The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
More Reviews of Christopher Caldwell's "The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties"
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Besides my book review in Taki’s Magazine of Age of Entitlement, there are reviews by:

Interviews with Caldwell include:

 
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Don’t forget Tucker’s interview with Caldwell from earlier this week:

    • Replies: @Hail
    @Dave Pinsen

    "Is our democracy real?" --Tucker Carlson

  2. The Age of Entitlement =

    A thief-gotten element.
    A gentle, one-time theft.
    A gentleman fit to thee.

  3. Jonathan Rausch is of course the author of the best short defense of freedom of speech, Kindly Inquisitors, from way back in the sputtered 90s PC wave. Last I heard of him he was supposed to be working on some alternative-politics rethink about organized labor in the service era.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @J.Ross

    Used to hang out with Jonathan Rauch, from time to time - we shared an interest in classical music.

    Very much the neo-con. Went never-Trump along with the other neo-cons in '16, increasingly seems to be going full lib-tard.

    Sad.

  4. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: China coronavirus news details on television are being embargoed in many western nations. But this article is jam-packed with info:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7929657/Nurse-treating-coronavirus-sufferers-China-claims-90-000-people-infected.html

    The article acknowledges the extended incubation period of this virus and says the USA has funneled all Wuhan air travelers to five airports for “screening” since last week. No details on why people can pass the screening without quarantining.

    BTW it was revealed earlier this month that supposed antiviral drug Tamiflu is a hoax. Nice timing!

    https://news.yahoo.com/tamiflu-fraud-bilked-1-5-163100939.html

    • Replies: @Prester John
    @Anonymous

    Quarantining will not stand! It would be racist and xenophobic (Sinophobic?).

  5. Prager U vid paywalled, anyone got a workaround?
    Is that the same as on YouTube (it can’t be, that one is three minutes)?

  6. I appreciate diagnosis. But I am eager to see the prescription. I appreciate, therefore, the Taki article. Usually, big brains like Caldwell (and Charles Murray) are long on diagnosis and short on prescription.

    • Agree: Jack Henson
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    I appreciate diagnosis. But I am eager to see the prescription. I appreciate, therefore, the Taki article. Usually, big brains like Caldwell (and Charles Murray) are long on diagnosis and short on prescription.
     
    Why would these disparate skills be found in the same individual?

    That's like expecting the same guy to write both the music and the lyric-- then sing them. We've seen how that has worked out over the last sixty years.

    Replies: @Kronos, @Prester John

    , @Nicholas Stix
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    The prescription is unprintable, because it entails breaking the law.

    “Possibilities for How 'the American Experiment' Will End”
    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2012/05/possibilities-for-how-american.html

    “‘Was This Trip Necessary?’ The Sermon in Bastogne, During the Battle of the Bulge, in William ‘Wild Bill’ Wellman’s 1949 Masterpiece, Battleground
    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2018/12/was-this-trip-necessary-sermon-in.html

    Replies: @Anonymous, @byrresheim

    , @Jane Plain
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    You're right but... have you read the book?

    First read it, then give us your own prescription.

    I only skimmed the book at a local bookstore (and read the free sample from Amazon, which is about race, the most important part of the book) but the depressing conclusion I came to is that there is nothing to be done, except catch-up lawfare. Conservatives will always be 10 steps behind left wing litigants, and in any case the edifice of "civil rights" (i.e. white dispossession) is massive and secure.

    I did learn a nice word though: barratry.

    , @ATBOTL
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Charles Murray is a vile neocon globalist who spent his entire career promoting that agenda. Here's a taste of how despicable and stupid the man is:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/charles-murray-immigration-john-derbyshire/


    3. I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I’d a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn’t read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.

     

    This is the kind of extreme anti-white virtue signaling and flagrant lying that you would expect from the radical left. It's sounds like something Jeremy Corbyn would say. Murray is a joke. Someone should confront this moron with his claim that he would rather live in Guatemalan ghetto than a "white-bread community" at one of events he speaks at. Think about the psychology and character of a white man who would say something so ludicrously anti-white and obviously false to aggrandize himself. Those are not the words of a good man or an honest man. They are words of a man with a deep seated hatred of his own race and pathological indifference to the truth.

    Murray never had any serious negative repercussions for the Bell Curve and continues to be welcome and loved in the highest levels of the anti-white establishment. His entire career has been to work to undermine white interests by providing a pressure valve where some racial issues can be discussed in a superficially honest way that steers concerned whites away from white identity and white interests.

    BTW, I'm still waiting for evidence of Murray's absurd prediction that white high schools would become violent and uncontrollable like black schools are. Obviously, he was 200% wrong about that. He needs to be called out for that too at one his neocon happenings.

    Replies: @Hail

  7. I just finished the book a few hours ago. (I took a detour on the Obama book.) It appears many (neo)conservative writers are testing the new dissident right waters like Ann Coulter.

    He does a remarkable job detailing why conservative social measures of the 1980s and 1990s failed “100% of the time.” I believe he states something akin that “tradition and civil rights were both important but the latter was codified into law.” Many made fun of political correctness in the early years, but as Caldwell points out, who’s laughing now?

    He does a very decent job at Boomer bashing which of course won me over quite a bit. He made a interesting point about 1960s boomer professors. That due to tenure, it took them a long time for them to climb up the academic latter. That “by 1990 only 1/4 of professorships were occupied by boomers.” Maybe that further extended the fuse until 2013? AKA the “Great Awokening.”

    Also, his idea that PC culture emerged as an HR legal defense against Civil Rights lawsuits does appear credible. That “dropping a ton of bricks” on non-PC individuals for doing meaningless actions might be very well be “the heart” of corporate legal defense strategies against any Jesse Jacksons and/or Al Sharptons.

    • Replies: @neprof
    @Kronos

    "He made a interesting point about 1960s boomer professors."

    So people born between 1945 to 1962 were professors in the 1960s? Makes no sense.

    Replies: @Kronos

  8. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    I appreciate diagnosis. But I am eager to see the prescription. I appreciate, therefore, the Taki article. Usually, big brains like Caldwell (and Charles Murray) are long on diagnosis and short on prescription.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Nicholas Stix, @Jane Plain, @ATBOTL

    I appreciate diagnosis. But I am eager to see the prescription. I appreciate, therefore, the Taki article. Usually, big brains like Caldwell (and Charles Murray) are long on diagnosis and short on prescription.

    Why would these disparate skills be found in the same individual?

    That’s like expecting the same guy to write both the music and the lyric– then sing them. We’ve seen how that has worked out over the last sixty years.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Reg Cæsar

    Sometimes, you need a little teamwork.

    https://youtu.be/DW8Vl1Ab_38

    , @Prester John
    @Reg Cæsar

    Didn't Murray say something to the effect that people should stick with their own? Or something like that?

  9. From immigration to White Death to TNC, this book is a synthesis of iSteve content we’ve been reading all these years.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    He really does. Caldwell also covered how minority groups utilized civil rights/political intimidation to allow financially high risk groups to qualify for home mortgages. He never directly states which minorities defaulted the most (Blacks and Hispanics) but turns “civil rights” into a synonym for blacks.

    He also writes in passing how native blacks are angered/intimidated by Asian immigrants who appear more financially (and cognitively) successful.

    https://youtu.be/ZUbvT6YKPzk

    He writes the question something akin to “why were Asian children who were starved and brutalized by Pol Pot exceeding African Americans on tests right off the boat?”

    He’s talking about iSteve issues but still cautious. He’s still wearing water wings but he’ll get braver and swim to the deep end. He might become a “Sailer Sailor” yet.

    http://media.safebee.com/assets/images/2015/5/Happy%20boy%20with%20water%20wings.jpg.838x0_q67_crop-smart.jpg

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  10. @Reg Cæsar
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    I appreciate diagnosis. But I am eager to see the prescription. I appreciate, therefore, the Taki article. Usually, big brains like Caldwell (and Charles Murray) are long on diagnosis and short on prescription.
     
    Why would these disparate skills be found in the same individual?

    That's like expecting the same guy to write both the music and the lyric-- then sing them. We've seen how that has worked out over the last sixty years.

    Replies: @Kronos, @Prester John

    Sometimes, you need a little teamwork.

  11. @Kronos
    I just finished the book a few hours ago. (I took a detour on the Obama book.) It appears many (neo)conservative writers are testing the new dissident right waters like Ann Coulter.

    He does a remarkable job detailing why conservative social measures of the 1980s and 1990s failed “100% of the time.” I believe he states something akin that “tradition and civil rights were both important but the latter was codified into law.” Many made fun of political correctness in the early years, but as Caldwell points out, who’s laughing now?

    He does a very decent job at Boomer bashing which of course won me over quite a bit. He made a interesting point about 1960s boomer professors. That due to tenure, it took them a long time for them to climb up the academic latter. That “by 1990 only 1/4 of professorships were occupied by boomers.” Maybe that further extended the fuse until 2013? AKA the “Great Awokening.”

    https://youtu.be/hMmSjqBiF1U

    Also, his idea that PC culture emerged as an HR legal defense against Civil Rights lawsuits does appear credible. That “dropping a ton of bricks” on non-PC individuals for doing meaningless actions might be very well be “the heart” of corporate legal defense strategies against any Jesse Jacksons and/or Al Sharptons.

    Replies: @neprof

    “He made a interesting point about 1960s boomer professors.”

    So people born between 1945 to 1962 were professors in the 1960s? Makes no sense.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @neprof

    Yeah, I messed that up while typing. I tried to fix it earlier but it was too late. (Always proof read three times boys and girls, not just once or twice.)

    I meant people who were students in the 1960s but later became professors. Caldwell stated that by the early 1990s, all the major industries were filled to the gills with boomers in middle and upper management. Except, that in colleges and universities. The tenure system severely limited their growth in professorships.

    However, he never mentioned admissions/administration departments. Which I’d imagine is an entirely different animal.

  12. Nowhere in the Fox/Carlson segment does either one of them refer to the negroes in the South, which were the intended beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act. There weren’t Jim Crow laws against queers, or trannies, or chinamen, or mexicans, women, micks, or anyone else besides a few country clubs that discriminated against Jews. IT was all about the negroes. I daresay that if we had kept it all about the negroes, that the nation, and (perhaps) the negroes would be a lot better off today. Spilt mik, though. Pity. This used to be a Hell of a great place to live. Shame what happened to it.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    @Brian Reilly

    I mentioned this elsewhere but...when asked why he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sen. Sam Ervin replied, in so many words, that it would open up a can of worms. Surprise!!!!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @NoWeltschmerz

  13. @neprof
    @Kronos

    "He made a interesting point about 1960s boomer professors."

    So people born between 1945 to 1962 were professors in the 1960s? Makes no sense.

    Replies: @Kronos

    Yeah, I messed that up while typing. I tried to fix it earlier but it was too late. (Always proof read three times boys and girls, not just once or twice.)

    I meant people who were students in the 1960s but later became professors. Caldwell stated that by the early 1990s, all the major industries were filled to the gills with boomers in middle and upper management. Except, that in colleges and universities. The tenure system severely limited their growth in professorships.

    However, he never mentioned admissions/administration departments. Which I’d imagine is an entirely different animal.

  14. At the end of the first minute, Caldwell said it’s the result of “a good thing, our civil rights laws.”

    I shut it off.

    I realize that this is the book that the Dissident Right is presently swooning over. So sue me.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @Nicholas Stix

    Are you against all civil rights laws or just some of them?

    I read Wesley Yang’s review up to where he wrote that all civilized people oppose segregation, which is inconsistent with the lengths people who can afford to go to insulate their kids from integration.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @Art Deco, @Art Deco

  15. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    I appreciate diagnosis. But I am eager to see the prescription. I appreciate, therefore, the Taki article. Usually, big brains like Caldwell (and Charles Murray) are long on diagnosis and short on prescription.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Nicholas Stix, @Jane Plain, @ATBOTL

    The prescription is unprintable, because it entails breaking the law.

    “Possibilities for How ‘the American Experiment’ Will End”
    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2012/05/possibilities-for-how-american.html

    “‘Was This Trip Necessary?’ The Sermon in Bastogne, During the Battle of the Bulge, in William ‘Wild Bill’ Wellman’s 1949 Masterpiece, Battleground
    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2018/12/was-this-trip-necessary-sermon-in.html

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Nicholas Stix

    One cannot advocate something, but one can predict it. That was Harold Covington's rationale for his Northwest Republic novels, which were inspired by William Pierce, which were inspired by an effort by Revilo Oliver, which was inspired by....wait...yes....Ayn Rand.

    AKA Alyssa Rosenbaum.

    Replies: @Hail

    , @byrresheim
    @Nicholas Stix

    That certainly was how those young men felt.

    However, were they told the truth?

    Was the chaplain told the truth?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @David In TN

  16. @Nicholas Stix
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    The prescription is unprintable, because it entails breaking the law.

    “Possibilities for How 'the American Experiment' Will End”
    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2012/05/possibilities-for-how-american.html

    “‘Was This Trip Necessary?’ The Sermon in Bastogne, During the Battle of the Bulge, in William ‘Wild Bill’ Wellman’s 1949 Masterpiece, Battleground
    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2018/12/was-this-trip-necessary-sermon-in.html

    Replies: @Anonymous, @byrresheim

    One cannot advocate something, but one can predict it. That was Harold Covington’s rationale for his Northwest Republic novels, which were inspired by William Pierce, which were inspired by an effort by Revilo Oliver, which was inspired by….wait…yes….Ayn Rand.

    AKA Alyssa Rosenbaum.

    • Replies: @Hail
    @Anonymous


    One cannot advocate something, but one can predict it
     
    Here is a prediction in all of eleven letters:

    Dissolution.

    ____________

    (In related news, a Virginia lawmaker has just proposed expelling the counties of northern Virginia from the state and retroceding them to Washington DC so that Northern Virginia can no longer, quote, dictate to the rest of Virginia how to live.)

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @HammerJack

  17. @Anonymous
    OT: China coronavirus news details on television are being embargoed in many western nations. But this article is jam-packed with info:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7929657/Nurse-treating-coronavirus-sufferers-China-claims-90-000-people-infected.html

    The article acknowledges the extended incubation period of this virus and says the USA has funneled all Wuhan air travelers to five airports for "screening" since last week. No details on why people can pass the screening without quarantining.

    BTW it was revealed earlier this month that supposed antiviral drug Tamiflu is a hoax. Nice timing!

    https://news.yahoo.com/tamiflu-fraud-bilked-1-5-163100939.html

    Replies: @Prester John

    Quarantining will not stand! It would be racist and xenophobic (Sinophobic?).

  18. @Brian Reilly
    Nowhere in the Fox/Carlson segment does either one of them refer to the negroes in the South, which were the intended beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act. There weren't Jim Crow laws against queers, or trannies, or chinamen, or mexicans, women, micks, or anyone else besides a few country clubs that discriminated against Jews. IT was all about the negroes. I daresay that if we had kept it all about the negroes, that the nation, and (perhaps) the negroes would be a lot better off today. Spilt mik, though. Pity. This used to be a Hell of a great place to live. Shame what happened to it.

    Replies: @Prester John

    I mentioned this elsewhere but…when asked why he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sen. Sam Ervin replied, in so many words, that it would open up a can of worms. Surprise!!!!

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Prester John

    Sam Ervin also led the charge against the 1965 immigration act.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Reg Cæsar

    , @NoWeltschmerz
    @Prester John

    The point is that the results of that act and subsequent actions were very much predictable. The fact that some of the people who were against the act were bigots doesn't change that the act was heavy-handed, fundamentally changed the relationship between the citizen and the state and has inflicted potentially mortal wounds to our constitutional republic. It has always made sense to me why some people would have supported the act at the time because there were real wrongs being perpetrated and most people make decisions that are largely based on emotion as opposed to logic or principle; however, continuing to support the act now given the actual evidence we have of its wrong-headedness is quite disheartening to say nothing of those (like William F. Buckley) who opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 but "regretted" the opposition decades later. When will "but we meant well" or "good intentions" cease to be an excuse?

    I think LBJ is a contender for the title of the worst president in at least the last 120 years and, yes, that includes Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama. Between this pernicious act and Vietnam, he ushered in more damage to the US than most of us are even aware. As I try to think of any positive accomplishments for which he can truly be given credit, I come up short. Are there any (I don't think he can take much credit for the space program as his initiative)?

    Replies: @Kronos, @Bugg, @Nicholas Stix

  19. @Reg Cæsar
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    I appreciate diagnosis. But I am eager to see the prescription. I appreciate, therefore, the Taki article. Usually, big brains like Caldwell (and Charles Murray) are long on diagnosis and short on prescription.
     
    Why would these disparate skills be found in the same individual?

    That's like expecting the same guy to write both the music and the lyric-- then sing them. We've seen how that has worked out over the last sixty years.

    Replies: @Kronos, @Prester John

    Didn’t Murray say something to the effect that people should stick with their own? Or something like that?

  20. @Prester John
    @Brian Reilly

    I mentioned this elsewhere but...when asked why he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sen. Sam Ervin replied, in so many words, that it would open up a can of worms. Surprise!!!!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @NoWeltschmerz

    Sam Ervin also led the charge against the 1965 immigration act.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Steve Sailer

    I didn't even know anyone tried to resist it. This is a history begging to be told, and soon, before we lose this platform.

    November 2020 is this year, and the demographics of this once-great nation have been in decline for decades.

    The electoral dynamics of 2016 were a skin-of-our-teeth anomaly, and most likely masked the national tipping point.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer



    I mentioned this elsewhere but…when asked why he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sen. Sam Ervin replied, in so many words, that it would open up a can of worms. Surprise!!!!

     

    Sam Ervin also led the charge against the 1965 immigration act.

     

    And the Equal Rights Amendment.

    But he did go after Richard Nixon, leading to the events we see this week. Hardly the "simple country lawyer" he made himself out to be.

    Anyway, the "can of worms" has become a can of corn for his party.

    https://vangogh.teespring.com/v3/image/BSnqSVpIpwbV-LJVTgBMHR_hQUo/480/560.jpg

  21. Anonymous[344] • Disclaimer says:

    Does the book examine how a similar cultural dynamic has taken root in virtually every other western country? In the last few years the respectable press in Canada has gone into overdrive over aboriginal issues, treating aboriginal poverty and criminality largely the same way American liberals treat their black counterparts. Progressive Scandinavians seem to worry a lot about the poor achievements of their Somali populations, and maybe the Sami too. And on and on.

    At the same time, despite the fact that past American governments have done all the bad things to American Indians as their northern cousins have done to theirs(and worse), progressive Americans just don’t seem to get very worked up about Native American poverty in the same way that progressive Canadians do. You might guess that it’s a lot harder for progressive Americans to ignore black dysfunction since so much of it occurs in the same urban areas where progressive live, whereas few progressives live out in the sticks where they’re likely to encounter Indians.

    But in Canada, in none of the three main cities where progressives congregate does the Aboriginal population exceed 3%, with much of those having substantial white ancestry. Instead Canadian urban progressives heap opprobrium from afar onto smaller cities that actually have to deal with Aboriginal crime and poverty, like Winnipeg, Regina, and their most recent bete noire, Thunder Bay(which has enough problems on its own). The media assault of mega-urban progressives upon poorer flyover cities/towns also seems to be a common theme between the two countries(think NYT vs Ferguson), as is the desire to view the problem as being so completely intertwined with their country’s founding that the nation itself loses legitimacy.

    It’s as if the mindset that produced the revolution Caldwell describes causes (formally) educated whites to seek out some kind of victim that they’ve offended, even with there isn’t one within their midst. It’s a sort of masochistic (a word Douglas Murray has used) tendency that may be without precedent.

    There’s also a desire for aggrieved identity groups to frame their imagined struggles in ways that evoke the black struggle. Black people had a debate about whether it was acceptable for them to reclaim the word nigger, so a few years ago white feminists tried to have their own debate over whether they should reclaim slut. It’s like modern progressives all have some giant how-to binder akin to those given to restaurant franchisees.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Anonymous


    Does the book examine how a similar cultural dynamic has taken root in virtually every other western country?
     
    Very little...

    Words like “Apartheid” will come up, but it’s often quotes from “Black Lives Matter” protesters and such. He’ll look up terms like “white supremacy” and see how often they popped up in certain decades. Gallup poll data is often used as well.

    Like how people in the 1960s were asked:

    “Is Civil Rights going too fast or too slow?”
    , @Yngvar
    @Anonymous


    It’s like modern progressives all have some giant how-to binder akin to those given to restaurant franchisees.
     
    They sort of have. Much of this is local follow-up and implementation of UN committee statements and UN conference declarations. Following the opinion of the "trans-national community" looks like being a new sacrament for the godless West.
  22. @Steve Sailer
    @Prester John

    Sam Ervin also led the charge against the 1965 immigration act.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Reg Cæsar

    I didn’t even know anyone tried to resist it. This is a history begging to be told, and soon, before we lose this platform.

    November 2020 is this year, and the demographics of this once-great nation have been in decline for decades.

    The electoral dynamics of 2016 were a skin-of-our-teeth anomaly, and most likely masked the national tipping point.

    • Agree: Hail
  23. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    From immigration to White Death to TNC, this book is a synthesis of iSteve content we've been reading all these years.

    Replies: @Kronos

    He really does. Caldwell also covered how minority groups utilized civil rights/political intimidation to allow financially high risk groups to qualify for home mortgages. He never directly states which minorities defaulted the most (Blacks and Hispanics) but turns “civil rights” into a synonym for blacks.

    He also writes in passing how native blacks are angered/intimidated by Asian immigrants who appear more financially (and cognitively) successful.

    He writes the question something akin to “why were Asian children who were starved and brutalized by Pol Pot exceeding African Americans on tests right off the boat?”

    He’s talking about iSteve issues but still cautious. He’s still wearing water wings but he’ll get braver and swim to the deep end. He might become a “Sailer Sailor” yet.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Kronos


    utilized civil rights/political intimidation
     
    To be precise, they used intimidation, and utilized the Civil Rights Act to do so.

    Sorry, but utilize is notoriously among editors' least favorite words. And it's one of my favorites when used correctly, i.e., "to make useful".

    Steve utilizes blogging software to insert his twist into the marketplace of ideas.

    Soph does the same with YouTube BitChute. (Or maybe we should now call it "BitchUte"!)

    Replies: @Kronos

  24. @Anonymous
    Does the book examine how a similar cultural dynamic has taken root in virtually every other western country? In the last few years the respectable press in Canada has gone into overdrive over aboriginal issues, treating aboriginal poverty and criminality largely the same way American liberals treat their black counterparts. Progressive Scandinavians seem to worry a lot about the poor achievements of their Somali populations, and maybe the Sami too. And on and on.

    At the same time, despite the fact that past American governments have done all the bad things to American Indians as their northern cousins have done to theirs(and worse), progressive Americans just don't seem to get very worked up about Native American poverty in the same way that progressive Canadians do. You might guess that it's a lot harder for progressive Americans to ignore black dysfunction since so much of it occurs in the same urban areas where progressive live, whereas few progressives live out in the sticks where they're likely to encounter Indians.

    But in Canada, in none of the three main cities where progressives congregate does the Aboriginal population exceed 3%, with much of those having substantial white ancestry. Instead Canadian urban progressives heap opprobrium from afar onto smaller cities that actually have to deal with Aboriginal crime and poverty, like Winnipeg, Regina, and their most recent bete noire, Thunder Bay(which has enough problems on its own). The media assault of mega-urban progressives upon poorer flyover cities/towns also seems to be a common theme between the two countries(think NYT vs Ferguson), as is the desire to view the problem as being so completely intertwined with their country's founding that the nation itself loses legitimacy.

    It's as if the mindset that produced the revolution Caldwell describes causes (formally) educated whites to seek out some kind of victim that they've offended, even with there isn't one within their midst. It's a sort of masochistic (a word Douglas Murray has used) tendency that may be without precedent.

    There's also a desire for aggrieved identity groups to frame their imagined struggles in ways that evoke the black struggle. Black people had a debate about whether it was acceptable for them to reclaim the word nigger, so a few years ago white feminists tried to have their own debate over whether they should reclaim slut. It's like modern progressives all have some giant how-to binder akin to those given to restaurant franchisees.

    Replies: @Kronos, @Yngvar

    Does the book examine how a similar cultural dynamic has taken root in virtually every other western country?

    Very little…

    Words like “Apartheid” will come up, but it’s often quotes from “Black Lives Matter” protesters and such. He’ll look up terms like “white supremacy” and see how often they popped up in certain decades. Gallup poll data is often used as well.

    Like how people in the 1960s were asked:

    “Is Civil Rights going too fast or too slow?”

  25. @Steve Sailer
    @Prester John

    Sam Ervin also led the charge against the 1965 immigration act.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Reg Cæsar

    I mentioned this elsewhere but…when asked why he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sen. Sam Ervin replied, in so many words, that it would open up a can of worms. Surprise!!!!

    Sam Ervin also led the charge against the 1965 immigration act.

    And the Equal Rights Amendment.

    But he did go after Richard Nixon, leading to the events we see this week. Hardly the “simple country lawyer” he made himself out to be.

    Anyway, the “can of worms” has become a can of corn for his party.

  26. The displacement of actual civil liberties by human rights was not an unintended consequence of the 1960s movement. It was inevitable and obvious and implicit in all the contemporary arguments. White straight men were once on top and now they are not or soon will not be. Multiculturalism has not replaced intolerance with tolerance, but one intolerance with another (white men bad, everyone else good to varying degree). But this dichotomy was obviously going to emerge, because there is no neutrality in politics. That’s just a fundamental truism (similar to Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction.) There is no neutrality! If white men don’t dominate, someone else will, even if that someone else is an opportunistic ahistorical pastiche. It’s not that we end up with power that is held equally by all groups. It doesn’t work like that. Real tolerance (in the sense of non-domination of one group by another) can never be achieved, and even Caldwell and Tucker are uncomfortable with this truth, suggesting the hopelessness of American politics and the mendacity of its entire intellectual class. In any event, given how obvious all of this is, you do have to wonder what is really going on in the West. It’s not as if the experience of the US is unique. Countries with no domestic legacy of slavery have gone exactly the same route — from Canada to Sweden to France to Australia (but not the former communist countries!) — suggesting a top-down imposition of our current dispensation and the role of money behind it all.

    • Agree: ziggurat
  27. @Kronos
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    He really does. Caldwell also covered how minority groups utilized civil rights/political intimidation to allow financially high risk groups to qualify for home mortgages. He never directly states which minorities defaulted the most (Blacks and Hispanics) but turns “civil rights” into a synonym for blacks.

    He also writes in passing how native blacks are angered/intimidated by Asian immigrants who appear more financially (and cognitively) successful.

    https://youtu.be/ZUbvT6YKPzk

    He writes the question something akin to “why were Asian children who were starved and brutalized by Pol Pot exceeding African Americans on tests right off the boat?”

    He’s talking about iSteve issues but still cautious. He’s still wearing water wings but he’ll get braver and swim to the deep end. He might become a “Sailer Sailor” yet.

    http://media.safebee.com/assets/images/2015/5/Happy%20boy%20with%20water%20wings.jpg.838x0_q67_crop-smart.jpg

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    utilized civil rights/political intimidation

    To be precise, they used intimidation, and utilized the Civil Rights Act to do so.

    Sorry, but utilize is notoriously among editors’ least favorite words. And it’s one of my favorites when used correctly, i.e., “to make useful”.

    Steve utilizes blogging software to insert his twist into the marketplace of ideas.

    Soph does the same with YouTube BitChute. (Or maybe we should now call it “BitchUte”!)

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Reg Cæsar

    I was going to write “utilize civil rights legislation” but it sounded a bit wordy. They also used (or maybe utilized?) this specific banking legislation from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Serious books I’ve read on the 2008 Financial Crisis provides some detail on it.

    Basically, angry communities (or lobbyists) could protest bank mergers that needed to be approved by the Federal Reserve. That if certain banks were blackballing (hee hee) some deserving yet poor constituents; those banks could be denied future merger approval. I believe Caldwell’s book stated that Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/Push organization got 800 million in de facto bribe money from a big bank. Caldwell called Bush II “an idiot” for ordering Fannie May to lessen mortgage standards but never mentioned how Clinton started the idiotic mortgage policies in the 1990s. Bush II simply supervised them. (Actually I vaguely remember Caldwell talking about Bush I supporting certain real estate laws but can’t fully remember. I purchased the Audible version so backtracking is a pain.) I powered through the whole book from Tuesday to today, so deep analysis might require a reread.

    P.S.

    I’d love to read Japanese or Chinese takes on the 2008 crisis. They may appear more “truthful” and “pragmatic” on certain issues.

    https://youtu.be/5Y7eg0REXZM

  28. @Reg Cæsar
    @Kronos


    utilized civil rights/political intimidation
     
    To be precise, they used intimidation, and utilized the Civil Rights Act to do so.

    Sorry, but utilize is notoriously among editors' least favorite words. And it's one of my favorites when used correctly, i.e., "to make useful".

    Steve utilizes blogging software to insert his twist into the marketplace of ideas.

    Soph does the same with YouTube BitChute. (Or maybe we should now call it "BitchUte"!)

    Replies: @Kronos

    I was going to write “utilize civil rights legislation” but it sounded a bit wordy. They also used (or maybe utilized?) this specific banking legislation from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Serious books I’ve read on the 2008 Financial Crisis provides some detail on it.

    Basically, angry communities (or lobbyists) could protest bank mergers that needed to be approved by the Federal Reserve. That if certain banks were blackballing (hee hee) some deserving yet poor constituents; those banks could be denied future merger approval. I believe Caldwell’s book stated that Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/Push organization got 800 million in de facto bribe money from a big bank. Caldwell called Bush II “an idiot” for ordering Fannie May to lessen mortgage standards but never mentioned how Clinton started the idiotic mortgage policies in the 1990s. Bush II simply supervised them. (Actually I vaguely remember Caldwell talking about Bush I supporting certain real estate laws but can’t fully remember. I purchased the Audible version so backtracking is a pain.) I powered through the whole book from Tuesday to today, so deep analysis might require a reread.

    P.S.

    I’d love to read Japanese or Chinese takes on the 2008 crisis. They may appear more “truthful” and “pragmatic” on certain issues.

  29. looking forward to reading it.

  30. MB says: • Website

    Long story short, the French Revolution has triumphed.
    The Jacobins are vindicated.
    “Equal opportunity” before the law has morphed into socialism’s “equal outcome” as dictated by law.

    Two, the Civil Rights Act confounded the public and private spheres. IOW everything got politicized, something the Jacobins also were all about. It’s one thing for government to discriminate, another for individuals. (Jim Crow, the reason why for the ’64 CRA? Yeah, it was about white racism, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it was also about “the minorities” punching above their weight for crime.)

    Now the government tells you who you have to bake a cake for and who you have to let in the shower and restroom. “Freedom, private property, what’s that?”

    FTM the Dimocrat candidates basically told us a couple of “debates” back that they’ve bought into the new Bill of Rights, which is the exact opposite of the old historic bill of Rights, which is what the rest of us have been thinking we are supposed to be nominally operating under.

  31. @Nicholas Stix
    At the end of the first minute, Caldwell said it's the result of "a good thing, our civil rights laws."

    I shut it off.

    I realize that this is the book that the Dissident Right is presently swooning over. So sue me.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    Are you against all civil rights laws or just some of them?

    I read Wesley Yang’s review up to where he wrote that all civilized people oppose segregation, which is inconsistent with the lengths people who can afford to go to insulate their kids from integration.

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @Dave Pinsen

    All.

    , @Art Deco
    @Dave Pinsen

    The antecedent regime instituted coerced segregation in three forms: in institutions operated by the government, in private service provision and empllyment, and in real estate transactions (via a peculiar land tenure regime that allowed a developer to insert provisions in property deeds binding on future owners). There were parallel practices which were more disagreeable: systemic problems with the police, courts, and voting registrars. Sweeping away this entire edifice was a good thing. What wasn't a good thing was trashing free association in private transactions among parties other than producers which were natural or situational monopolies. And it wasn't a good thing because it provided a conduit for lawyers to insist every other organized activity be a servant of the (commonly witless) social policy prescriptions of these lawyers. There's a straight line from the Civil Rights Act to the ruin of the Boy Scouts of America. (In the public sector, of course, it took less than 12 years for non-discrimination to morph into mandatory race patronage). I don't think Gottfried Dietze foresaw how this would play out in detail, but he did predict features of it.

    One of my in-laws was ca. 1973 an elementary schoolteacher in Richmond (a very young teacher, born in 1950). Her account of what was up at that time dovetails with accounts I've heard in regard to the Rochester City schools a decade earlier. The collapse of discipline was a consequence of official policy, and the policy was driven by the white liberal mentality that inhibited authorities from sanctioning troublesome black children.

    , @Art Deco
    @Dave Pinsen

    One other problem promoted by white liberals and the black opinion-leader class has been black chauvinism. The vast majority of people-in-general favor what they're familiar with and shouldn't be embarrassed by most things peculiar to them. Also, you don't have to be a relativist to realize that making valid comparative judgments in the aesthetic realm is a fraught enterprise. However, we've had five decades of agitprop promoting 'black pride' conjoined to the diversity discourse. A great deal of it is antagonistic to evaluating personal or collective accomplishment, or is indifferent to evaluating personal or collective accomplishment, or produces puffy accounts of quite ordinary accomplishments or of interesting accomplishments which however aren't the usual stuff of historical accounts (see Black History Month blather). American-born blacks (West Indians aside) tend to have a vigorous shame culture. The net result of all this has been that addressing social problems in slum populations is fairly thoroughly inhibited because the priority in public discussion and institutional policy is making displays of deference to blacks.

  32. @Dave Pinsen
    Don’t forget Tucker’s interview with Caldwell from earlier this week:

    https://youtu.be/hXtLpz4Px7E

    Replies: @Hail

    “Is our democracy real?” –Tucker Carlson

  33. @Anonymous
    @Nicholas Stix

    One cannot advocate something, but one can predict it. That was Harold Covington's rationale for his Northwest Republic novels, which were inspired by William Pierce, which were inspired by an effort by Revilo Oliver, which was inspired by....wait...yes....Ayn Rand.

    AKA Alyssa Rosenbaum.

    Replies: @Hail

    One cannot advocate something, but one can predict it

    Here is a prediction in all of eleven letters:

    Dissolution.

    ____________

    (In related news, a Virginia lawmaker has just proposed expelling the counties of northern Virginia from the state and retroceding them to Washington DC so that Northern Virginia can no longer, quote, dictate to the rest of Virginia how to live.)

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Hail

    "Dissolution."


    I hear this a lot, but nothing about how demographic realities would be addressed. Do you have a plan?

    , @HammerJack
    @Hail


    (In related news, a Virginia lawmaker has just proposed expelling the counties of northern Virginia from the state and retroceding them to Washington DC so that Northern Virginia can no longer, quote, dictate to the rest of Virginia how to live.)
     
    Only Arlington County and part of the city of Alexandria were part of the original District of Columbia. That wouldn't change much.

    Frankly I wonder how long it would delay the destruction if even Fairfax County were included.
  34. @Dave Pinsen
    @Nicholas Stix

    Are you against all civil rights laws or just some of them?

    I read Wesley Yang’s review up to where he wrote that all civilized people oppose segregation, which is inconsistent with the lengths people who can afford to go to insulate their kids from integration.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @Art Deco, @Art Deco

    All.

  35. @Nicholas Stix
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    The prescription is unprintable, because it entails breaking the law.

    “Possibilities for How 'the American Experiment' Will End”
    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2012/05/possibilities-for-how-american.html

    “‘Was This Trip Necessary?’ The Sermon in Bastogne, During the Battle of the Bulge, in William ‘Wild Bill’ Wellman’s 1949 Masterpiece, Battleground
    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2018/12/was-this-trip-necessary-sermon-in.html

    Replies: @Anonymous, @byrresheim

    That certainly was how those young men felt.

    However, were they told the truth?

    Was the chaplain told the truth?

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @byrresheim

    To what "truth" do you refer?

    , @David In TN
    @byrresheim

    I happened (age 14) to see the Battleground movie as the NBC Saturday Night Movie in 1965. My Dad sat down and watched it with me. He fully agreed with the chaplain's sermon as how the American soldiers in the European theater felt and still did. And their "feelings" reflected what they EXPERIENCED.

    As a rule Dad never liked war movies, but he approved of Battleground. He was in Patton's army during the final push into Germany.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

  36. Anonymous[165] • Disclaimer says:

    The *real* unspoken underpinning of Caldwell’s thesis can be summed up by one single, simple quotation, attributed to Winston Churchill, when describing another ethnicity, which he, (Churchill), found troublesome at the time.

    “Blacks are either at your feet, or at your throat”.

    – They simply do not, and never have, and never will ‘do’ ‘moderation’.

    One day, the survivors of the current era of Kali will recognise this.

  37. @Dave Pinsen
    @Nicholas Stix

    Are you against all civil rights laws or just some of them?

    I read Wesley Yang’s review up to where he wrote that all civilized people oppose segregation, which is inconsistent with the lengths people who can afford to go to insulate their kids from integration.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @Art Deco, @Art Deco

    The antecedent regime instituted coerced segregation in three forms: in institutions operated by the government, in private service provision and empllyment, and in real estate transactions (via a peculiar land tenure regime that allowed a developer to insert provisions in property deeds binding on future owners). There were parallel practices which were more disagreeable: systemic problems with the police, courts, and voting registrars. Sweeping away this entire edifice was a good thing. What wasn’t a good thing was trashing free association in private transactions among parties other than producers which were natural or situational monopolies. And it wasn’t a good thing because it provided a conduit for lawyers to insist every other organized activity be a servant of the (commonly witless) social policy prescriptions of these lawyers. There’s a straight line from the Civil Rights Act to the ruin of the Boy Scouts of America. (In the public sector, of course, it took less than 12 years for non-discrimination to morph into mandatory race patronage). I don’t think Gottfried Dietze foresaw how this would play out in detail, but he did predict features of it.

    One of my in-laws was ca. 1973 an elementary schoolteacher in Richmond (a very young teacher, born in 1950). Her account of what was up at that time dovetails with accounts I’ve heard in regard to the Rochester City schools a decade earlier. The collapse of discipline was a consequence of official policy, and the policy was driven by the white liberal mentality that inhibited authorities from sanctioning troublesome black children.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  38. @Dave Pinsen
    @Nicholas Stix

    Are you against all civil rights laws or just some of them?

    I read Wesley Yang’s review up to where he wrote that all civilized people oppose segregation, which is inconsistent with the lengths people who can afford to go to insulate their kids from integration.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @Art Deco, @Art Deco

    One other problem promoted by white liberals and the black opinion-leader class has been black chauvinism. The vast majority of people-in-general favor what they’re familiar with and shouldn’t be embarrassed by most things peculiar to them. Also, you don’t have to be a relativist to realize that making valid comparative judgments in the aesthetic realm is a fraught enterprise. However, we’ve had five decades of agitprop promoting ‘black pride’ conjoined to the diversity discourse. A great deal of it is antagonistic to evaluating personal or collective accomplishment, or is indifferent to evaluating personal or collective accomplishment, or produces puffy accounts of quite ordinary accomplishments or of interesting accomplishments which however aren’t the usual stuff of historical accounts (see Black History Month blather). American-born blacks (West Indians aside) tend to have a vigorous shame culture. The net result of all this has been that addressing social problems in slum populations is fairly thoroughly inhibited because the priority in public discussion and institutional policy is making displays of deference to blacks.

  39. anon[414] • Disclaimer says:

    Who cares what voters want? What a waste of time! They’re all fools!

    Neighborhoods, towns, and cities will eventually be privatized and run as a network of REITs by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. At that point, no one will be so daft to think their vote adds any value whatsoever.

  40. @Anonymous
    Does the book examine how a similar cultural dynamic has taken root in virtually every other western country? In the last few years the respectable press in Canada has gone into overdrive over aboriginal issues, treating aboriginal poverty and criminality largely the same way American liberals treat their black counterparts. Progressive Scandinavians seem to worry a lot about the poor achievements of their Somali populations, and maybe the Sami too. And on and on.

    At the same time, despite the fact that past American governments have done all the bad things to American Indians as their northern cousins have done to theirs(and worse), progressive Americans just don't seem to get very worked up about Native American poverty in the same way that progressive Canadians do. You might guess that it's a lot harder for progressive Americans to ignore black dysfunction since so much of it occurs in the same urban areas where progressive live, whereas few progressives live out in the sticks where they're likely to encounter Indians.

    But in Canada, in none of the three main cities where progressives congregate does the Aboriginal population exceed 3%, with much of those having substantial white ancestry. Instead Canadian urban progressives heap opprobrium from afar onto smaller cities that actually have to deal with Aboriginal crime and poverty, like Winnipeg, Regina, and their most recent bete noire, Thunder Bay(which has enough problems on its own). The media assault of mega-urban progressives upon poorer flyover cities/towns also seems to be a common theme between the two countries(think NYT vs Ferguson), as is the desire to view the problem as being so completely intertwined with their country's founding that the nation itself loses legitimacy.

    It's as if the mindset that produced the revolution Caldwell describes causes (formally) educated whites to seek out some kind of victim that they've offended, even with there isn't one within their midst. It's a sort of masochistic (a word Douglas Murray has used) tendency that may be without precedent.

    There's also a desire for aggrieved identity groups to frame their imagined struggles in ways that evoke the black struggle. Black people had a debate about whether it was acceptable for them to reclaim the word nigger, so a few years ago white feminists tried to have their own debate over whether they should reclaim slut. It's like modern progressives all have some giant how-to binder akin to those given to restaurant franchisees.

    Replies: @Kronos, @Yngvar

    It’s like modern progressives all have some giant how-to binder akin to those given to restaurant franchisees.

    They sort of have. Much of this is local follow-up and implementation of UN committee statements and UN conference declarations. Following the opinion of the “trans-national community” looks like being a new sacrament for the godless West.

  41. So, the civil rights legislation was well-intended and fine so long as its effects were confined to the South. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Welcome to hell.

    • Replies: @Jack Henson
    @9LA

    The CRA was written against YT.

    Jury nullification in the case of something like Kate Steinle would never have been allowed to stand if the races had been changed around. You would have had some more "violation of civil rights" chicanery from an US Attorney.

  42. @Prester John
    @Brian Reilly

    I mentioned this elsewhere but...when asked why he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sen. Sam Ervin replied, in so many words, that it would open up a can of worms. Surprise!!!!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @NoWeltschmerz

    The point is that the results of that act and subsequent actions were very much predictable. The fact that some of the people who were against the act were bigots doesn’t change that the act was heavy-handed, fundamentally changed the relationship between the citizen and the state and has inflicted potentially mortal wounds to our constitutional republic. It has always made sense to me why some people would have supported the act at the time because there were real wrongs being perpetrated and most people make decisions that are largely based on emotion as opposed to logic or principle; however, continuing to support the act now given the actual evidence we have of its wrong-headedness is quite disheartening to say nothing of those (like William F. Buckley) who opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 but “regretted” the opposition decades later. When will “but we meant well” or “good intentions” cease to be an excuse?

    I think LBJ is a contender for the title of the worst president in at least the last 120 years and, yes, that includes Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama. Between this pernicious act and Vietnam, he ushered in more damage to the US than most of us are even aware. As I try to think of any positive accomplishments for which he can truly be given credit, I come up short. Are there any (I don’t think he can take much credit for the space program as his initiative)?

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @NoWeltschmerz


    I think LBJ is a contender for the title of the worst president in at least the last 120 years and, yes, that includes Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama. Between this pernicious act and Vietnam, he ushered in more damage to the US than most of us are even aware. As I try to think of any positive accomplishments for which he can truly be given credit, I come up short.
     
    Occasionally I’ll hear that if Bobby Kennedy became President in 1968 he could’ve greatly improved things or made it horrifically worse. What’s your take?

    Replies: @NoWeltschmerz, @David In TN

    , @Bugg
    @NoWeltschmerz

    Would agree; Vietnam, The Great Society, the Warren Court, the Civil Rights Act(Chris Caldwell has pretty much explained that), Emmanuel Celler's 1964 Immigration Act, the Liberty and the Pueblo, Ramsey Clark as the AG. All on LBJ's awful watch. We will never know how things would have turned out if JFK was not assassinated. but could not have been worse.

    , @Nicholas Stix
    @NoWeltschmerz

    "The fact that some of the people who were against the act were bigots doesn’t change that the act was heavy-handed."

    In what way were they "bigots"? After all, you think the CRA was terrible.

    Replies: @NoWeltschmerz, @ATBOTL

  43. @9LA
    So, the civil rights legislation was well-intended and fine so long as its effects were confined to the South. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Welcome to hell.

    Replies: @Jack Henson

    The CRA was written against YT.

    Jury nullification in the case of something like Kate Steinle would never have been allowed to stand if the races had been changed around. You would have had some more “violation of civil rights” chicanery from an US Attorney.

  44. @Hail
    @Anonymous


    One cannot advocate something, but one can predict it
     
    Here is a prediction in all of eleven letters:

    Dissolution.

    ____________

    (In related news, a Virginia lawmaker has just proposed expelling the counties of northern Virginia from the state and retroceding them to Washington DC so that Northern Virginia can no longer, quote, dictate to the rest of Virginia how to live.)

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @HammerJack

    “Dissolution.”

    I hear this a lot, but nothing about how demographic realities would be addressed. Do you have a plan?

  45. Haven’t read the book yet (though it’s now officially on my bucket list) but, as to solutions, I believe that Caldwell at least indirectly concludes that the only way out would be via what would be considered a draconian measure by Our Betters–repealing the CRA of ’64. The likelihood of that ever happening is slim and none. Too much has gone down the pike since ’64. “Civil Rights” has become what amounts to a cottage industry among hundreds if not thousands of law firms and abounds in assorted con and shakedown artists (no names need be mentioned–one of ’em is on MSNBC), not to mention their allies among the intelligentsia whose high-toned phraseology and hand-wringing barely conceals a free floating anger directed against a society which, as they see it, never lived up to its Enlightenment-inspired ideals—all the while ignoring the fact that the Enlightenment itself never lived up to its own ideals.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Prester John

    See John Derbyshire's account of members of the 'civil rights' bar extracting protection money out of one firm he worked for.

  46. @Prester John
    Haven't read the book yet (though it's now officially on my bucket list) but, as to solutions, I believe that Caldwell at least indirectly concludes that the only way out would be via what would be considered a draconian measure by Our Betters--repealing the CRA of '64. The likelihood of that ever happening is slim and none. Too much has gone down the pike since '64. "Civil Rights" has become what amounts to a cottage industry among hundreds if not thousands of law firms and abounds in assorted con and shakedown artists (no names need be mentioned--one of 'em is on MSNBC), not to mention their allies among the intelligentsia whose high-toned phraseology and hand-wringing barely conceals a free floating anger directed against a society which, as they see it, never lived up to its Enlightenment-inspired ideals---all the while ignoring the fact that the Enlightenment itself never lived up to its own ideals.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    See John Derbyshire’s account of members of the ‘civil rights’ bar extracting protection money out of one firm he worked for.

  47. @NoWeltschmerz
    @Prester John

    The point is that the results of that act and subsequent actions were very much predictable. The fact that some of the people who were against the act were bigots doesn't change that the act was heavy-handed, fundamentally changed the relationship between the citizen and the state and has inflicted potentially mortal wounds to our constitutional republic. It has always made sense to me why some people would have supported the act at the time because there were real wrongs being perpetrated and most people make decisions that are largely based on emotion as opposed to logic or principle; however, continuing to support the act now given the actual evidence we have of its wrong-headedness is quite disheartening to say nothing of those (like William F. Buckley) who opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 but "regretted" the opposition decades later. When will "but we meant well" or "good intentions" cease to be an excuse?

    I think LBJ is a contender for the title of the worst president in at least the last 120 years and, yes, that includes Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama. Between this pernicious act and Vietnam, he ushered in more damage to the US than most of us are even aware. As I try to think of any positive accomplishments for which he can truly be given credit, I come up short. Are there any (I don't think he can take much credit for the space program as his initiative)?

    Replies: @Kronos, @Bugg, @Nicholas Stix

    I think LBJ is a contender for the title of the worst president in at least the last 120 years and, yes, that includes Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama. Between this pernicious act and Vietnam, he ushered in more damage to the US than most of us are even aware. As I try to think of any positive accomplishments for which he can truly be given credit, I come up short.

    Occasionally I’ll hear that if Bobby Kennedy became President in 1968 he could’ve greatly improved things or made it horrifically worse. What’s your take?

    • Replies: @NoWeltschmerz
    @Kronos

    We will, of course, never know, but count me more than a little skeptical that he would have greatly improved things. RFK became increasingly radical in speech after his brother's death. It's possible that this was just a campaign tactic to appeal to disaffected youth, but either way I see no evidence that he had any substantive and well-founded ideas to address the issues that would have actually resulted in great improvement or improvement at all for that matter. Like a lot of people on his side of the aisle, he just didn't seem to have any perspective on the human condition or understanding of how people and society actually work. I'm sure being a Kennedy didn't help.

    Whether he would have made things horrifically worse is a good question. Demographics and the enforcement of our checks and balances were different then, so it's certainly possible that he would not have made things so much worse. We do know that Richard Nixon was able to do a decent job of the Vietnamization of the war, so I doubt RFK would have been able to do surpass Nixon in that arena. Certainly some of Nixon's economic policies were flawed to say the least (e.g., price controls), but it's unlikely that RFK would have been adopted a more conservative economic policy stance overall.

    , @David In TN
    @Kronos

    I was for Bobby Kennedy (I graduated high school spring 1968) when he ran, but I wouldn't be now.

    RFK wasn't going to get the nomination. One, LBJ still controlled the party machinery. Two, Hubert Humphrey was better liked inside the party.

    And Kennedy would have been routed in the general election anyway. If you check the 1968 electoral map, RFK couldn't get 270 electoral votes. Contrary to myth, he didn't do well among white working class voters in the primaries he entered, his black support was enough to beat Gene McCarthy in Indiana and Nebraska (states he would have had no chance at in November).

    RFK lost the Oregon primary. He couldn't win white middle class voters. In California, he hoped to win 50 % , but only beat McCarthy 46-42 %, which wasn't enough to drive McCarthy out of the race.

    Sirhan then shot him. And the Kennedy cultists went to work.

  48. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    I appreciate diagnosis. But I am eager to see the prescription. I appreciate, therefore, the Taki article. Usually, big brains like Caldwell (and Charles Murray) are long on diagnosis and short on prescription.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Nicholas Stix, @Jane Plain, @ATBOTL

    You’re right but… have you read the book?

    First read it, then give us your own prescription.

    I only skimmed the book at a local bookstore (and read the free sample from Amazon, which is about race, the most important part of the book) but the depressing conclusion I came to is that there is nothing to be done, except catch-up lawfare. Conservatives will always be 10 steps behind left wing litigants, and in any case the edifice of “civil rights” (i.e. white dispossession) is massive and secure.

    I did learn a nice word though: barratry.

  49. Anonymous[354] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve thought Jonathan Rauch was overrated but his review was probably the stupidest. Before Peter Thiel celebrity gay libertarians had a good scam going — voluptuaries of globocapitalism who easily held the good graces of pious left-wing elites, i.e. fellow clubbable Ivy League meritocrats — but now they seethe and scowl from decline in fashion value relative to transgender psychos. It figures they’d project their bitterness in the wrong direction:

    As he predicted, American conservatism is moving in an ever angrier, more radical direction, unassuaged by its control of the presidency, the Senate and a majority on the Supreme Court.

    Remember the great equanimity and sense of humor among the late 90s left during Clinton’s impeachment? That Jon Rauch especially, hanging out at “Reason” magazine at the time– the model of a breezy Mencken/Spiccoli-esque commentator. Indeed the libs’ sublime cool-headedness has only intensified since then!

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @Anonymous


    I’ve thought Jonathan Rauch was overrated but his review was probably the stupidest.
     
    Yeah, it was pretty bad.

    Jonathan sez:

    American conservatism is moving in an ever angrier, more radical direction, unassuaged by its control of the presidency, the Senate and a majority on the Supreme Court.
     
    One could spend the rest of one's life explaining everything that's wrong with this ridiculous remark.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  50. @Hail
    @Anonymous


    One cannot advocate something, but one can predict it
     
    Here is a prediction in all of eleven letters:

    Dissolution.

    ____________

    (In related news, a Virginia lawmaker has just proposed expelling the counties of northern Virginia from the state and retroceding them to Washington DC so that Northern Virginia can no longer, quote, dictate to the rest of Virginia how to live.)

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @HammerJack

    (In related news, a Virginia lawmaker has just proposed expelling the counties of northern Virginia from the state and retroceding them to Washington DC so that Northern Virginia can no longer, quote, dictate to the rest of Virginia how to live.)

    Only Arlington County and part of the city of Alexandria were part of the original District of Columbia. That wouldn’t change much.

    Frankly I wonder how long it would delay the destruction if even Fairfax County were included.

  51. @J.Ross
    Jonathan Rausch is of course the author of the best short defense of freedom of speech, Kindly Inquisitors, from way back in the sputtered 90s PC wave. Last I heard of him he was supposed to be working on some alternative-politics rethink about organized labor in the service era.

    Replies: @vinteuil

    Used to hang out with Jonathan Rauch, from time to time – we shared an interest in classical music.

    Very much the neo-con. Went never-Trump along with the other neo-cons in ’16, increasingly seems to be going full lib-tard.

    Sad.

  52. @Anonymous
    I've thought Jonathan Rauch was overrated but his review was probably the stupidest. Before Peter Thiel celebrity gay libertarians had a good scam going -- voluptuaries of globocapitalism who easily held the good graces of pious left-wing elites, i.e. fellow clubbable Ivy League meritocrats -- but now they seethe and scowl from decline in fashion value relative to transgender psychos. It figures they'd project their bitterness in the wrong direction:

    As he predicted, American conservatism is moving in an ever angrier, more radical direction, unassuaged by its control of the presidency, the Senate and a majority on the Supreme Court.
     
    Remember the great equanimity and sense of humor among the late 90s left during Clinton's impeachment? That Jon Rauch especially, hanging out at "Reason" magazine at the time-- the model of a breezy Mencken/Spiccoli-esque commentator. Indeed the libs' sublime cool-headedness has only intensified since then!

    Replies: @vinteuil

    I’ve thought Jonathan Rauch was overrated but his review was probably the stupidest.

    Yeah, it was pretty bad.

    Jonathan sez:

    American conservatism is moving in an ever angrier, more radical direction, unassuaged by its control of the presidency, the Senate and a majority on the Supreme Court.

    One could spend the rest of one’s life explaining everything that’s wrong with this ridiculous remark.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @vinteuil

    Wow, just wow. So when we were illegally invading countries, presuming to execute anyone we want from the sky like Zeus, arming cartels, and stretching legalisms to normalize torture, that was, like, our "indoor voice"?

  53. @vinteuil
    @Anonymous


    I’ve thought Jonathan Rauch was overrated but his review was probably the stupidest.
     
    Yeah, it was pretty bad.

    Jonathan sez:

    American conservatism is moving in an ever angrier, more radical direction, unassuaged by its control of the presidency, the Senate and a majority on the Supreme Court.
     
    One could spend the rest of one's life explaining everything that's wrong with this ridiculous remark.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Wow, just wow. So when we were illegally invading countries, presuming to execute anyone we want from the sky like Zeus, arming cartels, and stretching legalisms to normalize torture, that was, like, our “indoor voice”?

  54. @NoWeltschmerz
    @Prester John

    The point is that the results of that act and subsequent actions were very much predictable. The fact that some of the people who were against the act were bigots doesn't change that the act was heavy-handed, fundamentally changed the relationship between the citizen and the state and has inflicted potentially mortal wounds to our constitutional republic. It has always made sense to me why some people would have supported the act at the time because there were real wrongs being perpetrated and most people make decisions that are largely based on emotion as opposed to logic or principle; however, continuing to support the act now given the actual evidence we have of its wrong-headedness is quite disheartening to say nothing of those (like William F. Buckley) who opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 but "regretted" the opposition decades later. When will "but we meant well" or "good intentions" cease to be an excuse?

    I think LBJ is a contender for the title of the worst president in at least the last 120 years and, yes, that includes Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama. Between this pernicious act and Vietnam, he ushered in more damage to the US than most of us are even aware. As I try to think of any positive accomplishments for which he can truly be given credit, I come up short. Are there any (I don't think he can take much credit for the space program as his initiative)?

    Replies: @Kronos, @Bugg, @Nicholas Stix

    Would agree; Vietnam, The Great Society, the Warren Court, the Civil Rights Act(Chris Caldwell has pretty much explained that), Emmanuel Celler’s 1964 Immigration Act, the Liberty and the Pueblo, Ramsey Clark as the AG. All on LBJ’s awful watch. We will never know how things would have turned out if JFK was not assassinated. but could not have been worse.

  55. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    I appreciate diagnosis. But I am eager to see the prescription. I appreciate, therefore, the Taki article. Usually, big brains like Caldwell (and Charles Murray) are long on diagnosis and short on prescription.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Nicholas Stix, @Jane Plain, @ATBOTL

    Charles Murray is a vile neocon globalist who spent his entire career promoting that agenda. Here’s a taste of how despicable and stupid the man is:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/charles-murray-immigration-john-derbyshire/

    3. I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I’d a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn’t read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.

    This is the kind of extreme anti-white virtue signaling and flagrant lying that you would expect from the radical left. It’s sounds like something Jeremy Corbyn would say. Murray is a joke. Someone should confront this moron with his claim that he would rather live in Guatemalan ghetto than a “white-bread community” at one of events he speaks at. Think about the psychology and character of a white man who would say something so ludicrously anti-white and obviously false to aggrandize himself. Those are not the words of a good man or an honest man. They are words of a man with a deep seated hatred of his own race and pathological indifference to the truth.

    Murray never had any serious negative repercussions for the Bell Curve and continues to be welcome and loved in the highest levels of the anti-white establishment. His entire career has been to work to undermine white interests by providing a pressure valve where some racial issues can be discussed in a superficially honest way that steers concerned whites away from white identity and white interests.

    BTW, I’m still waiting for evidence of Murray’s absurd prediction that white high schools would become violent and uncontrollable like black schools are. Obviously, he was 200% wrong about that. He needs to be called out for that too at one his neocon happenings.

    • Replies: @Hail
    @ATBOTL


    Murray’s absurd prediction that white high schools would become violent and uncontrollable like black schools are
     
    When/where did he make this claim?

    Replies: @ATBOTL

  56. @ATBOTL
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Charles Murray is a vile neocon globalist who spent his entire career promoting that agenda. Here's a taste of how despicable and stupid the man is:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/charles-murray-immigration-john-derbyshire/


    3. I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I’d a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn’t read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.

     

    This is the kind of extreme anti-white virtue signaling and flagrant lying that you would expect from the radical left. It's sounds like something Jeremy Corbyn would say. Murray is a joke. Someone should confront this moron with his claim that he would rather live in Guatemalan ghetto than a "white-bread community" at one of events he speaks at. Think about the psychology and character of a white man who would say something so ludicrously anti-white and obviously false to aggrandize himself. Those are not the words of a good man or an honest man. They are words of a man with a deep seated hatred of his own race and pathological indifference to the truth.

    Murray never had any serious negative repercussions for the Bell Curve and continues to be welcome and loved in the highest levels of the anti-white establishment. His entire career has been to work to undermine white interests by providing a pressure valve where some racial issues can be discussed in a superficially honest way that steers concerned whites away from white identity and white interests.

    BTW, I'm still waiting for evidence of Murray's absurd prediction that white high schools would become violent and uncontrollable like black schools are. Obviously, he was 200% wrong about that. He needs to be called out for that too at one his neocon happenings.

    Replies: @Hail

    Murray’s absurd prediction that white high schools would become violent and uncontrollable like black schools are

    When/where did he make this claim?

    • Replies: @ATBOTL
    @Hail

    In his book Coming Apart.

    Replies: @Hail

  57. @NoWeltschmerz
    @Prester John

    The point is that the results of that act and subsequent actions were very much predictable. The fact that some of the people who were against the act were bigots doesn't change that the act was heavy-handed, fundamentally changed the relationship between the citizen and the state and has inflicted potentially mortal wounds to our constitutional republic. It has always made sense to me why some people would have supported the act at the time because there were real wrongs being perpetrated and most people make decisions that are largely based on emotion as opposed to logic or principle; however, continuing to support the act now given the actual evidence we have of its wrong-headedness is quite disheartening to say nothing of those (like William F. Buckley) who opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 but "regretted" the opposition decades later. When will "but we meant well" or "good intentions" cease to be an excuse?

    I think LBJ is a contender for the title of the worst president in at least the last 120 years and, yes, that includes Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama. Between this pernicious act and Vietnam, he ushered in more damage to the US than most of us are even aware. As I try to think of any positive accomplishments for which he can truly be given credit, I come up short. Are there any (I don't think he can take much credit for the space program as his initiative)?

    Replies: @Kronos, @Bugg, @Nicholas Stix

    “The fact that some of the people who were against the act were bigots doesn’t change that the act was heavy-handed.”

    In what way were they “bigots”? After all, you think the CRA was terrible.

    • Replies: @NoWeltschmerz
    @Nicholas Stix

    I not only think the CRA was terrible, my point is that we have over a half century of data that supports the notion that it was/is terrible. What "they" are you speaking of? What I wrote is that while "some" people who disapproved of the act were bigots (as statistically, this almost certainly had to be the case unless you reject the concept of bigotry entirely in which case we have nothing to discuss) we can't deny that there were legitimate and good reasons to come out against passage and time has provided ample evidence supporting this.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    , @ATBOTL
    @Nicholas Stix

    Exactly. We have to have the courage to admit that the people who were on the right side of the policy issues were morally righteous as well and that the people on the wrong side were not the good guys. If we don't go that far, our arguments about policy are hollow and ineffective.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  58. @byrresheim
    @Nicholas Stix

    That certainly was how those young men felt.

    However, were they told the truth?

    Was the chaplain told the truth?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @David In TN

    To what “truth” do you refer?

  59. @Nicholas Stix
    @NoWeltschmerz

    "The fact that some of the people who were against the act were bigots doesn’t change that the act was heavy-handed."

    In what way were they "bigots"? After all, you think the CRA was terrible.

    Replies: @NoWeltschmerz, @ATBOTL

    I not only think the CRA was terrible, my point is that we have over a half century of data that supports the notion that it was/is terrible. What “they” are you speaking of? What I wrote is that while “some” people who disapproved of the act were bigots (as statistically, this almost certainly had to be the case unless you reject the concept of bigotry entirely in which case we have nothing to discuss) we can’t deny that there were legitimate and good reasons to come out against passage and time has provided ample evidence supporting this.

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @NoWeltschmerz

    If you support the CRA, then the concept of "bigot" is clear. If, however, you reject the CRA, you either have to toss the notion of "bigot" altogether, or come up with a new formulation.

    Which shall it be?

    Replies: @Art Deco

  60. @Kronos
    @NoWeltschmerz


    I think LBJ is a contender for the title of the worst president in at least the last 120 years and, yes, that includes Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama. Between this pernicious act and Vietnam, he ushered in more damage to the US than most of us are even aware. As I try to think of any positive accomplishments for which he can truly be given credit, I come up short.
     
    Occasionally I’ll hear that if Bobby Kennedy became President in 1968 he could’ve greatly improved things or made it horrifically worse. What’s your take?

    Replies: @NoWeltschmerz, @David In TN

    We will, of course, never know, but count me more than a little skeptical that he would have greatly improved things. RFK became increasingly radical in speech after his brother’s death. It’s possible that this was just a campaign tactic to appeal to disaffected youth, but either way I see no evidence that he had any substantive and well-founded ideas to address the issues that would have actually resulted in great improvement or improvement at all for that matter. Like a lot of people on his side of the aisle, he just didn’t seem to have any perspective on the human condition or understanding of how people and society actually work. I’m sure being a Kennedy didn’t help.

    Whether he would have made things horrifically worse is a good question. Demographics and the enforcement of our checks and balances were different then, so it’s certainly possible that he would not have made things so much worse. We do know that Richard Nixon was able to do a decent job of the Vietnamization of the war, so I doubt RFK would have been able to do surpass Nixon in that arena. Certainly some of Nixon’s economic policies were flawed to say the least (e.g., price controls), but it’s unlikely that RFK would have been adopted a more conservative economic policy stance overall.

  61. @Hail
    @ATBOTL


    Murray’s absurd prediction that white high schools would become violent and uncontrollable like black schools are
     
    When/where did he make this claim?

    Replies: @ATBOTL

    In his book Coming Apart.

    • Replies: @Hail
    @ATBOTL

    I had a feeling that might be the one.

    I read Coming Apart but don't recall that argument being made. It must have been almost as an afterthought, or maybe I was particularly distracted when reading that part.

    After several years, it's hard of course to remember everything in a dense book, and one is largely left with impressions formed in the process of reading. The impression of Coming Apart I came away with was of Murray, b.1943, conceived the book and the central hypotheses therein (summarized by the first two words of the title), maybe about the late 2000s, compiled the data, and wrote it, primarily in 2011 after the census data came out, all as he approached "three score and ten;" in so doing he was, IMO, motivated by two things:

    (1) Motivation 1: Nostalgia for lost and bygone Peak America, Classic-America of the mid-20th century, an era that the b.1990s, b.2000s, and b.2010s cohorts now with us have never known at all, except through stories, imagination (both good and bad), and in archival material; they weren't even able to get the faded remnants or glimpses of it that the b.1980s cohort got. Maybe some of the oldest of the b.1990s cohort had some glimpses in childhood, but that window rapidly closed;

    (2) Motivation 2: In-system, mild-mannered criticism of the New Ascendant Majority (though never using the J-word, an obviously important, the most important, component of the ascendant coalition, but politically taboo in the US). "You turned their backs on Middle America and helped to lose Peak-America/Classic-America, should be ashamed of yourselves and should support conservative values again, because you hypocritically 'live conservative values' anyway, regardless of what they preach."

    There is much to compare Murray's book (2012) with Christopher Caldwell's (2020). They saw the same things about the same time. Murray gets credit for kind of indirectly and implicitly predicting the Trump coalition that emerged in 2015 and held together to Nov. 2016 (and presumably to the present despite what a poor spokesman Trump is for it). Caldwell benefits from hindsight. Caldwell published a great Dec. 2016 essay summarizing the Trump victory and how clueless the ruling class, sneeringly hostile to its own ostensible people, was about the whole thing, Sanctimony Cities, which is like a political essay and current-events-update extension of Murray's Coming Apart.

    Both Murray and Caldwell are respectable figures but it is unclear if they are willing to propose real solutions instead of hugging the chains of the ship they've identified as slowly sinking.

  62. @Nicholas Stix
    @NoWeltschmerz

    "The fact that some of the people who were against the act were bigots doesn’t change that the act was heavy-handed."

    In what way were they "bigots"? After all, you think the CRA was terrible.

    Replies: @NoWeltschmerz, @ATBOTL

    Exactly. We have to have the courage to admit that the people who were on the right side of the policy issues were morally righteous as well and that the people on the wrong side were not the good guys. If we don’t go that far, our arguments about policy are hollow and ineffective.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @ATBOTL

    I think Barry Goldwater had no time for enforced segregation and would wager that was true of the general run of Republican opponents of that legislation, as most of them came from areas where enforced segregation was not practiced. If you're taking an inventory of the whole body of Southern politicians, I'm going to wager you'll discover that that particular mix of expressed preferences was unusual. Parallel school systems were maintained in areas like north Georgia and western Virginia, where they were wholly impractical. One thing not of large contextual significance but indicative of how thorough caste regulations were at that time was that blacks were debarred from state professional schools unless there was a critical mass of students to create a parallel professional school at the state's black college. Aside from enforced segregation, you had the other paraphenalia of institutional life in the South - the police, the courts, the voting registrars &c. Absolutely none of it was worth maintaining. There were lots of simpler ways to address the issue than the ones adopted, but they were rejected because the appellate judiciary and the public interest bar wanted to engage in social engineering projects.

  63. @ATBOTL
    @Hail

    In his book Coming Apart.

    Replies: @Hail

    I had a feeling that might be the one.

    I read Coming Apart but don’t recall that argument being made. It must have been almost as an afterthought, or maybe I was particularly distracted when reading that part.

    After several years, it’s hard of course to remember everything in a dense book, and one is largely left with impressions formed in the process of reading. The impression of Coming Apart I came away with was of Murray, b.1943, conceived the book and the central hypotheses therein (summarized by the first two words of the title), maybe about the late 2000s, compiled the data, and wrote it, primarily in 2011 after the census data came out, all as he approached “three score and ten;” in so doing he was, IMO, motivated by two things:

    (1) Motivation 1: Nostalgia for lost and bygone Peak America, Classic-America of the mid-20th century, an era that the b.1990s, b.2000s, and b.2010s cohorts now with us have never known at all, except through stories, imagination (both good and bad), and in archival material; they weren’t even able to get the faded remnants or glimpses of it that the b.1980s cohort got. Maybe some of the oldest of the b.1990s cohort had some glimpses in childhood, but that window rapidly closed;

    (2) Motivation 2: In-system, mild-mannered criticism of the New Ascendant Majority (though never using the J-word, an obviously important, the most important, component of the ascendant coalition, but politically taboo in the US). “You turned their backs on Middle America and helped to lose Peak-America/Classic-America, should be ashamed of yourselves and should support conservative values again, because you hypocritically ‘live conservative values’ anyway, regardless of what they preach.”

    There is much to compare Murray’s book (2012) with Christopher Caldwell’s (2020). They saw the same things about the same time. Murray gets credit for kind of indirectly and implicitly predicting the Trump coalition that emerged in 2015 and held together to Nov. 2016 (and presumably to the present despite what a poor spokesman Trump is for it). Caldwell benefits from hindsight. Caldwell published a great Dec. 2016 essay summarizing the Trump victory and how clueless the ruling class, sneeringly hostile to its own ostensible people, was about the whole thing, Sanctimony Cities, which is like a political essay and current-events-update extension of Murray’s Coming Apart.

    Both Murray and Caldwell are respectable figures but it is unclear if they are willing to propose real solutions instead of hugging the chains of the ship they’ve identified as slowly sinking.

  64. @ATBOTL
    @Nicholas Stix

    Exactly. We have to have the courage to admit that the people who were on the right side of the policy issues were morally righteous as well and that the people on the wrong side were not the good guys. If we don't go that far, our arguments about policy are hollow and ineffective.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I think Barry Goldwater had no time for enforced segregation and would wager that was true of the general run of Republican opponents of that legislation, as most of them came from areas where enforced segregation was not practiced. If you’re taking an inventory of the whole body of Southern politicians, I’m going to wager you’ll discover that that particular mix of expressed preferences was unusual. Parallel school systems were maintained in areas like north Georgia and western Virginia, where they were wholly impractical. One thing not of large contextual significance but indicative of how thorough caste regulations were at that time was that blacks were debarred from state professional schools unless there was a critical mass of students to create a parallel professional school at the state’s black college. Aside from enforced segregation, you had the other paraphenalia of institutional life in the South – the police, the courts, the voting registrars &c. Absolutely none of it was worth maintaining. There were lots of simpler ways to address the issue than the ones adopted, but they were rejected because the appellate judiciary and the public interest bar wanted to engage in social engineering projects.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  65. @NoWeltschmerz
    @Nicholas Stix

    I not only think the CRA was terrible, my point is that we have over a half century of data that supports the notion that it was/is terrible. What "they" are you speaking of? What I wrote is that while "some" people who disapproved of the act were bigots (as statistically, this almost certainly had to be the case unless you reject the concept of bigotry entirely in which case we have nothing to discuss) we can't deny that there were legitimate and good reasons to come out against passage and time has provided ample evidence supporting this.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    If you support the CRA, then the concept of “bigot” is clear. If, however, you reject the CRA, you either have to toss the notion of “bigot” altogether, or come up with a new formulation.

    Which shall it be?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Nicholas Stix

    I'm sure this made sense to you as you were typing it out.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

  66. @Nicholas Stix
    @NoWeltschmerz

    If you support the CRA, then the concept of "bigot" is clear. If, however, you reject the CRA, you either have to toss the notion of "bigot" altogether, or come up with a new formulation.

    Which shall it be?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I’m sure this made sense to you as you were typing it out.

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @Art Deco

    Still does.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  67. @Art Deco
    @Nicholas Stix

    I'm sure this made sense to you as you were typing it out.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    Still does.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Nicholas Stix

    Put the bong down.

  68. @byrresheim
    @Nicholas Stix

    That certainly was how those young men felt.

    However, were they told the truth?

    Was the chaplain told the truth?

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix, @David In TN

    I happened (age 14) to see the Battleground movie as the NBC Saturday Night Movie in 1965. My Dad sat down and watched it with me. He fully agreed with the chaplain’s sermon as how the American soldiers in the European theater felt and still did. And their “feelings” reflected what they EXPERIENCED.

    As a rule Dad never liked war movies, but he approved of Battleground. He was in Patton’s army during the final push into Germany.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @David In TN

    My deceased dad served in WWII under Patton and loved war movies and documentaries. Battleground was made in 1949 when memories were fresh and the penchant for retrofitting modern-day obsessions into the past didn't exist.

  69. @Kronos
    @NoWeltschmerz


    I think LBJ is a contender for the title of the worst president in at least the last 120 years and, yes, that includes Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama. Between this pernicious act and Vietnam, he ushered in more damage to the US than most of us are even aware. As I try to think of any positive accomplishments for which he can truly be given credit, I come up short.
     
    Occasionally I’ll hear that if Bobby Kennedy became President in 1968 he could’ve greatly improved things or made it horrifically worse. What’s your take?

    Replies: @NoWeltschmerz, @David In TN

    I was for Bobby Kennedy (I graduated high school spring 1968) when he ran, but I wouldn’t be now.

    RFK wasn’t going to get the nomination. One, LBJ still controlled the party machinery. Two, Hubert Humphrey was better liked inside the party.

    And Kennedy would have been routed in the general election anyway. If you check the 1968 electoral map, RFK couldn’t get 270 electoral votes. Contrary to myth, he didn’t do well among white working class voters in the primaries he entered, his black support was enough to beat Gene McCarthy in Indiana and Nebraska (states he would have had no chance at in November).

    RFK lost the Oregon primary. He couldn’t win white middle class voters. In California, he hoped to win 50 % , but only beat McCarthy 46-42 %, which wasn’t enough to drive McCarthy out of the race.

    Sirhan then shot him. And the Kennedy cultists went to work.

  70. @Nicholas Stix
    @Art Deco

    Still does.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Put the bong down.

  71. @David In TN
    @byrresheim

    I happened (age 14) to see the Battleground movie as the NBC Saturday Night Movie in 1965. My Dad sat down and watched it with me. He fully agreed with the chaplain's sermon as how the American soldiers in the European theater felt and still did. And their "feelings" reflected what they EXPERIENCED.

    As a rule Dad never liked war movies, but he approved of Battleground. He was in Patton's army during the final push into Germany.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    My deceased dad served in WWII under Patton and loved war movies and documentaries. Battleground was made in 1949 when memories were fresh and the penchant for retrofitting modern-day obsessions into the past didn’t exist.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS