The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
McArdle: You Should be Allowed to Ask if It's OK to Ask if Race Influences IQ, But Not to Ask if Race Influences IQ
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Washington Post:

Who should decide what topics are off-limits?
By Megan McArdle, Columnist

December 15

Noah Carl, a young British social scientist, stands accused of peddling “racist pseudoscience.” And as I discovered, even asking whether the accusation is true invites the same sort of unwelcome attention.

… Carl’s published papers address sensitive subjects such as Islamist terrorism and immigration. More provocatively still, he has argued in favor of researching race and IQ. But since the open letter didn’t cite specifics, defenders of Carl’s academic freedom could only guess at what had provoked it. …

Investigating links between race, IQ and genes has long been anathema; Carl’s case suggests that it is now anathema even to ask whether those investigations should be forbidden. And I seemed to be proving that it is anathema to ask whether it should be anathema to ask …

So Noah Carl should be allowed to ask if it’s okay to ask, so long as he never, God forbid, asks …

All somewhat ironic, considering that I already leaned toward believing that research into race and IQ should be off-limits. …

There’s a history, I said, of scientists finding whatever they expect, from scientists insisting that humans had 48 chromosomes, even as their experiments kept showing 46, to the eugenics that fueled the Holocaust. One of Jussim’s own papers shows that left-leaning social psychologists have long been inadvertently biasing their research toward answers the left finds congenial.

Given flawed scientists and imperfect scientific methods, and given the fraught history of Western racism, isn’t the likelihood of getting it wrong just too high?

Because the bulk of 2018 scientists are so biased toward the right? Huh? Aren’t all the incentives in 2018 in favor of scientists disproving the race – IQ connection? For example, look how immensely popular SJ Gould became in 1981 not for disproving such theories, but merely for snarking about old time scientists who held them.

And the potential cost of those particular errors simply too catastrophic to risk? All societies place some questions out of bounds because they’re too toxic; we don’t debate whether child molestation or spousal murder is acceptable. …

… I did emerge with two prior beliefs basically confirmed: first, that research into race and IQ should stay off limits, but, second, that those limits are better established by debate than denunciation.

Okay, but should arguments based on the assumption that there cannot be empirical links between race and IQ also be ruled out of bounds? Should Mayor De Blasio’s argument that the Stuyvesant HS entrance exam must be biased because a couple of orders of magnitude more Asians than blacks pass it also be banned on the grounds that we aren’t allowed to speculate about such questions?

How would that work, exactly?

By the way, one leftist social scientist, James Flynn, actually made a major contribution to knowledge by discovering the Flynn Effect of rising raw IQ test scores in his effort to scientifically undermine Jensenism.

 
Hide 175 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. rufus says:

    Its all about suppressing dussent to maintain power and continue extracting resources. Flood the zone, weaken the host.

    disgraceful

  2. Mr. XYZ says:

    I completely agree with you, Steve. If one wants people to shut up about race and IQ, one should also ask people to shut up about things such as “systemic racism” and blaming White people for Black and Hispanic underachievement.

  3. All societies place some questions out of bounds because they’re too toxic; we don’t debate whether child molestation or spousal murder is acceptable. …

    Molestation and murder aren’t “questions”, they’re crimes.

    …to the eugenics that fueled the Holocaust.

    I though it was Ruhr Valley coal.

  4. isn’t the likelihood of getting it wrong just too high?

    Money quote. If there’s too high a chance of scientific endeavor producing ‘incorrect’ results, it must be prohibited. As well as asking about it. Even this post should be prohibited, as should this blog. This website–to be safe, the whole internet. Then we’ll get to work with the duct tape.

  5. L Woods says:

    This sort of talk is not worthy of the reasoned consideration you grant it. Obscurantism is not a legitimate political or philosophical position. Neither therefore, is the authority, moral, intellectual or political, of those that espouse it. Period.

  6. All societies place some questions out of bounds because they’re too toxic; we don’t debate whether child molestation or spousal murder is acceptable. …

    Non sequitur. Besides, one can easily imagine scenarios in which discussions around such topics might occur, such as in a philosophy class, for example. Also, society constantly askes who does such things and why.

    Are there actually any topics or questions that are truly forbidden from debate in a free society? No.

    We are drifting into dark ages habits here, or communist speech rules. The fact that so many so-called smart people can’t see this is laughable.

  7. Tank says:

    It must be hard work to reach that level of foolishness.

  8. DFH says:

    There’s a history, I said, of scientists finding whatever they expect,

    One of Jussim’s own papers shows that left-leaning social psychologists have long been inadvertently biasing their research toward answers the left finds congenial.

    How does such a dim woman get a column in the Washington Post?

    • Replies: @Kylie
    , @Joe Walker
  9. One of Jussim’s own papers shows that left-leaning social psychologists have long been inadvertently biasing their research toward answers the left finds congenial.

    Inadvertently? I don’t know. Seems pretty advertent to me.

  10. Barnard says:

    The current most popular comment to McArdle’s column includes the line, “there is only one race, the human race.” The top reply to that comment compares people who understand there is a link between race and IQ to “fraudulent anti-vaccers.” There is no point in dialoguing with these people. It appears Megan McArdle understands the truth on some level, but will never say so publicly because her continued employment is dependant on her not noticing.

  11. McArdle bows to the orthodoxy:

    We are not allowed to conduct science to settle the question of genetic differences between races on IQ.

    But we are also not allowed to treat it as an open question.

    A Tertullian Moment.

  12. I do not believe there is a cause and effect relationship between race and IQ, between race and criminality, nor between race and the ability to form civilizations.

    The cause and effect relationship is between evolutionary environment and IQ, accepted standards of behavior, and the ability to form civilizations. Race is merely a way to summarize what happens to a population that has been subjected to the same conditions over millenia.

    The correlation between evolutionary environment and mental/moral capacity is what needs to be discussed.

  13. Tulip says:

    A more important question is whether your parent’s influence led to your job at the Washington Post, or whether you secured your position on personal merit (and perhaps genetics).

    That is, to what extent environmental causes (Daddy being a powerful Senator) versus genetic causes (Mommy and Daddy being genetically gifted) led to your success. Is this question off limits?

    • Replies: @JimB
    , @Kaganovitch
  14. …research into race and IQ should stay off limits…

    How are these limits to be enforced? Will we have a research topic police that tickets researchers who exceed the limit? Or do we not allow such limit-breakers to earn a living? Or shall we declare such researchers insane and lock them away for treatment against their will?

    Isn’t this chick a libertarian? If so, then why is she so into ::::CONTROL::::?

  15. the eugenics that fueled the Holocaust.

    You keep hearing this sort of thing parroted, but unless you mean something pretty specific–“Aryans” good, other people bad–by “eugneics”, it seems like b.s. to me.

    I realize the Nazis killed off some disabled and retarded people, which you could call “murderous eugnics” if you wanted to. (American eugenicists simply argued that the retards and nut jobs shouldn’t reproduce, which i think as well–if you can’t take care of yourself, you shouldn’t be having kids.)

    But the trade marked “Holocaust” we keep getting movies about was about killing Jews. That wasn’t eugenics but just race war. The Jews keep causing trouble–Bolshevism and other depravities–so they are our impaccable enemies and we’re going to beat them once and for all by killing them off.

    Killing your enemy off has a long history. One could argue it’s the normal human response. (At least killing your male enemy off and enjoying their females has a very long history.) The Nazis would have been much better served to have done either “one nation, one people”–integration–or chasing them out–Zionism–or some combination. And would have done a whole lot less damage to the West. Some people just aren’t forward thinking.

    Still how killing your enemy off in the Holocaust is specifically this new fangled thing “eugenics” as opposed to the very old-timey thing “killing your enemy off” … seems like a bunch of b.s.–propaganda–to me.

  16. Tulip says:

    It is an interesting question, IQ, genetics, and race are empirical questions (not normative questions around spousal murder and pedophilia).

    Its no different from arguing that studying the planets should be suppressed because if evidence proves that the Earth goes around the Sun comes forward, the Clerisy will lose its moral authority.

    I just wish that the argument would be made openly: the modern world depends on a progressive, secular priest guild which is accorded moral authority and makes moral pronouncements, and the empirical foundations of that guild are built on sand, and if the foundation goes, chaos will be unleashed.

    The problem is that scientific inquiry cannot effectively be shut down, it can only be retarded. Heliocentrism won despite the efforts of the Catholic Church. Genetics is too important and tied to developments in medicine to be stopped in the name of the secular priesthood. Further, just because the Soviet Union banned genetics, it did not mean that genetics stopped, it just meant the Soviets became retarded. . . and even the Soviets came around eventually.

    America perhaps should embrace science retardation in the name of racial and gender egalitarianism. But I doubt the Chinese or the Russians are going to leave the tree of knowledge, especially if it means a possible technological/biomedical advantage over America.

  17. Ha ha. Ms. McArdle fancies herself Libertarian. Just goes to show that beneath the ribs of a Libertarian (at least an American Libertarian, in the media business) beats the heart of a Progressive Liberal, pumping blood of the bluest SJW blue.

    A pox on them all.

  18. Hunsdon says:
    @AnotherDad

    Who now remembers the amalekites?

  19. I don’t get it. Don’t we already have tons of SAT scores for all the races over decades? What do those show if not racial IQ differences?

    Let it be said that people going around saying, “browns are dumb and blacks are dumber” should be told to shut up just the same way people going around saying “men are violent” and “Jews are conniving” should be told to shut up. Insults and condescension are always offensive and help no one.

  20. Actually, spousal murder has been deemed entirely acceptable in many states. It’s called “battered wife syndrome” and allows you to murder your husband in his sleep as long as you have a good sob story.

    • Agree: L Woods
  21. …we don’t debate whether child molestation or spousal murder is acceptable.

    I’m sure one can find academic papers debating these very things. They probably just don’t use the words ‘molestation’ and ‘murder’.

    ‘Western vs. non-Western attitudes towards pubescent sexuality’ and ‘self-defense against long-term spousal abuse’ would be examples of the wording which would be used in academia to debate these very things.

  22. Tulip says:

    James speaks writes:

    I do not believe there is a cause and effect relationship between race and IQ, between race and criminality, nor between race and the ability to form civilizations.

    Agreed. Race is a proxy for different and relatively isolated gene pools. However, there is likely a causal correlation between different gene pools in the aggregate, and behavioral differences in the aggregate involving behavioral traits such as IQ, deviance, and the capacity to form a civilization. . . just as there is a likely causal correlation between different gene pools and vertical leap, height, prevalence of type II diabetes, obesity, schizophrenia, type of ear wax etc. And Here Lies Dragons per McArdle.

  23. @Buzz Mohawk

    Being smart does not protect against non sequiturs and the like. He who won’t believe me could risk a look at – ehe – unz.com/American Pravda / Holocaust Denial. Not least: Nicholas Kollerstrom – Breaking The Spell – Red Ice Radio…

    Individuals are weak. One of the big lessons of the middle ages is the following: Groups and culture allow people to grow/ become wise. Those then – with the help of the heavens above, might act in reasonable ways – and get along well with one another – – -and grow as a society and culture, too. (cf. Arno Borst, Barbarians, Heretics and Artists in the Middle Ages and: The Ordering of Time. From the Ancient Computus to the Modern Computer. And for German readers (readers of German) one more: “Ritte über den Bodensee“, Libelle Verlag, Lengwil, CH – Das Buch ist in jeder Buchhandlung erhältlich, aber nicht mehr über Libri).

    Medieval Worlds: Barbarians, Heretics and Artists in the Middle Ages
    Medieval Worlds: Barbarians, Heretics and Artists in the Middle AgesJun 22, 1996
    by Arno Borst and Eric Hansen
    Paperback
    $5.95(20 used & new offers)
    Hardcover
    $5.99(20 used & new offers)
    The Ordering of Time: From the Ancient Computus to the Modern Computer
    The Ordering of Time: From the Ancient Computus to the Modern ComputerJan 1, 1994
    by Arno Borst and Andrew Winnard
    Paperback
    $6.26(21 used & new offers)
    Hardcover
    $87.07$ 87 07
    More Buying Choices
    $24.56(20 used & new offers)

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  24. Tulip says:
    @Paul Mendez

    But its not spousal murder unless a white male performs it. Didn’t you get the memo?

  25. The comments section on this story is fascinating. No one actually answers the question of whether race and IQ should be allowed to be studied. Why? Because race and IQ are social constructs so there’s nothing to study – and it’s mean to even think about these things.

    It’s bizarre.

    Here’s the top reply:

    Investigating links between race, IQ and genes has long been anathema;

    Ms. McArdle — perhaps you should go back to school and take some anthropology and biology courses. There is one race — the human race. The entire race came out of one place in the world — Africa. Successive waves of migration led humans to leave and explore other places in the world. IQ is an intellectual phenomenon, measured by Western psychologists studying western subjects. We share some genetic material with all living matter, including some 96% with chimpanzees. This is why it is ridiculous to study links between race, IQ and genes, and why those who do are associated with Nazi ideologies. We know better.

    She really captures the modern Leftist mindset, even managed to throw in “Nazi.” I can see why its the top rated post. The only thing missing is “This is not who we are,” but I guess “We know better” works.

  26. JLK says:

    Instead of asking “Who should decide what is off-limits,” we should focus on who is trying to manufacture a taboo on public discussion of the demography of psychometrics and why. I think there are different policy reasons for different levels of society, some more justified than others.

    There is a decent policy argument in favor of keeping information about black/white IQ difference from working class people who can’t understand distribution curves and that statistics can only predict probabilities. That all Muggwumps aren’t dumb. We don’t want people getting belittled in schoolyards and blue collar workplaces more than they already are.

    Promoting such a taboo in higher education settings and among professionals is less justifiable. The taboo is self-serving to a large extent as it reinforces tendencies of certain high-performing groups (who have a lot of influence over what is peddled as taboo) to view themselves as virtuous rather than lucky winners of the genetic lottery.

    When the elite gatekeepers do leak information on psychometric demography to their readers, the information tends to be selective. The NYT ran an article on Jewish IQ a fews years back, but it was fairly basic. In an unbiased marketplace of ideas, other publications would be free to explore the expected Jewish/non-Jewish proportions within various professions and academic institutions that can be fairly accurately predicted using basic stats-math, and compare them with actuality to see if there is unexplained overrepresentation as Unz pointed out for Harvard.

    The NYT/NPR types are also kept away from differences in male/female IQ distribution, and issues such as why the SAT never included a spatial intelligence section to go along with Verbal and Math. If it had one, men would benefit over women, East Asians would probably surpass Jews, and Non-Jewish whites would narrow the gap with Jews considerably.

    I think the biggest reason, though, the SJWers are kept in the dark is that the truth would reveal the biggest unfairness of all in our society for them to attack- that social status and wealth are largely determined by the IQ roulette wheel instead of being good little boys and girls and paying attention to your studies. They’d revert from Cultural Maxism to the old-fashioned kind.

    The gatekeepers are probably more calculating than we think.

  27. @AnotherDad

    If I remember correctly, early Nazi ideology held that Germany had to be rid of Jews not because they were inferior, but because they were “racially tougher” than the Aryans. After the Nazis took power, however, they found this was too hard a concept for the general public to wrap its head around. So, Hitler’s propaganda machine switched to demonizing Jews as dirty, ugly, subhuman, etc. That was an easier sell to a culture that was already anti-Semitic.

    As I recall, this was just one of the many ways Old School Nazis like Rohm thought Hitler betrayed their revolution.

  28. “Fraught” is become the retarded step-cousin of “problematic” for these fools. Fraught with what? They do this with “loaded” too, never providing an object. It’s a clever trick because it is a code to the True Believers yet keeps them from ever thinking about their Beliefs while also subliminally disturbing and garnering agreement from the casual reader. (“Oh my! It’s fraught; that means it’s bad somehow because I do t know what the word means but it always appears with things the writer tells me are bad…”)

  29. JimB says:
    @Tulip

    Success = Talent*Network*Work*Luck

  30. Dan Smith says:

    I used to think MM had a brain. She may still, but she isn’t using it.

  31. El Dato says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Then we’ll get to work with the duct tape.

    What is being demanded here is not that research be prohibited because it might be dangerous (building virulent kill viruses based on smallpox ain’t such a good idea for example) but because of what is religious dogma: there is a dark truth that must not be disturbed lest people start to THINK WRONGLY.

    Don’t look at these planets too closely, M. Galileo.

  32. “Should Mayor De Blasio’s argument that the Stuyvesant HS entrance exam must be biased because a couple of orders of magnitude more Asians than blacks pass it also be banned on the grounds that we aren’t allowed to speculate about such questions?

    How would that work, exactly?”

    It could quite easily work exactly like this black fairy-tale version of a reasonable article in the WaPo, no?

    Plus, a gentle giant could toss this unfit-problem around until it’s solved. If the giant is good (=strong enough….), this won’t last long.

    Sigh. (Great question, btw. – made me laugh!).

  33. @Paul Yarbles

    {aul Yarbles asked:

    Isn’t this chick a libertarian? If so, then why is she so into ::::CONTROL::::?

    Yeah, early on in her career she wrote as “Jane Galt,” obviously a play on the protagonist of Ayn Rand’s massive novel.

    Megan is an example of what has happened with a lot of libertarians and Objectivists: they take a sort of “market-oriented” perspective and see how they can apply it to current events in a way that will not really threaten the position of the ruling elite. E.g., Uber and Lyft are cool (who doesn’t want cheap taxis?), but let’s not talk about abolishing public education, and for heaven’s sake, don’t propose detaching elite universities from their dependence on government funds.

    The ultimate result of this is the Libertarian Party’s nominating a militaristic neocon, Bill Weld, as their VP candidate.

    Since not even Bernie Sanders or the leaders of Communist China any longer believe in full-blown Soviet-style socialism, this gives “libertarians” like Megan a “seat at the table” with the power elite.

    I used to call myself a “libertarian,” meaning that I wanted an end to the militarism and foreign intervention, an end to crony capitalism and the monetary-financial cartel, complete freedom and true privatization in medical care and education, abolition of the income tax, and all the rest.

    But, now that mainstream “libertarians” like Megan, Gary Johnson, et al. just want to make the system run by and for the ruling elite operate a little more efficiently… well, I am not interested in more efficient corruption and tyranny for the greater glory of the ruling elite.

    So, now I call myself a “Thoreauist,” and am more comfortable with Sailer’s “civic nationalism” than with mainstream “libertarianism.” Of course, if the terms “Thoreauist” or “civic nationalism” ever catch on, the power elite will co-opt those terms too!

    There are, incidentally, still some self-designated “libertarian” outlets — e.g., the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com — that still fly the flag of individual rights and opposition to the ruling elite. Not surprisingly, Lew Rockwell often links to Steve Sailer.

  34. Social Security was once considered the third rail of American politics. Good times.

  35. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:

    Newspaper columnists must really like being newspaper columnists, considering the absurd contortions they perform to keep their jobs.

    Related: I just listened to an interview with Peter Hitchens about his new book. His thesis is that it was a catastrophic error for Britain to go to war with Germany in 1939. Makes sense: Germany was allied with Russia, America was still neutral, the British army was woefully underprepared.

    But in the interview he made a point, several times, of stating that he thinks it was right of Churchill to refuse to make peace in 1940. Que? The strategic picture hadn’t really changed; the only ways in which it was different were the ways in which it was worse: France defeated, thousands of casualties, etc. I might pick up the book to see how he threads that needle.

    But I’m sure that what’s really going on is that he thought he could only get away with so much historical revisionism. It’s not okay to suggest that Churchill should’ve made peace with Hitler. Peter Hitchens doesn’t want to end up like David Irving, selling Nazi medals on eBay, sucking down a cold tin of soup, his clothes stuffed with old newspapers to keep warm. When was the last time some Newsnight producer took David Irving to lunch? Exactly.

  36. This is sort of mental “stop and frisk.” You know you suspect something but not enough evidence to be quite sure.

    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
  37. On some level almost everyone in a position of power in academia knows whites are smarter than blacks and almost certainly for genetic reasons. Otherwise they would be eager to try replicating studies like the minesota transracial adoption etc. to debunk them. Of course there is no funding for stuff like that unless it comes from “racist” sources. This is a point James Flynn made in a much more agnostic way.

  38. Jack D says:

    One of Jussim’s own papers shows that left-leaning social psychologists have long been inadvertently biasing their research toward answers the left finds congenial.

    Given flawed scientists and imperfect scientific methods, and given the fraught history of Western racism, isn’t the likelihood of getting it wrong just too high?

    McCardle is 100% correct. We need to ban research by left-leaning social psychologists – the likelihood of their getting it wrong is just too high.

  39. @Mr. XYZ

    Soon, black South Africans will blame whites for black undernourishment; and frankly, if white farmers hadn’t fed blacks, increasing their population by a dozen times, fewer of them would starve and/or cannibalize each other . . . so, it sort of is whites’ fault. And there is my SJW doctoral thesis. Maybe white explorers should follow Star Trek’s Prime Directive, and not interfere with . . . alien life-forms. No good deed goes unpunished.

  40. Ed says:

    Should Mayor De Blasio’s argument that the Stuyvesant HS entrance exam must be biased because a couple of orders of magnitude more Asians than blacks pass it also be banned on the grounds that we aren’t allowed to speculate about such questions?

    Exactly our policy prescriptions say that any disparity between the races is because of racism. If in a diverse society that is not the case this needs to be incorporated into our politics.

    Also it’s ridiculous for a modern nation state to not have any idea of its human capital potential. The Chinese certainly will know.

    • Replies: @Coag
    , @Jack D
  41. dr kill says:

    MM, once upon a time, was readable.

  42. dr kill says:
    @PhysicistDave

    She’s becoming a fascist. But at least the trains will run to schedule until the price controls make Rearden metal too expensive.

  43. So Noah Carl should be allowed to ask if it’s okay to ask, so long as he never, God forbid, asks …

    Reminds me of a Sobranism:

    It’s taboo to discuss J*wish power. It is also taboo to discuss the taboo.

  44. J.Ross says: • Website

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/12/senate-committee-report-details-how-russians-boosted-trump-across-all-social-media/

    The Deep State is releasing a “new” report on the “Russian hacking” that Trump enemy John McCain said had no effect on the 2016 election. There’s nothing new in it, in material or conclusions. The fake research organization that released it did complain about the material they received — they did no research and instead requested that unaccountable social media behemoths submit their own packages. These are the people protecting you from Putin.
    Get this: Google sent screengrabs that could not be read by a machine (thus, they could not be analyzed quickly and by modern methods; Google took for granted that an unlimited supply of human interns could be made to go through the material).
    Notice the method: concede that you have absolutely no case to make (Russian activity had no effect on the outcome) and then make your case anyway. See Stephen Fry’s pooh-pooh speech in Blackadder Goes Forth. The goal is not to prove anything but to damn by constant nagging. I’m not saying Trump is a Russian agent, but there’s just the slightest bit of “being a Russian agent” about that Trump fellow.
    Robert Mueller is still unpunished for destroying evidence. He has released a new indictment and it says nothing about Russia. They are apparently pursuing the legal-prostitution thing that was recently ruled for Trump in a real court. Imagine investigating a guy for two and a half years (Trump was surveilled before Mueller) and this is the best you can do. It makes you wonder what Mueller was doing on the IX/XI commission.
    Winning: Google cooperation with Beijing has temporarily fallen apart.

  45. Goatweed says:

    I’m not allowed ask for a reason why Walter Daugherity is so much brighter than I am?

  46. Freesmith says:

    How would that work, exactly?

    It wouldn’t — which is the point.

  47. Coag says:
    @Ed

    The truth about black IQ is a state secret in China too. China knows that lèse-majesté against black IQ would bring violent mob retribution upon China’s investments in Africa, so the Chinese government and its sources will never draw attention to the truth.

  48. J.Ross says: • Website

    Steve’s headline wittily implies an irony. I see no contradiction: it’s the Damore Test. As a filthy racist Nazi, you have every right to reveal yourself to be subhuman (and consequently be stripped of your job and respectability), but of course by exactly the same frame of mind you will not be allowed to infect others.

  49. McCardle claims to be an economy minded libertarian, but she’s mostly an airhead.

    The Instapundit neocon crowd liked to link her drivel.

  50. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:

    O/T

    To be expected, Gab is being cast over the side in favor of the Conservatism Inc. favored “Parler”

    At least one can point out that Kirk and Owens are mostly grifting to their Boomer donors, but there are Millenials and GenZ that are being conned into just the latest version of the same Buckleyite crap.

  51. OT Public school teacher fired for refusing to sign a pro-Israel oath…as an attorney who has quite a bit of experience in public education law, my jaw hit the floor reading it:

    https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/

  52. In this column, McCardle blows right past stupid and lands squarely on evil.

  53. “scientists finding whatever they expect, from scientists insisting that humans had 48 chromosomes, even as their experiments kept showing 46, to the eugenics that fueled the Holocaust”

    [1] Can someone please find a link to how the “48, not 46 chromosomes” error was made.
    [2] Did eugenics fuel the Holocaust? Eugenics argues for the preservation, not elimination, of high-IQ Ashkenazi genes.

  54. Olorin says:

    Who should decide what topics are off-limits?
    I, Megan McArdle, Columnist

    There, I fixed it.

  55. Hail says: • Website

    Carl’s case suggests that it is now anathema even to ask [….]

    Two-minute-hate target Noah Carl got a wiki entry out of this, anyway:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Carl

    Carl…was the lead researcher in a study showing the link between artistic tastes and views on Brexit[3] and one on the reasons why London pubs are disappearing

    The monster!

    Somebody stop this monster and his dangerous research on why pubs are disappearing. Enough is enough.

    This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy.

  56. And the potential cost of those particular errors simply too catastrophic to risk?

    What an unbelievably stupid question! How impaired do you have to be not to grasp that in the absence of scientific research we will be left with a completely unscientific — i.e., deliberately false — belief that must be designed to benefit the liars at the expense of others?

  57. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    This is the price of mis-defining race-ism.

  58. Jack D says:
    @Ed

    Also it’s ridiculous for a modern nation state to not have any idea of its human capital potential. The Chinese certainly will know.

    Maybe this is like taking the DNA test that tells you that you will die young of some genetic disease. Maybe you’re better off not knowing because there’s nothing you can do about it anyway.

    We really don’t need to know more than we already know. The magnitude of the Gap (which has been fairly constant since the dawn of scientific intelligence measurement and was observed anecdotally since ancient times) and the # of blacks is perfectly well known. No one wants to draw any conclusions because the conclusions are too painful to draw and we can’t change the outcomes anyway. And as far fetched as it sounds, what if the conclusion is to get rid of blacks? So let’s not go there, girlfriend.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Lowe
    , @Ed
    , @Paco Wové
  59. @Paul Mendez

    Indeed. A decade or two ago it was enough for a woman in a man’s house (even if just visiting) to phone 911 and say the magic words “I don’t feel safe.” Then the cops AKA white knights showed up and carted the man off to jail. Now she can go this one better and keep the house with less hassle. You may ask, how can she gain title to a house that wasn’t even hers? The answer is racism. Oh, I mean sexism, whatevs.

  60. It sounds like Megan McArdle is suggesting Noah Carl avail himself of the Major Major* clause. It is from Joseph Heller’s Catch 22. The bomber group felt it too problematic to have parades in the middle of a high-attrition bombing campaign out of Malta. Major Major Major, however, was a new staff officer, and had nothing better to do than to plan parades. He was told he could not do that, but to make him feel better, he could cancel parades that were never planned. A note appeared on bulletin boards around the base: “Due to circumstances beyond our control, Saturday’s parade has been cancelled.”

    So, Dr. Carl would be welcome to retract any yet-unwritten articles about race and IQ, if that would make him happy. He could mention race and IQ as much as he wants in his wordy retractions. It’s a win/win.

    * Look, they even have the same initials, MM.

  61. J.Ross says: • Website

    A Canadian activist described a tranny as a man in a political flyer and is now likely to be heavily fined. I have not yet seen Jordan Petersen’s reaction but expect that he would equivocate and mumble and point out that this man voluntarily spent all his sesane credit by being an activist.

    [MORE]

    Likely to be fined over $100,000 by Human Rights Tribunal kangaroo court

    Last year, Bill Whatcott handed out flyers in his community telling residents not to vote for an NDP political candidate named Ronan Oger, a MtF tranny, because Oger is a trans rights activist who wants to force people to accept his delusion that he is a woman. The flyers stated plainly that there are only two genders and that Oger is a man.

    Bill Whatcott has now been dragged before a Human Rights Tribunal kangaroo court to be charged with hate speech.

    https://archive.fo/BjzW5

    http://www.freenorthamerica.ca/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10741

    My trial before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) will not wrap up until Monday.
    Friday… brought home in a more real sense what is at stake in this trial, not only for me personally, but also for Canada as a whole.
    When I had to leave the kangaroo court to drive my Gospel guerrilla fighter to the airport, I was told Mr. Oger’s lesbian activist lawyer, Susanna Quail, argued to the Tribunal that I should be assessed a financial penalty of $35,000, over and above the still undetermined penalty she is seeking for the original election flyer. The “crime” as I understand it that demands a $35,000 punishment is “disrespecting the Tribunal.” I guess the “crimes” I committed that demand I be forced to pay this kind of cash include calling the Tribunal a “kangaroo court,” “misgendering” the biological male Ronan Oger, by not referring to him with a gender neutral term or feminine pronoun during the hearing, and for refusing to remove or cover up my T-shirt affirming there are only two genders when ordered to do so by the Tribunal.

    Bill Whatcott interviewed about trial:

    Another interview:

    • Replies: @academic gossip
  62. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Other countries will do this and we will be competing with them “blind.”

    • Replies: @bigdicknick
  63. Lot says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “to the eugenics that fueled the Holocaust”

    Idiotic slander on many great Americans and Englishmen.

    Brandeis by the way joined Justice Holmes’s decision to uphold Virginia’s sterilization law in Buck v Bell.

    Buck’s mother was probably schizophrenic and was unable to care for her three children (by different fathers) who were eventually institutionalized in a state facility with her. Buck was herself impregnated, allegedly by rape of a nephew of her foster family, and that baby was slow and died at age 8. The state judged her metal age to be 9 when she was 18 and thus a “moron.” Gould later claimed to have dug up her report cards from grade school showing she was a pleasant C+ student who was held back once.

    Holmes:

    “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

  64. Rob McX says:

    One of Jussim’s own papers shows that left-leaning social psychologists have long been inadvertently biasing their research toward answers the left finds congenial.

    You don’t say?!

  65. @Mr McKenna

    isn’t the likelihood of getting it wrong just too high?

    Money quote.

    You’re right. The likelihood of getting it wrong is obviously far, far higher if the proposition in question is not subject to scrutiny.

  66. Maybe this is like taking the DNA test that tells you that you will die young of some genetic disease. Maybe you’re better off not knowing because there’s nothing you can do about it anyway.

    Maybe it is more like learning that your DNA makes you susceptible to high levels od LDL, and you now know to avoid certain type of fats and to consume more olive oil and fatty, cold weather fish. Maybe, probably.

    We really don’t need to know more than we already know. The magnitude of the Gap (which has been fairly constant since the dawn of scientific intelligence measurement and was observed anecdotally since ancient times) and the # of blacks is perfectly well known. No one wants to draw any conclusions because the conclusions are too painful to draw and we can’t change the outcomes anyway. And as far fetched as it sounds, what if the conclusion is to get rid of blacks? So let’s not go there, girlfriend.

    We need to know more than we know now, and the knowledge needs to be widely accepted and understood, along with the implications. The conclusions have already been drawn by elites, namely reduced carrying capacity and hence their continued life of luxury would be enhanced by having less competition and more subservience, i.e., reduce the number of whites who might forge a new civilization that has no room in it for a grotesquely wealthy minority.

    We need to know these things now because we need to plan for a better, more equitable civilization for those of us capable of maintaining one. This naturally excludes peoples whose DNA makes them more suitable for living in primitive conditions.

  67. Rob McX says:

    …first, that research into race and IQ should stay off limits, but, second, that those limits are better established by debate than denunciation.

    She’s trying to have her censorship cake and eat it. It’s good to have an open debate on whether this subject should be researched – as long as you reach the conclusion that it shouldn’t.

  68. isn’t the likelihood of getting it wrong just too high?

    Everyone already knows there is a 100% chance that the scientifically correct answer is politically “wrong.”

    That is, indeed, a pretty high probability. So maybe she has a point.

  69. @Paul Mendez

    Good point. And child molestation is routinely debated . The 50 states have various age limits, types of offenses and defenses, and ranges of punishment.

  70. Lowe says:
    @Jack D

    We could end the stupid debate over it, with genetic evidence. That alone is worth it.

  71. @Reg Cæsar

    Salon thinks pedophila is “something we should talk about” and so does Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review.

    Within 10 years, we will have eliminated “age of consent” laws as part of our progressive march toward utopia. Thanks, National Review!

  72. Svigor says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    You’re in the ballpark, except they’re never going to STFU with the “white privilege” “racist society” “white supremacy” etc. stuff.

    So the logical conclusion is that race-realism is a moral imperative.

    Just men don’t sit on exculpatory evidence while innocent people are railroaded by the courts. That’s precisely what “decent,” “respectable” people do, though.

  73. All societies place some questions out of bounds because they’re too toxic; we don’t debate whether child molestation or spousal murder is acceptable

    Won’t be long before taking a stand against those will be considered Islamophobic.

  74. Svigor says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Libertarians don’t oppose the panoply of “anti-discrimination” (anti-freedom) laws. Bye-bye, libertarian credibility.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  75. @Buzz Mohawk

    We are drifting into dark ages habits here, or communist speech rules. The fact that so many so-called smart people can’t see this is laughable.

    They lack consciousness (and agency). Not always in regard to everything, but in this area they are programmable and mere conduits of others’ propaganda.

  76. @Dieter Kief

    Individuals are weak. One of the big lessons of the middle ages is the following: Groups and culture allow people to grow/ become wise.

    Why not MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents?

  77. Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says:

    OT, but sign of the times: ‘Racist’ Gandhi statue removed from University of Ghana(link)
    My favourite passage reads:

    Law student Nana Adoma Asare Adei told the BBC: “Having his statue means that we stand for everything he stands for and if he stands for these things [his alleged racism], I don’t think we should have his statue on campus.”

    While it’s tempting to react to the above quote with a joke at the expense of the Ghanaian higher education system, it’s also sobering to realize that the above reasoning might have just as easily been articulated by an Ivy League or Oxbridge student.

    At first I thought that the campaign to remove the statue and this accompanying article were mainly for the benefit of woke African humanities majors and woke white westerners, but the BBC seems to think this is the sort of thing that a less-educated African ought to be worrying about, thus it is currently featured on the front page of BBC Pigdin.

    Given the recent worldwide movements to banish statues of (mainly white) historical figures from public spaces, I thought iSteve should have an open thread where we all guess which statue of a dead white guy will the the last to be removed(anywhere on Earth). We could also hazard a guess as to the year.

    Mine was going to be the statue of Sir Stamford Raffles at his eponymous landing site in Singapore, in the year 2100, but now that Gandhi is feeling the heat, I’ve revised that downward to 2075.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @PiltdownMan
  78. Now that I have read the whole article itself, I would say that it is probably a subtle, quasi-troll by McCardle.

    She is illuminating the stupidity and cowardice of the academics who are against scientific inquiry, while still keeping herself positioned as miles-away from any career-ending poltical incorrectness.

    Her conclusion is that we need to ban the research, but only after a debate. In effect, we should shoot the prisoner but only after a trial. McArdle is smart enough to know how stupid and unpricipled this is.

    P.S. The article also deliberately ignores that plenty of research on race and IQ has been done for decades.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  79. Kylie says:
    @DFH

    “How does such a dim woman get a column in the Washington Post?”

    The answer is in your question.

  80. @AnotherDad

    Killing your enemy off has a long history

    I’ve said this before: it’s kinda funny-haha that the Red Sea Pedestrians feel so put out by Nasty Uncle Dolfie’s ‘Caedite Eos‘[1] approach, when their foundational literature is absolutely chock full of genocides… old Yahweh made Heydrich look like a complete pussy.

    Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. – 1 Samuel 15


    But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

    But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee – Deuteronomy 20:16-17

    Interesting, there’s also a very interesting historical plot-twist, genocidally-speaking: Nasty Uncle Dolfie may have been a couple of millennia too late to impose any ‘Final Solution‘.

    I’m referring, of course, to the claimed reference to ‘Israel’ in the text on the Merneptah Stele… specifically the famous “Line 27”

    ysrỉꜣr fk.t bn pr.t =f – Line 27

    Which is (approximately)

    Isr-y-ir [I have] lain waste; his seed is not (i.e., no longer exists)

    There has been a great deal of straw-clutching in relation to the Mernepteh Stele – almost as much as there was for the James Ossuary and the Temple Pomegranate (before those two things were both shown to be as genuine as the average Holocaust Memoir).

    However if it is a reference to the Israelites, it is explicitly a reference to their extirpation.

    Lastly: it’s hard to see how there were any Jews left after the Hadrian Holocaust at Betar – detailed in Tractate Gittin 57b.

    Basic arithmetic shows that upwards of 10 billion Jews were killed in that massacre: “four hundred thousand myriads (or some say four thousand myriads)“.

    OK… here’s the arithmetic.

    Elsewhere in Gittin 57b, 120 myriads (the number killed by Hadrian in a prior massacre in Alexandria) is said to be “twice as many as went forth from Egypt” during the Exodus… that is, twice 2 million (based on a demographic extrapolation of the 600,000 men of military age mentioned in Exodus).

    So 120 myriads = 4 million.

    That would mean that

    400,000 myriads = 4m × (400,000/120) = 4m × 3,333⅓ = 13,333,333,333⅓

    I’m guessing that the fractional bit is just the sum of the unborn children killed (with 13 billion odd victims, there’s going to be a few pregnosaurs).

    Note:

    [1] “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” – “Kill them all: the Lord will know which are his”… uttered by Papal Legate Arnaud Almaric during the Siege of Béziers in 1209, while pursuing the Final Solution to the Cathar Problem.

  81. Jack D says:

    All societies place some questions out of bounds because they’re too toxic; we don’t debate whether child molestation or spousal murder is acceptable. …

    Again, she’s absolutely right. Not too long ago, the question of homosexuality being wrong was out of bounds. Like child molestation, it was not open for debate. It should have stayed out of bounds, but we have crossed the Rubicon – if homosexuality is OK, why NOT debate child molestation? Where (and how) do we draw the line if we are no longer guided by biblical teaching and millennia of Western tradition?

    But, once you get around to issues that the Left favors, then it’s suddenly time to draw up the drawbridges and close the debate. Last year, the Left wanted to have a CONVERSATION about race (meaning that they got to lecture you and you were supposed to shut up and listen). But they realized that was a losing proposition (no one way paying them for their emotional labor of denouncing you). So the best bet was to close the debate entirely and declare the subject out of bounds.

    It’s really had to think of how McCardle could have been more dishonest.

    • Replies: @Kylie
  82. Anonymous[309] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Speaks

    Sure, but then we’re in Magic Dirt territory. Nevermind that it will take many millennia living on that magic dirt to even things up

  83. @Buzz Mohawk

    We are drifting into dark ages habits here, or communist speech rules. The fact that so many so-called smart people can’t see this is laughable.

    Why do you think that they “can’t see” something that is actually their primary objective?

    All this identitarian nonsense is deliberately-focused religious fervour.

    The way you can tell is that the people who hew to its core preceots, do so with maniacal zeal and have no qualms about calling for heretics to be excluded, de-platformed, beggared, chastised, and (in extremis) killed.

    And at the top of the hierarchy, is a layer of megalomaniacal grifting parasites who make bank despite having zero actual belief in the principles that they espouse.

    The climate movement is the same.

  84. The main rhetorical styles:

    Hedge : “(this is unrelated to the question of whether the group differences are partly innate)”

    Safeword: “this argument doesn’t assume that the difference is innate in any way”

    Default: argue assuming, but not stating, that ability is equally distributed

    Password: stating in print that “ability is equally distributed in all groups”

    Hedge is a declaration of weakness equivalent to “kick me with impunity, I’m yours.”

    Safeword gives deniability to prevent bullying and career destruction.

    Default means living another day

    Password is a demonstration of fealty and unlocks access to resources and promotion.

    • Replies: @a Newsreader
  85. @Tulip

    McCardle and McCain are not the same .

    • Replies: @Tulip
  86. @PhysicistDave

    McMegan, as a self-professed Libertarian, famously came out in support of presidential candidate Barack Obama.

    Did she ever comment in retrospect and hindsight on that stand? I mean the Libertarian position was that Mr. Obama was one of these new-fangled Chicago politicians who was going to unite the country and that associating him with Reverend Wright race mongering or socializing the largest sector of the U.S. economy were all a slander?

    Did she ever say, OK, the Affordable Care Act didn’t work out quite how I thought it would, or endorse, Obama, what was I thinking. I mean people like here say stuff and they never revisit their recommendations or their predictions?

  87. Kylie says:
    @Jack D

    “It’s really had to think of how McCardle could have been more dishonest.”

    She could pretend to be black..

  88. Anon[246] • Disclaimer says:

    I was surprised by what Carl Jussim said to her:

    Without hesitation, Jussim agreed. Carl wasn’t endorsing a link between race and IQ, Jussim pointed out, just starting a discussion about whether we should study it. “If we had that discussion,” he said, “I would personally advocate for a moratorium for all the reasons you just described.”

    And Haidt:

    “The question is not ‘Should we have third rails in science?’ ” Haidt said. “That’s a valid argument. But the question now is ‘Should we randomly shoot anyone who gets within an unspecified distance of a third rail?’ ”

    Also, a pet peeve that Jussim reminds me of: The “There needs to be a national conversation” type statement. What the hell does that mean, concretely? Ezra Klein says things like this. What is a national conversation?

    I get this image of the old-time three-network preemptions where the president is making an announcement. Maybe a big hall is rented, presidential debate style, and some newspeople are moderators, and there is a panel of experts on stage, and in the audience a union guy asks a question, then a girl who’s representing her fourth grade class, and you get a question from YouTube, maybe a call-in. This goes on for three hours. The newspapers summarize it the next day.

    Is that a national conversation? If we did that, would everyone shut up?

    Of course, in the age of the internet, all veiws are expressed somewhere, and an hour with Google lets anyone who wants to hear them hear them. I don’t think that there remain any as-yet unexpressed views, and there is no need for them all to be spouted out at one “event” rather than read or listened to at one’s leisure on the internet.

    I think the Kleinian “Conversation” in fact just means: We need to berate and pressure all the Nazis until they agree with us or completely shut up, and at that point we can reach a decision. Putting topics off limits is in fact a way of implementing the “conversation.”

    Finally, I call bullshit on the idea that the race-IQ connection is so dangerous that society would fall apart if it were established. To begin with, many people, including most blacks, simply won’t believe any results, no matter what kind of research is consummated. Secondly, if you look at the Bell Curve illustration, you see that there are generally about one or two whites with low IQ for every black with low IQ. Are we enslaving those whites?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    , @songbird
  89. newrouter says:
    @Inquiring Mind

    “. I mean people like her(e) say stuff and they never revisit their recommendations or their predictions?”

    Hi Bill Kristol.

  90. Ed says:
    @Jack D

    The problem is we’re being asked to reorder society to make things more equal because we’re avoiding drawing any conclusions.

    If the gaps were explained to be a mixture of culture and genetics than instead of focusing on the percent of black kids at an elite school like Stuyvesant we can think of ways that actually close the gap somewhat or concentrate our efforts that maximize the potential of blacks and other lower IQ groups.

  91. @Reg Cæsar

    That line about all societies having out of bounds questions seems like the purest sophistry. Even if you grant that assertion (which seems somewhat dubious; what lines of inquiry are politically banned in Japan?) then what are we to take from it? Because lines of inquiry that question Allah are banned in Saudi Arabia, it follows that we should have a similar series of rules about blaspheming the PC religion?

  92. JimB says:

    IQ is the third rail of social discourse just because it correlates with everything: directly with civic engagement, wealth, health, and social capital; inversely with crime, reproduction rate, and welfare dependence. IQ data provides highly persuasive evidence for tight immigration controls and eugenics. Only Christian ethics condemns eugenics and demands that we not discriminate according to IQ, which makes it hilariously hypocritical that liberals and immigrants push for effectively Christian social policies while at the same time condemning Christianity as white imperialism.

  93. Tulip says:
    @Kaganovitch

    You mean she is that dumb and her father is not a powerful Senator but they still hired her at WaPo?

    • Replies: @Kaganovitch
  94. Arclight says:

    I normally like McArdle but this is moronic – what’s she really saying, along with everyone else who says this is an area that is off-limits for discussion – is not that the odds are that it’s wrong are too high, it’s that the odds that it is correct is too high.

    The entire leftist political platform and its policy prescriptions (along with most of the right as well) are that build on the idea that people are all basically the same, that your ancestry or sex is entirely irrelevant in determining where you end up, your capabilities, interests, etc. Therefore, anything other than near-perfect representation of every segment of society in every endeavor is evidence of oppression and malign forces.

    Destroy that belief, and then the social engineers of the right and left have to admit that their prescriptions are useless and all the lack of success to date isn’t a product of lack of funding, not trying hard enough, etc. Obviously it would be better for everyone if we recognized that some people are smarter than others, some have different interests and so on, an this accounts for the massive academic achievement gaps, difference in who goes into what type of employment, and then we could stop fighting about it and accusing others of evil intent. But that’s not what works politically, so we’ll just keep pretending that we’re all just biological widgets that should all perform just how our betters think we should.

  95. @Mr McKenna

    The Party of Science defines the Scientific Method: there’s some questions science just can’t be trusted to answer correctly, and that we didn’t want answered, anyways, you bigot.

  96. All somewhat ironic, considering that I already leaned toward believing that research into race and IQ should be off-limits. …

    I thought McArdle was a “libertarian”?

    BTW, I always get Megan and Mairead McArdle confused.

  97. @Anon

    randomly shoot anyone who gets within an unspecified distance of a third rail?’

    LOL.

    Actually, I think society would fall apart if people accepted the race-IQ connection. I mean accepted as in, you could mention casually on a TV talk show or over the water cooler at work. You underestimate how psychologically invested people are in blank-slatism and denial of HBD. After a generation, things would start improving, but in the short term, there would be chaos.

  98. @PhysicistDave

    So, now I call myself a “Thoreauist,” and am more comfortable with Sailer’s “civic nationalism” than with mainstream “libertarianism.”

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but civic nationalist is just a stop-gap as well. I’ve already gone down your path, started as a libertarian and moved to an iSteve civic nationalist. I was happy there, certainly didn’t want to change, but the reality of the situation in the U.S. just keeps hitting you in the face. You can ignore it for awhile. (Actually, you’re a lot smarter that I am, so you’ll be able to ignore longer than I did.) But sooner or later, you start to notice that civic nationalism in a multi-everything society made of tribal groups simply doesn’t work.

    The low IQ blacks and Hispanics combined with the high IQ but tribal Jews, South Asians and, to a degree, NE Asians will destroy civic nationalism. These groups have either no real understanding or no real love of the values and ideas of a bunch of dead white men. To them, the United States isn’t a ideal but an open-air market where they get the best deal for themselves and their kind.

    Sorry, I wish this wasn’t the case. I really do. But that’s the reality of the situation, and, try as you might to not see the world for what it is, you will. Unless, I guess, you’re a boomer, in which case you can ignore anything.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Lurker
    , @PhysicistDave
  99. Joe Walker says: • Website
    @DFH

    McCardle is probably not that dim. She is just telling her bosses what they want to hear and read.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @lavoisier
  100. @Inquiring Mind

    She’s a word-whore. It’s like getting mad at a fish for swimming. She’s earning a living. Ignore her.

  101. Kurlos says:
    @James Speaks

    Maybe it’s the cannabis, but I’ve taken a screenshot of comment #11. Take a look at this phrasing Mr Sailer.

    • Replies: @James Speaks
  102. Tim says:

    The interesting thing is that while we wring our hands and worry that perhaps we ‘just shouldn’t research this at all’, the Chinese are studying the hell out of this. It’s obviously important research and it’s obviously true.

    And that’s the thing: while we’re writing mass-signed letters condemning blatantly obvious facts, people on the other side of the world–who are not our friends–are using these obvious facts as a foundation for far greater insights.

    Time and tide wait for no man. This is what’s happening, we have to deal with it.

    • Agree: Dtbb
  103. As far as I can tell, McArdle has never held an actual job.

  104. This reminds me of a previous iSteve post, Is it okay to ask, “Is it okay to be white?”?

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/a-question-3/?highlight=%22okay+to+be+white%3F%22

    • Replies: @Hail
  105. Hail says: • Website
    @Harry Baldwin

    “Resolved: It is okay to be White but not okay to ask if it is okay to be White.”

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
  106. @Anonymous

    Mine was going to be the statue of Sir Stamford Raffles at his eponymous landing site in Singapore, in the year 2100, but now that Gandhi is feeling the heat, I’ve revised that downward to 2075.

    Anyone who is at all acquainted with the political and cultural climate of Singapore would say that there is no chance whatsoever that Singapore will disavow its founder, nor its British street and place names, nor the English language for the next couple of hundred years.

    Consider this. Since independence more than 50 years ago, Singapore has had a single female minister in the cabinet, and a junior minister at that. Singapore is basically non-PC.

    • Replies: @Hail
  107. How far we are from Thomas Jefferson’s sentiment:

    There is not a truth existing which I fear or any which I would wish unknown to the whole world.

  108. L Woods says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    You’re giving her (and her ilk) far too much credit. They aren’t capable of this sort of subtle dissent even if they were inclined to it.

  109. @James Speaks

    evolutionary environment is racist I tell you! Don’t explore it, but if you do put on your helmet because opprobrium is about to be heaped upon your head. Then, you lose your job, then your house.

  110. @Paul Yarbles

    Isn’t this chick a libertarian? If so, then why is she so into ::::CONTROL::::?

    Like most libertarians, she has Asperger’s Syndrome.

  111. @Tulip

    Not dumb, just scared. I’ve read lots of her stuff over the years. No way is she this stupid.

    • Agree: ic1000
  112. Articles such as those by Ms. McCardle are perfectly understandable if considered in religious terms. Are some questions so outside the prevailing Cult of Diversity/Negro Veneration that they must be treated as heresy or blasphemy? A religious community cannot tolerate heretics and blasphemers because they threaten the salvation and immortal souls of the believers.

  113. Hail says: • Website
    @PiltdownMan

    there is no chance whatsoever that Singapore will disavow its founder

    You should qualify this with “as long as the ethnocultural core retains control.”

    Singapore seems to be an Overseas Chinese soft-ethnostate with a conscious cultural debt of gratitude to NW-European Man generally and Britain specifically. But if millions of randoms are citizened-in, why would they care about any of that? Not even Singapore has Magic Dirt.

    I can’t see Singapore doing that, handing out citizenships such as to threaten ethnic-Chinese supermajority status. But, then, somehow it’s happened in the USA & W.Europe.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
  114. @ben tillman

    we will be left with a completely unscientific — i.e., deliberately false — belief that must be designed to benefit the liars at the expense of others?

    Bing, bing bing, we have a winner! You have pulled the curtain back. Now how long do you think it will be before your unauthorized curtain drawing becomes a hate crime?

  115. @Lot

    First:

    “to the eugenics that fueled the Holocaust”

    is not in the linked post. What is your referent? Second:

    Three generations of imbeciles are enough

    is difficult to refute, until you consider the stupidity of the State. Yes, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” but putting the Police Power of the State in charge of who is an imbecile is an invitation to abuse. The idiot bureaucrat in Oregon who took away the business and house of those simple bakers trolled by a hydrophobic Less-Bee couple is Exhibit A in State abuse.

    Lord Acton was right.

  116. cthulhu says:

    Sad to see McMegan stoop to this kind of idiocy. I suspect she’s suffering Stockholm syndrome from the mind-boggling asinine commentariat at the WaPo. But she made her bed there…

  117. @Hail

    I can’t see Singapore doing that, handing out citizenships such as to threaten ethnic-Chinese supermajority status.

    It doesn’t. If anything, it has been encouraging mainland Chinese permanent residents to apply for citizenship and naturalize. Singapore’s ruling technocrats have always been hyper-aware of the racial composition of their state from the very start and have always tracked it closely. When I lived there, it was acknowledged and understood that Africans, by and large, were not granted even visitor visas.

    The philosophy of governance in Singapore is the opposite of that in the USA and W. Europe. A government of the technocratic/meritocratic elite knows what’s best for the populace, and systematically makes choices for them.

    • Replies: @ia
  118. songbird says:
    @Anon

    Some movie critics, etc say something like “film is a conversation.” That seems like a really nutty thing to say, so I think they are probably the same people. Same mindset, anyway.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  119. @JimB

    Only Christian ethics condemns eugenics and demands that we not discriminate according to IQ

    No. You missed the parable of the talents, the charge to whom much is given, and the parable of the wheat and tares, for example. You have accepted our enemies definitions.

    You should familiarize yourself with genuine Christian ethics before you jettison them.

  120. Anon7 says:
    @Mr McKenna

    If your jaw didn’t drop when you read the money quote, you weren’t really paying attention.

    • Agree: Trevor H.
  121. @Hail

    The evidence appears to be that it is also not okay to say “It’s okay to be White.” You can think it. Very quietly.

  122. @songbird

    Some movie critics, etc say something like “film is a conversation.”

    When there are a lot of black people in the audience, that’s generally true.

  123. @PhysicistDave

    If this thread is a confession session, I, also was a Libertarian, of the von Mises persuasion. First pause was realizing that a free market meant the sale of the western public lands I considered part of my inheritance. Second, years later, was recognition that liberty is for sale. It’s true, I’m not so fast. Liberty cannot be sold. It can be taken, it can be given. By God, it cannot be sold.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  124. Thomm says:
    @Inquiring Mind

    It is almost impossible for a woman to be a Libertarian.

    Plus, a lot of ‘libertarians’ are just people who are Neocons or cuckservatives, but don’t want to get the knee-jerk heat that comes with saying they are Republicans.

    A real Libertarian is one who is almost solely devoted to a >50% reduction in government spending, a similar reduction in taxes, and a tax code that is shrunk to just two pages or less.

  125. Lurker says:

    O/T but kind of related.

    Deborah Lipstadt approvingly retweets this:

    You see the reason people have been banned from Twitter and YouTube isn’t because their views are unacceptable, it’s because, literally, no one wants to hear what they’re saying. No one. Twitter and Google have selflessly taken on the responsibility of silencing people who no one was listening to anyway.

    I would have responded with a question about Christian bakers being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings but I’m currently suspended from Twitter.

  126. Mr. Anon says:

    Investigating links between race, IQ and genes has long been anathema;…..

    This is how we know what constitutes a good scientist. A good scientist does not conduct research that is “anathema”. “Anathema” being a good scientific term.

  127. black sea says:

    Q: Who should decide what topics are off-limits?
    A: Jeff Bezos

    I think that’s really the point.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @J.Ross
  128. @Paul Mendez

    If I remember correctly, early Nazi ideology held that Germany had to be rid of Jews not because they were inferior, but because they were “racially tougher” than the Aryans.

    If that quote (or translation) is true, the two characteristics aren’t mutually exclusive.

    A subject group could be recognized as “tougher” by the base characteristic of a will or ability to survive in a hostile environment, but could also be seen as deficient in other human qualities esteemed by the group holding judgment. From the start, the Nazis regarded Jews as both a threat (tough) and inferior (ugly, subhuman).

    • Replies: @anon
  129. @Chrisnonymous

    After a generation, things would start improving, but in the short term, there would be chaos.

    I’m okay with that.

  130. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @black sea

    That’s the top comment, right there. Bravo!

  131. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    A lot of racial ideology recognises the superiority of other races. North Korean propaganda casts Koreans as innocent children needing protection from the outside world, with the Kims as maternal figures.

  132. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    Molestation and murder aren’t “questions”, they’re crimes.

    And pretty soon it will be a crime to express the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence.

  133. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Joe Walker

    McCardle is probably not that dim. She is just telling her bosses what they want to hear and read.

    Only two excuses for her obscurantism. Either she is stupid (inebriated from the egalitarian kool-aid), or she is a dishonest coward.

    Neither characteristic is particularly virtuous.

  134. Dtbb says:
    @ben tillman

    Or you could also be left with good ole common sense and stereotypes which studies seem to be reaffirming. Fat chance that huh?

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  135. The lower-level priests and priestesses of the neo-religion are busy working out the doctrinal difficulties for us laity. “Should we allow discussion of the validity of Christ’s position in the holy Trinity?” “Nah, they’re too stupid and it would cause too much confusion; just burn the overly curious or skeptical at the stake; problem solved!”

    It’s the new religion, Steve. Convert or be banished!

    Christmas gift coming soon, I promise!

  136. @Paul Mendez

    “…switched to demonizing Jews as dirty, ugly, subhuman, etc. …”

    Demonizing your adversaries is just what humans do. Those dirty swine down in Auburn do it to us Alabama fans all the time.

    /

  137. @Jack D

    “what if the conclusion is to get rid of blacks? “

    So instead, we will arbitrarily impoverish and suppress “whites”? You really believe that is a better approach?

  138. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    seem to remember that the nazi plan was to deport all the jews but no one would take them this was from Arndt, Eichmann big idea was his negotiations with zionists to solve the problem of no one wanting to take jews because prior experience so a homeland. But commie jews didnt like this because they wanted to take over the world and rich jews didnt like this because they already had taken over the world and other nations had prior diplomatic issues that conflicted with the idea, meanwhile they were rolling up europe and couldn’t afford to leave all these subversives in place so they started sending them to POW camps or labor camps to be precise. and sure we can whine about the cruelty but the fact is war is just awful and in a very real sense germany was fighting for its very existence and the main enemy besides their cousins were the jews who were overthrowing europe with bolshevism, he came to power when a choice between being overthrown by the commie jews was real and immanent and the response from the cucked elites was weak corrupt its almost exactly like whats happening today and exactly why the most advanced and cultured nation on earths citizens elected hitler he was the only choice because the jews had been allowed to take over and the german elites were hopelessly cucked and the jew elites did not fear the jew commies understanding the jew bit transcends the commie v capitalist issue just as today we have billionair capitalist jews and their corporations fully supporting the culture wrecking and power wealth redistribution from whites to non whites without fear this will affect them. and like before the stupid cuck elites of our own either are too stupid and hung up on antiquated dynamics to understand whats going on or understand perfectly and hope to be rewarded for treason.
    and like before one problem decent people have is not all jews or white elites are like this many simply feel they are doing whats right or obeying authority and doing what they need to for their own sakes,after all how many of us redpilled are even now ready to take up arms to stop this. Not only the personal cost which will surely be destruction for those first to the ramparts but the moral weight very very few even redpilled have shed the false consciousness of slave morality at all let alone completely enough to begin a world wide civil war. so we meme blog comment and vote for anyone vaguely to the right of the far left.
    the real problem with talking about HBD is not that its mean to notice the african and amerindian etc lack of fitness for the western environment or even that it will eventually make clear that its just as crazy to allow those with more effective traits into your nation its that it begins a process of totally shedding the slave morality the entire christian enlightenment ethos begins to crumble it dawns upon us we must become gods or die like animals under some other gods. The awe we have for millenia reserved for the unknowable is suddenly upon our shoulders its simply too much for some the Han the Jews they seem ready to accept this fate whites seem not to be able to handle it.

  139. bro3886 says:

    How would that work, exactly?

    How would that work? Jump into the ovens whitey, but empty your pockets before you do, that’s how it works. Anti-racism is the con man’s racist colonialism, designed to allow all the various groups who live off of whites as parasites to do so until the day they’re able to live off of whites by old-fashioned blunt force racist colonialism. You can bet that McCardle has no problem talking about how wonderfully smart Asians and Jews are, because doing so aids in the racial exploitation and dispossession of whites, just as suppressing talk about low black and Central American I.Q. and high crime rates aids in that dispossession. There’s no double standard, it’s one standard, the one I’ve outlined above.

  140. @Neil Templeton

    If this thread is a confession session, I, also was a Libertarian, of the von Mises persuasion.

    The non-aggression is sound. It is universalizable. The problem is that most self-denominated “libertarians” do not accept the NAP or its corollaries.

  141. @Dtbb

    True, but fat chance in this time and place.

  142. Rosie says:
    @Paul Mendez

    a good sob story.

    IOW, what lawyers call “mitigating circumstances,” not unlike when a man kills his wife and her lover in the “heat of passion.”

    Goose–>Gander

    See there. Here we are debating precisely what this author says we cannot debate.

  143. Yngvar says:

    The neo-puritans wants to reintroduce taboo.

  144. Believe in diversity.

    Just don’t investigate diversity.

    • Agree: Hail
  145. In a free society, especially on campuses premised on academic freedom, you should be able to question anything. You should be able to assert that race and IQ are innately interwoven. But when applying this concept to everyday contemporaries sporting high-IQs, you should be prepared to defend your thesis about the superiority of said groups with a body of top-flight work from individuals in those groups, proving that the work of these superior beings actually advances a scientific or mathematical field, stands the test of time and, in the case of the arts and letters, is master-grade.

    The real superiority is in the work, not in the numerical scores, of a tiny group of individuals at the extreme poles of any skin-pigmentation group who produce such work.

    Whatever their skin hue, the producers of truly great work may have sky-high IQs. Who knows? We do know that, thousands of years from now, an archeologist won’t dig up the fossilized remains of a high-IQ individual from any group, mentioning that long-deceased individual’s IQ score in his publication. He will not mention the intellectual characteristics of the remains at all unless that person left behind stellar works to truly prove that he rose to the peak of greatness in this life.

    To prove the superiority of high-IQ humans excelling in so-called subjective fields, you should be called on it if you fail to take into consideration varying degrees of technical and formal virtuosity, proving the comparative difficulty of pulling off such great work, as opposed to the ease of churning out lesser, low-IQ work.

    Your effort to prove IQ differences should not just be in the service of putting more obnoxious bumper-sticker boasts on the SUVs of the dual-high-earner parents, concentrating the few decent-paying, salaried jobs with benefits under fewer roofs in this country, wiping out the middle class without taking the risk to create jobs and seeking to preset their kids as genetically superior via one number.

    It does not always work out for parents, even when their kids score in the top 1 to 5% on that particular type of test. Perhaps, those whose high IQs match their life outcomes think so, but many have bad—and worse-than-bad—outcomes, regardless of high IQ.

    Have you ever seen a batch of IQ scores—the originals, not the mother’s copies—that can be carbon dated via graphite & paper analysis, with handwriting analysis, too, to forestall any IQ birtherism?

    By happenstance, I have, and I have seen my own, noting the mismatch between crappy life outcome and the number, not that mine was a 1% MENSA IQ. I did see a tiny number of MENSA princes and princesses in that batch, including the bigly, bigly IQs of a pair of siblings. These MENSA giants, living in a modest ranch home that a dual-high-earner power couple with IQs 30 points lower wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole today, towered above the other high IQs.

    If IQ and performance are interlocked, why did one of the MENSA siblings make it to the upper-middle-class, getting through grad school in one of the few professional fields that commands a higher salary, while the other did worse than any of us—really, really bad—despite a slightly higher MENSA-grade IQ? Mental illness does not explain it in this case.

    Why did the successful MENSA sibling acheive the same level of success as high-IQ peers who had IQs twenty points lower, likewise achieving the same professional outcome as peers not even included in that high-IQ batch? We are all old enough to say that, despite a rare MENSA IQ, this successful professional has not made any earthshaking advancements to a field and will not appear in the history books due to producing genius-level work.

    A few of the highest achievers in that crappy school—people who went on to complete grad school in hardcore subject areas, after which they entered the highest-paying and most respected professions—were not even in that batch of high IQs from kids in a particular age range, spanning several grade levels.

    Before the dual-high-earner, fake-feminist frenzy to create genetic dynasties via womb production went into full gear, maybe, their parents did not get them tested. Or, maybe, they just did not score that high….on that one test. They obviously bypassed most of their high-IQ peers by passing the hardest professional licensing and other tests in some of the most difficult, scientific and other high-paying fields.

    Are you sure that non-genius-level, but high-ranking and highly-paid, professional achievement is governed mostly by IQ?

    Especially in positions that are not as credentialed, but that often pay more, success probably stems more from personality, not always in a good way. In some workplaces, a high amorality quotient is helpful in trampling down the competition. High achievers use frequently churned hard workers to boost up bonus numbers, along with using conformist low performers who can accept low pay for non-work-related reasons to control expenses. That behavior is not IQ-realated, surely, but it does get them in good with many bosses.

    Some people who rise to the top in management are not cutthroat, but just have sterling personalities, keeping everything intact by some kind of calming elixir, including humor, and other things that may or may not be IQ-based. Some people claim there is an “emotional intelligence” quotient.

    The MENSA siblings had more than one non-IQ-related virtue that could be helpful in life, with the successful one having far more than a fair share of gifts from God. Is success really IQ-based, when the lack of other traits could possibly cause a person with a massive IQ to fail?

    Unsuccessful MENSA Sibling: IQ — top 1%; Physical Appearance — top 5%; Personality — bottom 20%; Character — bottom 10%.

    Successful MENSA Sibling: IQ — top 1%; Physical Appearance — top 5%; Personality — top 1%; Character — probably top 10% (one of the few wildly popular people who was not doing a lot of mean, degrading and underhanded things to enhance popularity)

    In some of the high-IQ salaried professions, trust is super-important, and you could probably trust the successful MENSA sibling with important things, whereas there is no way that you could trust the unsuccessful MENSA-level sibling, not that successful people with high IQs are always more trustworthy than the losers in life.

    But if the high-achieving MENSA sibling had not secured credentials in a hardcore field, personality would have ebabled a rise to the top in a non-cutthroat business setting, where personality can sometimes be more important than grad-school credentials in landing management positions or succeeding in ownership.

    You can probably find people like this in all racial groups, but all of the IQs I saw were white-privilege scores.

    If these studies aim to prove something about the comparative performance of racial groups in low-IQ or average-IQ fields, they might be surprised to find out that IQ, credentials and other performance factors that are numerically measurable, are almost always subordinate to the ability to perform the labor cheaply, usually due to spousal income or monthly welfare and refundable child tax credits in the case of non-youth-dominated office jobs. Managers and owners would hire humans with purple flesh and IQs of 0.00 to perform the work, augmented by robots making $0.00, if they could get it done cheaper.

    .

  146. @academic gossip

    “Password” is also a useful samizdat technique. Declare the PC opinion at the beginning and the end. The rest of the article can contradict PC without too much trouble. Putnam’s article about diversity’s effect on social capital used this technique.

    • Replies: @academic gossip
  147. we don’t debate whether child molestation or spousal murder is acceptable…

    I see someone’s never attended a Libertarian Party state convention during the 1990s….

  148. @a Newsreader

    The telltale sign that it’s Password is that the statement is out of place, with no logical connection to the rest of the text. If the piece also rambles on without saying anything objectionable, indeed without conveying any thought at all, it is one of those reports the Party functionaries need to submit to keep their personnel file in good standing when the time comes for promotion.

    An example I just came across is Supreme Court nominee-in-waiting Noah Feldman’s article “Justifying Diversity”. Amidst pages of empty prose, a non sequitur rises:

    The results of those tests remain closely linked to socioeconomic status, and they do not sufficiently track aptitude, which should be distributed equally through the population.

    This was tacked on to the end of a paragraph that did not require it. Yet it is the functional core of the essay, whose only apparent purpose is improved ideological positioning for a future appointment.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/12/06/justifying-diversity/

    • Replies: @academic gossip
  149. @AnotherDad

    Eugenics is the Nuremberg laws and sterilization of mental patients, but is not so much a part of the Holocaust. Extermination of Jews and all the other targeted groups was ideologically a therapeutic and aesthetic program. Propaganda and rhetoric had the imagery of rats and bacteria (filth, impurity, ugliness) being eliminated for the good of the German body, and for the purification and beauty of the world.

    It’s not worth debating here, but there a plenty of reasons to consider the Holocaust exceptional among massacres, beyond it being a genocide (or “race war”), having a high body count, or involving Jews.

  150. anon[342] • Disclaimer says:

    “the eugenics that fueled the Holocaust”

    Conservapedia claims belief in evolution caused Hitler. The arguments presented by the two sources seem remarkably similar, so why the difference in outcome? Hm…cui bono?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  151. @Svigor

    Svigor wrote:

    Libertarians don’t oppose the panoply of “anti-discrimination” (anti-freedom) laws. Bye-bye, libertarian credibility.

    Well… all libertarians opposed such laws as violation of freedom of association back in the good old days. The Mises-Institute types still do.

    But, no one owns the word “libertarian,” so now Gary Johnson and Bill Weld count as “libertarians.”

    • Replies: @Svigor
  152. @academic gossip

    p.s. another hilarious Password seen in that essay is compulsively adding the words “and Latino” after each use of “African-American”. Professor Feldman needs us to know that as far as he is concerned it is not even a conceivable question whether Latini should be part of the future Diversity Concept. Because Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Similar to “white male Christian” in the article Steve linked recently.

  153. ia says:
    @PiltdownMan

    A government of the technocratic/meritocratic elite knows what’s best for the populace, and systematically makes choices for them.

    You are joking aren’t you?

  154. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Citizen of a Silly Country wrote to me:

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but civic nationalist is just a stop-gap as well. I’ve already gone down your path, started as a libertarian and moved to an iSteve civic nationalist.

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear: I still hold pretty much the same “libertarian” opinions I did thirty years ago. It’s just that the word “libertarian” has been hijacked by people who are basically Truman/JFK liberals.

    And, it is not that I have become a dogmatic “civic nationalist.” But, it does seem to me that Sailer’s civic nationalism is close enough to my Jeffersonian views that I would be okay with the triumph of civic nationalism.

    The mainstream of present-day “libertarianism,” as exemplified by Megan McArdle, is just too willing to make its peace with the current ruling Establishment. I would like to see a loyal opposition that actually opposes.

    (Again, some contemporary “libertarians,” such as the Mises Institute/LewRockwell.com folks, are indeed still holding high the flag of radical Jeffersonianism, but they do not control the “Libertarian” Party nor do they get most of the attention in the MSM.)

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  155. @PhysicistDave

    Mises/LRC do some extraordinary backflipping as when, for example, they try to explain why Honduras has more crime and fewer guns than Switzerland. (“It’s because they have fewer guns! Yay freedom!”) They also choose their battles carefully. Paul Krugman may indeed be wrong, as Tom Woods and Robert Murphy remind me twice a year, every year, but that’s really not the issue any more.

    Lew has to navigate a very fine line between the Jewish atheists and the Catholic universalists who prominently figure among his donors and affiliated scholars. I don’t envy him.

    Hoppe could be leading the Revolution right now, but he’s 69 years old and seems more content to just to enjoy retirement in Turkey with his wife.

  156. The Anti-Gnostic wrote to me:

    Mises/LRC do some extraordinary backflipping as when, for example, they try to explain why Honduras has more crime and fewer guns than Switzerland. (“It’s because they have fewer guns! Yay freedom!”)

    I don’t recall that, but I’d think the difference between Honduras and Switzerland is largely due to radically different cultures and histories.

    TAG also said:

    Lew has to navigate a very fine line between the Jewish atheists and the Catholic universalists who prominently figure among his donors and affiliated scholars. I don’t envy him.

    Well, it is an interesting coalition. Maybe it actually works better that way: is it really better to swing completely either towards dogmatic Christianity or, in the opposite direction, towards dogmatic atheism? I’m a pretty loud-mouthed atheist myself, but I can still admit that some atheists manage to make fools of themselves — best to hear varying perspectives.

    (I will say though that some of the best known public atheists, such as Dawkins and Dan Dennett, often show a fair amount of common sense. Both men have expressed their respect for the cultural achievements of Christianity, and Dawkins was even borked by the SJWs for not being a rigid ideologue a while back.)

    • Replies: @Svigor
  157. J.Ross says: • Website
    @black sea

    Gold box. Similarly, Michael Bloomberg in Manhattan is the person who decides how safe I feel as I walk around Detroit, Tom Steyer is in charge of how comfortable I am this winter, and the Koch Brothers decide when I’ve been employed too much.

  158. J.Ross says: • Website
    @anon

    There were two antecedents, neither of which were Hitler’s fault, neither of which are discussed much by the self-appointed guardians of memory, and without which the Holocaust would not have been possible: one was the Soviet resolution of diversity of opinion and the other was a pre-Nazi “mini-holocaust” of retarded people by mainstream psychiatrists. This is the one thing Scientology gets right and the BBC’s response to gentiles polluting The Most Necessary and Unquestionable Story with actual history was to throw a tantrum (Panorama).

  159. Svigor says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Maybe I should be paying closer attention, but aren’t the “Mises-Institute” types a tiny minority of a small minority, at this point? Seems like the alt-right has absorbed all the libertarians who were worth AF.

    P.S., never mind relatively abstract principles like “freedom of association”; how about property rights? “Anti-discrimination” laws trample all over the right to property.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  160. Svigor says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I’d say their radically different cultures and histories are largely down to radically different DNA.

    The Aztecs and “La Violencia”… *shivers*

    Never cared much for atheists. Just another kind of theist, full of certainty where there shouldn’t be any…

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  161. Svigor wrote to me:

    Never cared much for atheists. Just another kind of theist, full of certainty where there shouldn’t be any…

    Well… most self-proclaimed atheists define the word “atheist” as meaning a person who does not have a belief in (a) God. Not quite the same as being certain there is no god.

    Why not use “agnostic” as a self-description? Because many people define “agnostic” as a person who claims that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God. Logically, there can be both agnostic theists (such people do exist), agnostic atheists, and, of course, both theists and atheists who are not agnostics.

    Anyway, no real issue can be decided simply by a definition.

    In practical terms, I think most self-declared atheists are people who are pretty sure that the God(s) of the major religions do not exist — i.e., the Gods of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. — and who also think it unlikely that any being exists that could reasonably be called God.

    The first claim seems to me obviously true: i.e., the stories that present the gods of Judaism, Christianity, etc. (e.g., in the Old and New Testaments) are in a substantial degree simply not true, so the God(s) described in those books do not exist. The second claim is, I suppose, speculative.

    Even Richard Dawkins has conceded that he is not certain that no god exists, though he thinks it unlikely; however, I think Dawkins is pretty much certain that traditional Christian orthodoxy is untrue.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  162. @Svigor

    Svigor wrote to me:

    I’d say their radically different cultures and histories are largely down to radically different DNA.

    The Aztecs and “La Violencia”… *shivers*

    I think attributing the evil of the Aztecs simply to DNA-induced low IQ lets them off too easily. I’ve known lots of low IQ people: none were evil like the Aztecs.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  163. @J.Ross

    I think eventually research from places like china will BTFO the anti-science baizuo to the point where they will have to admit what we know about these things.

    I think people like David Reich are laying the groundwork for that inevitable BTFOing so when it happens it can be grafted on to the leftist world view.

    So we will probably get some of the benefits of that research although our demographics will make it not super useful.

  164. @J.Ross

    dragged before a Human Rights Tribunal kangaroo court to be charged with hate speech.

    Phrases like “charged with free speech”, “convicted of free speech”, “fined for illegal free speech” should be used exclusively for this type of thing. It rectifies the names, and anyone with the chutzpah to correct it to the nominal “hate” form looks ridiculous.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  165. @Svigor

    Svigor wrote to me:

    P.S., never mind relatively abstract principles like “freedom of association”; how about property rights? “Anti-discrimination” laws trample all over the right to property.

    Indeed. One of the main points of Lockean natural-rights theory is that it all fits together — free speech, freedom of association, property rights, etc. all mutually reinforce each other, rather than the “conflict of rights” that academic liberals and progressive jurists like to push.

    Sviogor also asked:

    Maybe I should be paying closer attention, but aren’t the “Mises-Institute” types a tiny minority of a small minority, at this point?

    Hard to say. I suppose it depends a lot on one’s definitions: to me, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld just aren’t libertarians, even though they were nominated by the “Libertarian” Party. Similarly for a lot of people at reason magazine or at Cato. So, either the Mises folks are the dominant group among “true” libertarians or a mere fringe group among those who now use the word “libertarian.”

    But nothing is really decided by a definition, anyway. I do suspect that the Mises group is bigger than the entire libertarian movement was in, say, 1972 for what that is worth.

  166. Svigor says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Well… most self-proclaimed atheists define the word “atheist” as meaning a person who does not have a belief in (a) God. Not quite the same as being certain there is no god.

    IME, that’s what atheists are. Maybe the silent majority are otherwise, but WGAF?

    Agnosticism awaits, fellas.

    Why not use “agnostic” as a self-description? Because many people define “agnostic” as a person who claims that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God. Logically, there can be both agnostic theists (such people do exist), agnostic atheists, and, of course, both theists and atheists who are not agnostics.

    So where’s the problem? Agnostics are correct.

    In practical terms, I think most self-declared atheists are people who are pretty sure that the God(s) of the major religions do not exist — i.e., the Gods of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. — and who also think it unlikely that any being exists that could reasonably be called God.

    I’m pretty sure there is no God. But I’m smart/honest enough to admit that I can’t prove it; that my belief is just that – a belief. Based on instinct, intuition, a sense of how things work.

  167. Svigor says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Straw man. DNA != low IQ.

    I don’t see how saying what the Aztecs were was largely inherent and largely a natural outgrowth of their nature, is letting them off the hook.

  168. J.Ross says: • Website
    @academic gossip

    This is an excellent point. It reinforces that “hate speech” is a fake concept and that most Western countries think they have free speech but do not.

  169. dvorak says:

    Libertarianism/Randism is just another Jewish heresy, so it’s convenient for the Washington Post to keep libertarians as well as neocons on staff. You can tell a Jewish heresy for its outspoken opposition to communism/socialism accompanied by its insistence upon open borders. Also the Jewish founder-heretic is kind of a giveaway.

  170. FrankBX77 says:

    Dear Mr Sailor, the IQ of Democrats must be around 50 if they believe that the immigrants of last 30 years will “love” USA or the new country they go. They will never assimilate to a new nation. These immigranrts from Latin America are totally different to the European migrants that came to USA at the beginning of XX Century. The Latins continue loving their own country and will continue doing things to take the land where they arrive, for their country of origin. The Democrats should see the example of the ex –boxer Oscar de la Hoya, he loves Mexico, not USA. If he had enough power he would give California and other States to Mexico. He seems to be loyal to Mexico, and a traitor to USA. There are millions of De la Hoya in USA. USA government, by letting that type of people to live in USA with USA citizenship, is creating a Mega Troy Horse. USA government, red or blue, is stupid letting invaders (illegals) to stay in USA, it is as if one man, knowing that he has amoebas or Taenia Solium in his body, and having the possibility of using a Medicine to get rid of the parasite, just do nothing and let the parasite to continue living in his body. Only an idiot or a suicide would do that.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?