ad that in December The Wall Street Journal published an editorial signed by 52 academics titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence," designed to give credence to Murray's controversial ideas. (Dec. 13, p A18.)

    Replies: @Anon

    For a contrast, I’ll leave it to the far-left organization FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) to give a brief summary of the mainstream coverage Murray’s first foray into the subject of race, IQ and genetics received back in 1994:

    Maybe “Facing Reality” is old news.

  81. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Triteleia Laxa

    HBD globalist. What a sight to behold.

    Has it ever dawned on you that most of the world puts family first. Deracinated eggheads are not the future. The world is - and always was - tribal because race is an extended family, and normal people put family first.

    You may see yourself as post racial, but the rest of the world - including intelligent non-whites - most definitely does not. The fact that you and so many others here can't see that is astonishing.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @vhrm

    Has it ever dawned on you that most of the world puts family first. Deracinated eggheads are not the future.

    I think post WWII history suggests that “deracinated eggheads” ARE the future. Like the German rocket scientists that were key to the space and nuclear race for the United States. And the veritable UN that has been our STEM college and graduate programs and also significant parts of our tech and biotech industries for the past few decades.

    Heck even “deracinated” farm workers and laborers (e.g. the ones invading Europe from the ME and Africa and the ones invading the US from the South) seem to be having quite the moment, as much as i wish they weren’t.

    The world is – and always was – tribal because race is an extended family, and normal people put family first.

    You may see yourself as post racial, but the rest of the world – including intelligent non-whites – most definitely does not. The fact that you and so many others here can’t see that is astonishing.

    There’s no question that the world was very tribal and that most of the world is a lot more racist than American whites, but it doesn’t follow that that’s the right way to be.
    Compared to our ancestors from a couple thousand years ago even the most strident White Nationalist would be a crazy “globalist” for lumping together so many obviously different tribes that should never be dealt with because they’re inferior, unwashed, uncultured and can never be trusted.

    I understand the concentric circle model but why draw the line now at the final 5 – 10 “tribes” instead of the 100, 1000 or 10000 tribes that once were?

    (i’m not an entirely kumbaya “we are the world” type, but the modern world, esp the US has some significant “melting pot” going on and that can’t be denied)

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @vhrm

    How has colorblind civic nationalism been working out for Whites over the past 50 years?

    Tells you all you need to know.

    Replies: @vhrm

  82. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    They see themselves as part of racial groups, that is true, but they have millions of other priorities, as does everyone.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Yes, they don’t have to talk endlessly about race because they have homogeneous societies. It makes for far more interesting conversations.

    Seriously, it’s never dawned on you why these other countries don’t dwell on race? Are you really that blind?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Seriously, it’s never dawned on you why these other countries don’t dwell on race? Are you really that blind?
     
    The Jews have a vested interest in getting the Western countries they inhabit to focus on race, and not on civic unity, and definitely not on Jews.
  83. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Anon


    Most of the world doesn’t think of itself racially/tribally?
     
    Most people think of themselves in many different ways. I promise you that the average Chinese does not wake up in the morning and think to themselves "what can I do for the greatness of the Sinitic race today."

    Replies: @martin_2, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Because they don’t have to, idiot. Because they’ve already secured their ethnic homeland.

    Are you twelve years old?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Do you think most people around the world would disavow their child for marrying someone of another race?

  84. @vhrm
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Has it ever dawned on you that most of the world puts family first. Deracinated eggheads are not the future.

     

    I think post WWII history suggests that "deracinated eggheads" ARE the future. Like the German rocket scientists that were key to the space and nuclear race for the United States. And the veritable UN that has been our STEM college and graduate programs and also significant parts of our tech and biotech industries for the past few decades.

    Heck even "deracinated" farm workers and laborers (e.g. the ones invading Europe from the ME and Africa and the ones invading the US from the South) seem to be having quite the moment, as much as i wish they weren't.


    The world is – and always was – tribal because race is an extended family, and normal people put family first.

    You may see yourself as post racial, but the rest of the world – including intelligent non-whites – most definitely does not. The fact that you and so many others here can’t see that is astonishing.

     

    There's no question that the world was very tribal and that most of the world is a lot more racist than American whites, but it doesn't follow that that's the right way to be.
    Compared to our ancestors from a couple thousand years ago even the most strident White Nationalist would be a crazy "globalist" for lumping together so many obviously different tribes that should never be dealt with because they're inferior, unwashed, uncultured and can never be trusted.

    I understand the concentric circle model but why draw the line now at the final 5 - 10 "tribes" instead of the 100, 1000 or 10000 tribes that once were?

    (i'm not an entirely kumbaya "we are the world" type, but the modern world, esp the US has some significant "melting pot" going on and that can't be denied)

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    How has colorblind civic nationalism been working out for Whites over the past 50 years?

    Tells you all you need to know.

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    How has colorblind civic nationalism been working out for Whites over the past 50 years?

     

    Overall, reasonably well?

    https://i2.wp.com/financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/real-median-household-income-by-race.png

    https://www.financialsamurai.com/real-median-household-income-by-race/

    Look, i share many concerns about the post-industrial future, the uncontrolled southern border, and especially about BLM and the black worship of the past few years.

    But so far it's been "ok". And the stuff that's been hardest on whites, like offshoring of manufacturing, the meth and opioid epidemics, aren't primarily caused by minorities.

    Well illegal immigrations is displacing whites in lower wage occupations which, along with the globalization, has fed into the predicament of poor whites, but that's as much (or more) a civic nationalist issue as a race one.
  85. @anon
    @rebel yell


    This is why liberals can’t go down the road of accepting group differences rooted in genetics. They correctly foresee it leads back to segregation, which in their view is barbaric.
     
    How exactly does it lead to segregation?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @rebel yell

    Most people will racially self-segregate, if given the freedom to do so. I am not among them, incidentally. Exactly because I am a “discriminating” person (as in discerning), and because I am easy-going (probably too much for my own good), I will have black acquaintances and friends.
    But I fully endorse the right of everyone else to discriminate in whatever biased way they may choose. I understand that freedom of association and freedom of choice will result in defacto segregation among much of the public and do not see that as a problem.
    I also assume that the racial divide is really all about blacks, and to a much lesser extent Mexicans. Whites and Asians mostly won’t self-segregate.

  86. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @vhrm

    How has colorblind civic nationalism been working out for Whites over the past 50 years?

    Tells you all you need to know.

    Replies: @vhrm

    How has colorblind civic nationalism been working out for Whites over the past 50 years?

    Overall, reasonably well?

    https://www.financialsamurai.com/real-median-household-income-by-race/

    Look, i share many concerns about the post-industrial future, the uncontrolled southern border, and especially about BLM and the black worship of the past few years.

    But so far it’s been “ok”. And the stuff that’s been hardest on whites, like offshoring of manufacturing, the meth and opioid epidemics, aren’t primarily caused by minorities.

    Well illegal immigrations is displacing whites in lower wage occupations which, along with the globalization, has fed into the predicament of poor whites, but that’s as much (or more) a civic nationalist issue as a race one.

    • LOL: Gabe Ruth
  87. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Yes, they don't have to talk endlessly about race because they have homogeneous societies. It makes for far more interesting conversations.

    Seriously, it's never dawned on you why these other countries don't dwell on race? Are you really that blind?

    Replies: @Anon

    Seriously, it’s never dawned on you why these other countries don’t dwell on race? Are you really that blind?

    The Jews have a vested interest in getting the Western countries they inhabit to focus on race, and not on civic unity, and definitely not on Jews.

  88. Reviews? I’m kind of surprised Murray could find a publisher.

  89. @martin_2
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I disagree. Your illustration is a straw man. That is not what is meant by saying everyone other than whites is tribal.

    A few years ago a young Chinese woman was raped and murdered by a black in some or other American city. Hundreds or thousands of Chinese took to the streets in protest. Asian protests against violence inflicted on their vulnerable have also happened more recently, of course.

    We all know the script when a young white girl is murdered by a black in a similar way. The parents make a public statement condemning racism, and make a plea for more basketball courts to be built in black neighbourhoods, and the handful of whites that are brave enough to take to the streets are condemned by the media as white supremacists.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    A few years ago a young Chinese woman was raped and murdered by a black in some or other American city. Hundreds or thousands of Chinese took to the streets in protest. Asian protests against violence inflicted on their vulnerable have also happened more recently, of course.

    Increasingly, Asian race hustlers are blaming whites for black attacks on Asians. So they get to be tribal without the risk of being called racists.

  90. How Many Reviews Has Charles Murray’s “Facing Reality” Received in Its First Month of Publication?

    Which publications have reviewed it so far?

    Wall Street Journal: No.

    I say:

    Those vicious and cowardly Murdoch minion scamps at the Wall Street Journal are revealing their vile lack of bravery and their cringing slavery to the anti-White political atmosphere in the USA.

    Paul Gigot and Danny Henninger and Matt Murray and Almar Latour and Karen Miller Pensiero and all the other nasty coward slob Wall Street Journal pukes who put that damn Murdoch rumpswab propaganda rag together are base poltroons of the worst sort ever.

    I have to invoke the sentiment — but not the politics — of Gretchen Thornberry:

    HOW DARE YOU!?

    With full Jack Elam Gretchen Thornberry scowl!

  91. @lavoisier
    Not a surprise.

    Let dangerous ideas die in silence.

    Replies: @Philo

    But the silenced ideas do not die: they sleep uneasily.

  92. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Because they don't have to, idiot. Because they've already secured their ethnic homeland.

    Are you twelve years old?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Do you think most people around the world would disavow their child for marrying someone of another race?

  93. @Muggles
    RE: the Charles Murray book review blackout.

    One of the worst things about the neo Marxist MSM propaganda Narrative is not simply the many lies they continuously propagate, but the total intentional suppression of "news" and views they want to shitcan.

    So the worst sins are the sins of omission.

    The Truth is so buried in Lies it never sees daylight.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Nicholas Stix

    Charles Murray is, to be sure, one of the most important social scientists alive, so this is not good news. On the other hand, his years-long triangulation campaign, sucking up to his enemies, has me crying crocodile tears for him.

    According to reviewer F. Roger Devlin, Murray wrote his book, The State of White America (not to be confused with my earlier, eponymous report), in which he crapped all over working-class, White men, just so that his msm/antiversity enemies would again consent to review his books. How’d that work out for him?

    Then he crapped all over Trump in 2016, even though he supported Trump’s positions.

    And Murray confessed, nay bragged, several years ago, in a speech at AEI to fudging the numbers on the heritability of IQ in The Bell Curve. (“It was fun”–oops, wrong perp.)

    If only he consistently believed in truth, instead of caste privilege.

    The only thing that’s for sure is that the Right is a bloody mess—intellectually, morally, politically, you name it. Everyone’s running around with one bloody knife in his hand, and a second knife in his own back.

    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2020/09/charles-murray-i-am-brahmin-yet-harvard.html

    • Replies: @anon
    @Nicholas Stix


    And Murray confessed, nay bragged, several years ago, in a speech at AEI to fudging the numbers on the heritability of IQ in The Bell Curve. (“It was fun”–oops, wrong perp.)
     
    Do you have a source for that? What exactly did he fudge?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

  94. The cynical side of me thinks this book is simply Murray’s attempt to be on record for having predicted what is sure to be the dissolution of the US as we know it. Does anyone really believe that the elites or the average citizen will read this info (none of it new, of course) and have some sort of epiphany about the consequences of immigration and identity politics. It’s silly, instantly risible

  95. @Nicholas Stix
    @Muggles

    Charles Murray is, to be sure, one of the most important social scientists alive, so this is not good news. On the other hand, his years-long triangulation campaign, sucking up to his enemies, has me crying crocodile tears for him.

    According to reviewer F. Roger Devlin, Murray wrote his book, The State of White America (not to be confused with my earlier, eponymous report), in which he crapped all over working-class, White men, just so that his msm/antiversity enemies would again consent to review his books. How’d that work out for him?

    Then he crapped all over Trump in 2016, even though he supported Trump’s positions.

    And Murray confessed, nay bragged, several years ago, in a speech at AEI to fudging the numbers on the heritability of IQ in The Bell Curve. (“It was fun”--oops, wrong perp.)

    If only he consistently believed in truth, instead of caste privilege.

    The only thing that’s for sure is that the Right is a bloody mess—intellectually, morally, politically, you name it. Everyone’s running around with one bloody knife in his hand, and a second knife in his own back.

    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2020/09/charles-murray-i-am-brahmin-yet-harvard.html

    Replies: @anon

    And Murray confessed, nay bragged, several years ago, in a speech at AEI to fudging the numbers on the heritability of IQ in The Bell Curve. (“It was fun”–oops, wrong perp.)

    Do you have a source for that? What exactly did he fudge?

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @anon

    Source: http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2014/07/charles-murray-bell-curve-revisited-we.html

    "What?" You answered your own question, before asking it.

  96. @Colin Wright
    Get the feeling two Americas are emerging?

    It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to realize that we've got most of the guns and most of the combat arms vets, and that the only fighters the other side has got are infamously unable to hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle.

    ...now you know why they freaked about January 6th. All we have to do is wake up, and we've won.

    Replies: @Wency

    All this stuff is fantasy. There is no tradition of political action on the part of the US armed forces. The police and the military will follow orders of whoever pays the bills. The Woke Megacorps pay the bills. They shot Ashli Babbitt. They will shoot you.

    The number of rightists who are prepared to die to resist them, and that are smart enough to not immediately shoot themselves in the foot, is vanishingly low. And with attrition from contact with the Feds, they would shrink to zero pretty quickly. My guess would be that when it comes to combat arms vets younger than 40, their median voter is probably politically closer to Joe Biden than he is to the median poster on Unz.com.

    The left is freaked out about January 6th for the same reason Kerensky was freaked out about Kornilov. The left always overestimates the risk of the counter-revolution. It always sees itself as the brave and outgunned resistance.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Wency

    'All this stuff is fantasy...'

    I'm trying to see a downside to you believing that. Drawing a blank.

  97. @anon
    @Nicholas Stix


    And Murray confessed, nay bragged, several years ago, in a speech at AEI to fudging the numbers on the heritability of IQ in The Bell Curve. (“It was fun”–oops, wrong perp.)
     
    Do you have a source for that? What exactly did he fudge?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    Source: http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2014/07/charles-murray-bell-curve-revisited-we.html

    “What?” You answered your own question, before asking it.

  98. @Wency
    @Colin Wright

    All this stuff is fantasy. There is no tradition of political action on the part of the US armed forces. The police and the military will follow orders of whoever pays the bills. The Woke Megacorps pay the bills. They shot Ashli Babbitt. They will shoot you.

    The number of rightists who are prepared to die to resist them, and that are smart enough to not immediately shoot themselves in the foot, is vanishingly low. And with attrition from contact with the Feds, they would shrink to zero pretty quickly. My guess would be that when it comes to combat arms vets younger than 40, their median voter is probably politically closer to Joe Biden than he is to the median poster on Unz.com.

    The left is freaked out about January 6th for the same reason Kerensky was freaked out about Kornilov. The left always overestimates the risk of the counter-revolution. It always sees itself as the brave and outgunned resistance.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘All this stuff is fantasy…’

    I’m trying to see a downside to you believing that. Drawing a blank.

  99. @vhrm
    @Stan d Mute

    That's what's so interesting about his review. He basically accepts the arguments of the book and goes out of his way to lay them out and demonstrates that he understands them and agrees with them.
    He's on the line of fully endorsing it but then doesn't because it just feels bad, its motives seem suspect and, though he doesn't say so, racists and idiots might like it.

    These things are now in his brain and, since he's pretty smart and fairly logical and not a charlatan, they'll continue working on him.

    Considering that he's a black guy and he's writing in public, even as a conservative, it's quite impressive how far he went on such an explosive issue.

    If even, say, a quarter each of the NYT editorial board members, editors and college presidents read and "processed" his whole review it could change the world.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Gabe Ruth

    It’s mighty white of you to think that, but I’m afraid if he can ignore his lyin’ eyes at this point, no book is really going to change his view. Disappointing, because I know he is a pretty smart and fairly honest guy (for a pundit).

  100. Quillette has published Charles Murray’s ‘Facing Reality’—A Review, by Razib Khan.

    Begins:

    …you might reasonably ask why I agreed to write about Murray’s latest book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America. The answer is simply that I am one of the few people willing to write about it. The book’s thesis is that American society faces disaster if it is not prepared to confront certain politically uncomfortable facts about race—Murray has described it as a cri de coeur. But the difficulty of finding someone willing to admit to even reading one of Murray’s books, let alone someone willing to review it, may doom the project before anyone turns the first page.

    Ends:

    Those already familiar with the data on racial differences in cognitive tests and crime rates, and therefore predisposed to take Murray’s book seriously, will most likely give up on engagement due to intellectual exhaustion with today’s punitive and spiteful political climate. And those who might benefit from Murray’s book will not read it because it was written by someone who transmits ritual pollution to all those who acknowledge him. Additionally, judging by the choices of most Americans, who live broadly racially segregated lives, the solution to the problem of race as expressed in their revealed preferences is clear.

  101. National Review has mentioned Murray three times, but has not yet mentioned his current book.

    Finally:

  102. @MEH 0910
    @Anon


    The 2017 Turkheimer-Harden-Nisbett articles in Vox were a major faux pas: Progressives talking opening about it. This cannot be allowed to happen again … except Harden has a book called The Genetic Lottery coming out in the fall. She’s a card-carrying Jewish progressive endogamously married to another Jewish progressive academic.
     
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1408092417941655554

    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1072540916949364737

    https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1416437300725178368
    https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1416439780313813002

    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?
Becker update V1.3.2