The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My Podcast with Charles Murray
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Steven Hayward of Powerline hosts a discussion between Charles Murray and myself here.

 
Hide 337 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I’m just about to go to bed and then you post something cool like this. Thanks Steve!

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldlan
    @Kronos

    Now you're going to bed with Charles Murray.

    Replies: @Kronos

  2. Damn, Powerline Blog is still a thing? That’s a blast from the past. I guess ‘Ace of Spades’ still has weekly posts simping about photos of women from the 1950s and swearing that they’d totally use muh second amendment to defend them, any, time, now, too.

    • Replies: @Waylon Sisko
    @anon

    Yup, AOSHQ is still around.

    His cobloggers and their weekend threads, I could take or leave, but I find Ace's posts are usually worth a glimpse for the day's news and his increasingly (and justifiably) angry view of the Uniparty -- it strikes a better balance between frequent updates and Instapundit's deluge of daily posts.

    I think it's a good sign Ace has had enough of the establishment, even if he doesn't go nearly far enough in drawing heretical conclusions.

  3. Steven Hayward of Powerline hosts a discussion between Charles Murray and myself here.

    Only you can do things with or to (but not between) yourself.

    • Thanks: Buzz Mohawk
    • Troll: Hangnail Hans
    • Replies: @SafeNow
    @Reg Cæsar

    Okay okay, fair enough, Reg, it should be me, not myself. But I would like to repeat my defense and theory about Steve’s grammar lapses (which are actually quite infrequent). Steve has a loose brain, extracting all sorts of great analogies and comparisons and related bits of information out of the recesses of his mind. Grammar, on the other hand, is a constrained, rules-based mental state. My hypothesis is that you can’t be great at both at the same time, and we should be grateful for the loose brain. (I think neuroscientists call it “exuberant synapses”)

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Dieter Kief, @Reg Cæsar

    , @The Alarmist
    @Reg Cæsar

    Way too many Brits utilise the same usage, and too many people assume it is correct because ... well .. they equate being British with being able to use proper Queen’s English.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  4. “The Bell Curve” has never been debunked.

    What caused BLM?

    C’mon. Does the name Susan Rosenberg ring a bell?

    BLM is not pro-black; it’s anti-white.

    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t.
    The only real bigotry that exists today is anti-white bigotry.

    Obama was a failure because he is an evil man, a hate filled anti-white bigot. He actually went to a funeral for murdered cops and blabbed about “racism” being the problem.

    Was there ever a more clueless and stupid man?

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Robert Dolan


    Was there ever a more clueless and stupid man?
     
    Hmm, his predecessor and his successor come to mind.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    , @Robert Dolan
    @Robert Dolan

    Nonsense.

    Show me "systemic racism."

    It does NOT exist.

    You are the one being counter-productive to pretend that this nonsense marxist term has any legitimacy whatsoever.

    The term "racist" was coined by early marxists simply to demonize the innocent Russian Christians, and today's Bolsheviks use the term in the very same way.

    As I said (and I'm 100% correct) the prevailing bigotry alive today is the monstrous anti-white bigotry that informs every aspect of our existence.

    , @War for Blair Mountain
    @Robert Dolan

    You want an eternal debate about policy wonk psychometrics……Even though it is completely irrelevant to post-1965 race-replacement immigration policy…

    A White Father and his two year child were just slaughtered by another Black..Black Lives Matter Supporter….And the Han and Hindu will get to nullify the Native White Working Class Vote on Nov 3 2023….To the delight of Asianphile Charles Murray…

  5. “I’m completely flummoxed by this whole thing” says Charles Murray.

    Yeah right. It’s the anti-White agenda and if he didn’t have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he’d see that. Everyone else does.

    Charles Murray is all grumpy because he isn’t getting love from the leftwing Establishment. His big desire was a pat on the head from them.

    As far as 2013 as the start of anti-White fever, this is just plain silly. However, around that time we began to see serious pushback from actual pro-White activists on the internet and in real life. This triggered the left. Again, Charles and Steve don’t like such pro-White people, so they ignore it.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Anti-whiteness has roots going back decades (or centuries) but it obviously became much more prominent around 2012 after OWS spooked the elites. Any increase in pro-white activity was a direct result of that, not a coincidence, and certainly not the cause of wokeness.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship



    “I’m completely flummoxed by this whole thing” says Charles Murray.
     
    Yeah right. It’s the anti-White agenda and if he didn’t have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he’d see that. Everyone else does.
     
    Agree. For such a smart guy working on such a realist subject, Murray is awfully—almost militantly—naïve.

    He says, "I joined in the general feeling that maybe [with Obama's election] we'll be able to put an awful lot of this [race] stuff behind us."

    I'm not a famous Harvard/MIT sociologist, yet somehow it was obvious to me from day one that Obama was a pro-black anti-white racist with a corresponding agenda. Obama was smart enough to keep things vague initially, but once he reached his limit on won elections—i.e. 2013, then Obama's true nature became undeniable and Murray got suddenly surprised by this reality. Hey, great sociology dude, you were totally oblivious to the biggest sociological freight train heading straight toward you!

    Steve tries to clue Murray in by describing some of the roots of the 2013 and subsequent reality, but of course Murray isn't too interested in conceding that his worldview is obviously inadequate. Then to put the icing on his cake of obliviousness and condescension, Murray denounces anyone more realist than himself as "evil" "white supremacist" (without actually naming who these people are), followed by a little jag about how he is too noble and pure to think less of anyone simply because they have a lower IQ. This is a little rich coming from the guy who spent most of his life denying that Americans ought to prioritize fellow citizens over random foreigners, which would have been a very practical and constructive way of prioritizing something other than IQ, and someone who wrote a whole book (Curmudgeon's Guide to Getting Ahead) insisting that a bunch of things that are proxies for IQ are necessary and should be rewarded.

    So yeah, all in all Murray ends up being just another brick in the wall, which is a shame since his underlying quantitate sociology (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, Human Accomplishment, Coming Apart, Facing Reality) is actually very good.

    Replies: @Verymuchalive, @SunBakedSuburb, @Moses, @Hypnotoad666

    , @eric
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Murray notes that he had great hopes in 2012 because America voted for a Black President and that we would then be able to put all the Black-white dissension behind us. We have had 'first' Black mayors and these same hopes, for over 60 years. Often Blacks occupy every major administrative municipal post--police chief, school superintendent, city council president. The results have not been good on any level.

    How could Murray have sincerely thought that a Black President would break this pattern? It seems willfully blind.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Barnard, @Jack D, @Currahee

  6. Off-topic, but extremely important: A simple chip that is implanted under your skin, and a quick way to prove that you have taken your mandatory shots. Dr. Anthony Fauci believes that it is very important to keep track that all people are up-do-date on their mandatory vaccines:

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Zero Philosopher

    Ah yes. The "what could possibly go wrong" dept.

    Also, it's funny how the story treats it as some kind of innovation. For how many decades have we been chipping dogs?

    , @Mark G.
    @Zero Philosopher


    Off-topic, but extremely important: A simple chip that is implanted under your skin, and a quick way to prove that you have taken your mandatory shots.
     
    What's the point of mandating that people get Covid shots when the shots don't keep people from getting or transmitting Covid? Recent British, Danish and German studies show the vaccinated get the Omicron variant at the same rate as the unvaccinated. Those studies just verify what everyone can see with their own eyes by looking at the skyrocketing cases this winter.

    With little societal benefit of reduced transmission, the only reason to get vaccinated is the individual benefit of reduced deaths. Even here, a risk-benefit analysis would likely show this is only a good idea for older people over 60 who are in a higher risk category. For younger people, on the risk side is possible myocarditis, blood clots and unknown future negative side effects from repeated boosters. On the benefit side, 99.7% of people under sixty already survive Covid so a vaccine would only have a small effect.

    The small risk for young people could be reduced with early treatment programs instead of shots. A new peer reviewed Brazilian study shows a 50% reduction in hospitalizations and 70% reduction in deaths when Ivermectin is used in treating Covid. The Indian state of Uttar Pradesh had much lower rates of Covid hospitalizations and deaths than neighboring states by passing out packets with Ivermectin, Doxycycline, vitamin D and Zinc. The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association studied their success and then recommended everyone in Japan be given a similar packet. Dr. George Fareed and Dr. Brian Tyson used the same protocol, adding HCQ and steroids. Out of seven thousand patients, only three died overall and none died when treatment was started within seven days of the onset of the disease. Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory also had good success rates with early treatment protocols like this. Dr. McCullough thinks deaths could have been reduced 85% if such protocols had been widely adopted and Dr. Kory thinks 500,000 lives could have been saved using them.

    Replies: @HA, @Burnett, @NOTA

    , @Jack D
    @Zero Philosopher

    This is obviously not going to fly. People are afraid of such Big Brotherish inventions (even though pet dogs have had chips for decades) and they are not really necessary. For more important things than this, we have paper passports or drivers licenses or fingerprints or facial recognition, none of which require implanting something in your body.

    It is amazingly lame that the best that the US government could do for proof of vaccination was an easily forged index card (not even the right size to carry in your wallet) but that doesn't mean that we have to go to the other extreme and start chipping people.

  7. I listened on my lunch hour just now. Well done, Steve. I wish you would podcast more.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @The Last Real Calvinist


    Well done, Steve. I wish you would podcast more.
     
    It could damage his mystique.
  8. The sound is not coming through on my computer. Macbook Air, blah, blah, blah.

    I’m a dolt not willing to figure it out, but I can safely assume that Stevie and Charlie agree on most things. I’m sleepy and going to bed now… But thanks for doing the interview, Steve. You and we all know you belong on Tucker Carlson’s show, and that you should have your own network.

    Thanks for your service.

    • Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Appropriate you chose a Black woman to salute Charles and Steve, since neither of them believe in racial loyalty.

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

    , @Anonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Just download an mp3 file of the whole podcast (it's a small download icon to the far left from the icons of Apple Podcast, Spotify and Stitcher). It's only 63 Mb.

  9. @Buzz Mohawk
    The sound is not coming through on my computer. Macbook Air, blah, blah, blah.

    I'm a dolt not willing to figure it out, but I can safely assume that Stevie and Charlie agree on most things. I'm sleepy and going to bed now... But thanks for doing the interview, Steve. You and we all know you belong on Tucker Carlson's show, and that you should have your own network.

    Thanks for your service.


    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/ea/af/52eaafd1aa6ea277933e49fec28f6b83.jpg

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Anonymous

    Appropriate you chose a Black woman to salute Charles and Steve, since neither of them believe in racial loyalty.

    • Replies: @Calvin Hobbes
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship


    Appropriate you chose a Black woman to salute Charles and Steve, since neither of them believe in racial loyalty.
     
    As for Murray, I agree with what Almost Missouri and eric wrote about him. He does not seem to be bothered by the real systemic racism in America, which is against whites, and ridiculously characterizes whites who express realistic opinions about blacks as “evil”. I don’t recall him ever expressing concern about America’s immigration disaster. I seem to recall him saying somewhere that he had a higher opinion of some group like hard-working illegals from Guatemala than of many fellow Americans. And, hey, Google just found this for me:

    Re: Charles Murray on Immigration
    By JOHN DERBYSHIRE
    December 13, 2006 2:16 PM

    Some readers have taken exception to Charles Murray’s point (which I declared my agreement with) that:

    “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.”
    END QUOTE

    The Derb explains that he agrees with Murray on this, but that immigration is mostly a question of NUMBERS, and that the American people ought to be able to say who and how many get in. The Derb has a link to “Charles’s other points” where Murray apparently says about the same, but that link does not work anymore. So maybe, if pressed, Murray will say reasonable things about immigration, but you have to press him pretty hard. On the plus side for Murray (as Almost Missouri points out), he has written some truly great quantitative sociology books. On balance, Steve (being a glass-half-full kinda guy) seems to have a high opinion of Murray.

    As for Steve, I don’t think he’d be more effective in fighting systemic anti-white racism if he came out as more explicitly white nationalist. He constantly points out instances of anti-white racism, and, since he’s not explicitly “white nationalist”, some people who are instinctively “goodwhite” (like, for example, Charles Murray) pay attention to what Steve says. I can’t think of any individual who is more effective at fighting anti-white racism than Steve.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @northeast

  10. @Reg Cæsar

    Steven Hayward of Powerline hosts a discussion between Charles Murray and myself here.
     
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qkjsCcEci-w/maxresdefault.jpg




    Only you can do things with or to (but not between) yourself.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @The Alarmist

    Okay okay, fair enough, Reg, it should be me, not myself. But I would like to repeat my defense and theory about Steve’s grammar lapses (which are actually quite infrequent). Steve has a loose brain, extracting all sorts of great analogies and comparisons and related bits of information out of the recesses of his mind. Grammar, on the other hand, is a constrained, rules-based mental state. My hypothesis is that you can’t be great at both at the same time, and we should be grateful for the loose brain. (I think neuroscientists call it “exuberant synapses”)

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @SafeNow

    Grammar, spelling and the like are minor things when the writer or speaker is a real brain like Steve with something to say. Steve could write in Ebonics for all I care, because he writes the truth. On the other hand™, Reg's point is correct and kinda fun, so who cares?

    , @Dieter Kief
    @SafeNow

    Answer in No. 12

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @SafeNow


    Steve has a loose brain, extracting all sorts of great analogies and comparisons and related bits of information out of the recesses of his mind.
     
    This is very true. Mine is even looser, a kind of James Burke of commenting, finding connections between the most distant specimens. I'm not that good with the bricks, so it's more efficient to concentrate on the mortar.

    Grammar, on the other hand, is a constrained, rules-based mental state.

     

    Whether or not myself is bad grammar-- it might not be-- it is bad style. The -self is just bloat. It's redundant. Me already assumes -self. A non-native German-speaker here once pointed out that there is a lot of informal redundancy in that spoken language, e.g., durch die Wand durchdringen, approximately "penetrate through the wall".

    For all its slovenly nature, English can be more strictly logical than Continental languages, most of which are fine with double and quadruple negatives, which logically negate the odd-number ones.

    Perhaps Napoleon was wrong; England (along with her daughters) is a nation of lawyers, not shopkeepers.

    Replies: @SafeNow

  11. Powerline is consistently one of the best news blogs out there; I was under the impression they were too respectable for the guests but am delighted to be corrected.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @J.Ross


    Powerline is consistently one of the best news blogs out there; I was under the impression they were too respectable for the guests but am delighted to be corrected.
     
    Minnesota Nice!

    John Hinderaker is now president of the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis, a classic example of the nice-neocon variety. Yes, they exist-- Charles Murray, another one, has spoken there. I saw him there on Ben Franklin's birthday. He was starting to look like Ben!

    It helps that they, like the Manhattan Institute, and the Mackinac Center and the Badger and McIver Institutes in neighboring states, concentrate on domestic issues, which was the core of the original neoconservatism.

    Replies: @Ralph L

    , @Mike Tre
    @J.Ross

    They turned a lot of people off 20 ish years ago with their lockstep support of Bush's warmongering.

  12. anon[258] • Disclaimer says:

    Charles Murray is a clown. His dumb, wavering, hand-wringing Boomer voice is nauseating. He’s the ultimate concern troll.

    I’ll save everyone some time and cut to the chase. We’re in this position because:
    – Rich, liberal Jews hate gentiles, and in particular, the gentiles that founded this country.
    – Boomers care more about sports, mid-century racial pieties, and generational handouts than their own culture.
    – Idiot GenX/Boomer white women have no problem voting this country straight off a cliff.

    Nick Fuentes has shown more spine in five years than Murray has shown in five decades.

  13. Rich boomer nationaliam by two guys who defend their cowardly decision to avoid the fight by claiming they’re just too darn nice.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Whereismyhandle


    Rich boomer nationaliam [sic] by two guys who defend their cowardly decision to avoid the fight by claiming they’re just too darn nice.
     
    Murray is not a "boomer" (unless he served on a submarine), and Steve isn't rich. (Though if he can afford a house in Studio City, he could afford a mansion in West Virginia; cf. Peter Brimelow.)

    Murray turned 18 in 1961 (about three weeks after Steve turned two), and would have been draft-eligible through the escalation in Vietnam. Presumably he had a student deferment the first few years, then the Peace Corps took him to peaceful Thailand. But the Army would always have been in the back of his mind; he wasn't interested in them, but they were interested in him.

    Steve, of course, was born in those lucky 33 months for which men didn't even have to register. They were the only American men born after some date in the 1870s who could say that.

    So their experience vis-à-vis "cowardice" will be quite different, due to those 16 years' difference in age.
  14. @The Last Real Calvinist
    I listened on my lunch hour just now. Well done, Steve. I wish you would podcast more.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Well done, Steve. I wish you would podcast more.

    It could damage his mystique.

  15. @Robert Dolan
    "The Bell Curve" has never been debunked.

    What caused BLM?

    C'mon. Does the name Susan Rosenberg ring a bell?

    BLM is not pro-black; it's anti-white.

    Murray pretends that "systemic racism" exists. It doesn't.
    The only real bigotry that exists today is anti-white bigotry.

    Obama was a failure because he is an evil man, a hate filled anti-white bigot. He actually went to a funeral for murdered cops and blabbed about "racism" being the problem.

    Was there ever a more clueless and stupid man?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Peter Akuleyev, @Robert Dolan, @War for Blair Mountain

    Was there ever a more clueless and stupid man?

    Hmm, his predecessor and his successor come to mind.

  16. @Zero Philosopher
    Off-topic, but extremely important: A simple chip that is implanted under your skin, and a quick way to prove that you have taken your mandatory shots. Dr. Anthony Fauci believes that it is very important to keep track that all people are up-do-date on their mandatory vaccines:
    https://youtu.be/EpFRcv7_fbk

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Mark G., @Jack D

    Ah yes. The “what could possibly go wrong” dept.

    Also, it’s funny how the story treats it as some kind of innovation. For how many decades have we been chipping dogs?

  17. @Zero Philosopher
    Off-topic, but extremely important: A simple chip that is implanted under your skin, and a quick way to prove that you have taken your mandatory shots. Dr. Anthony Fauci believes that it is very important to keep track that all people are up-do-date on their mandatory vaccines:
    https://youtu.be/EpFRcv7_fbk

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Mark G., @Jack D

    Off-topic, but extremely important: A simple chip that is implanted under your skin, and a quick way to prove that you have taken your mandatory shots.

    What’s the point of mandating that people get Covid shots when the shots don’t keep people from getting or transmitting Covid? Recent British, Danish and German studies show the vaccinated get the Omicron variant at the same rate as the unvaccinated. Those studies just verify what everyone can see with their own eyes by looking at the skyrocketing cases this winter.

    With little societal benefit of reduced transmission, the only reason to get vaccinated is the individual benefit of reduced deaths. Even here, a risk-benefit analysis would likely show this is only a good idea for older people over 60 who are in a higher risk category. For younger people, on the risk side is possible myocarditis, blood clots and unknown future negative side effects from repeated boosters. On the benefit side, 99.7% of people under sixty already survive Covid so a vaccine would only have a small effect.

    The small risk for young people could be reduced with early treatment programs instead of shots. A new peer reviewed Brazilian study shows a 50% reduction in hospitalizations and 70% reduction in deaths when Ivermectin is used in treating Covid. The Indian state of Uttar Pradesh had much lower rates of Covid hospitalizations and deaths than neighboring states by passing out packets with Ivermectin, Doxycycline, vitamin D and Zinc. The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association studied their success and then recommended everyone in Japan be given a similar packet. Dr. George Fareed and Dr. Brian Tyson used the same protocol, adding HCQ and steroids. Out of seven thousand patients, only three died overall and none died when treatment was started within seven days of the onset of the disease. Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory also had good success rates with early treatment protocols like this. Dr. McCullough thinks deaths could have been reduced 85% if such protocols had been widely adopted and Dr. Kory thinks 500,000 lives could have been saved using them.

    • Agree: JimDandy, NOTA
    • Replies: @HA
    @Mark G.

    "With little societal benefit of reduced transmission, the only reason to get vaccinated is the individual benefit of reduced deaths."

    No, there is also the fact that since the vaxxed are less likely to go to the hospital (I can see why you yourself have trouble remembering that) and have fewer days in which they’re transmitting, so that they are less likely to clog the ICU's and less likely to transmit the disease.


    …vaccinated people clear the virus faster, with lower levels of virus overall, and have less time with very high levels of virus present.

    Therefore, vaccinated people are, on average, likely to be less contagious.
     

    Not sure why any of this is relevant to a thread about Steve talking with Charles Murray, but I suspect you and your fellow truthers' desperate need to keep bringing up COVID in unrelated threads is somehow connected to your misgivings about having foolishly wound up in a hospital with COVID -- apparently complaining all the while that the treatment you got there wasn't tailored to your specific needs and your own nonexistent medical expertise -- and all because you foolishly refused a vaccine that could have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.

    In any case, if you're going to keep trying to derail every thread, be aware that it gives those who recognize what you're doing the opportunity of pointing all that out. And hey, if you ever decide to pass on derailing yet another thread, just know for the record that that would be a-OK with me.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Sam Malone

    , @Burnett
    @Mark G.

    Do you have any links that provide more detail or support? A lot of this stuff about the mainstream overlooking the value of early treatment protocols and widely available medications rings true. But when citing to data on specific areas and findings from specific peer reviewed studies, it would help to include links to the actual studies, or similar underlying support.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    , @NOTA
    @Mark G.

    I think the added risk from vaccines is smaller than the lowered risk from covid for almost everyone--probably not for kids, but pretty definitely for 30 year olds. But yeah, it protects you well and people around you a little, so there is no need to mandate it for anyone other than maybe people working with very old/sick people, just to get that small decrease in risk of transmission.

  18. A searchable transcript would be nice. So, too, if Murray would define a white (sic

    ) supremacist. Murray likes to punch rightwards to earn some points from the Establishment or at least a reprieve that he will be deplatformed last. however, he is unable to name the evil groups who misuse IQ data. CN uses vagueness to cover his incoherence.

    Murray calls for more civility in public debate and discussion. Yet, many on the Left consider civility a tool of white supremacy to stymie progress. Is civility not per se white supremacist?

    I dont think that non-European societies produced the equivalent of Roberts Rule software Order.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order. As the West becomes a geographic expression we will see less civility.

  19. Congrats, Steve. I think Powerline is a pretty mainstream, respected conservative outlet, so a good platform.

    This was the first time I’ve heard your voice (a little folksier than I expected) and probably the first time I’ve listened to a podcast.

  20. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    "I'm completely flummoxed by this whole thing" says Charles Murray.
     
    Yeah right. It's the anti-White agenda and if he didn't have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he'd see that. Everyone else does.

    Charles Murray is all grumpy because he isn't getting love from the leftwing Establishment. His big desire was a pat on the head from them.

    As far as 2013 as the start of anti-White fever, this is just plain silly. However, around that time we began to see serious pushback from actual pro-White activists on the internet and in real life. This triggered the left. Again, Charles and Steve don't like such pro-White people, so they ignore it.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Almost Missouri, @eric

    Anti-whiteness has roots going back decades (or centuries) but it obviously became much more prominent around 2012 after OWS spooked the elites. Any increase in pro-white activity was a direct result of that, not a coincidence, and certainly not the cause of wokeness.

  21. Tablet decides that, having burnt down the house, it turns out that houses are good for some things.
    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/crisis-moral-legitimacy
    Relevant to Charles Murray as it argues for walking back decades of censorship and instilling the spirit of censoriousness in students, and relevant to the ongoing story of the endumbening of the American student because of claimed meetings with morally and philosophically retarded students.

  22. My hypothesis is that (…) we should be grateful for the loose brain.

    This comment of yours is spot on, SafeNow. – Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say: Lots of great writers have always been negating grammar and punctuation rules. And the social pressure or just the stiffness of conventions, that goes along with those rules (= with the way, in which everybody does it/ is expected to do it / has to do it).

    Language*, like any complex system, has its own constraints and those can be dealt with by – playing with them. A – dialectical – consequence of strict rules is to – loosen ’em up a bit. A universal dynamic*** signifying not only the restrictions that go along with rules, but also the way in which they are shaped over time. And to shape them means to break them on lots of occasions. – In the arts that is a playful and at times even welcome thing, in social contexts, it is a stabilizing thing to have/ follow rules; and to break them means oftentimes to get punished, or blamed or to appear unfit or useless etc. pp..

    * Ludwig Witgenstein shed quite a bit of light on the different kind of ways , in which we follow rules, not least with regard to the diffrences in rule following between language and – stricter systems like logic, and mathematics etc.

    *** One of the main themes in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Spirit.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    , @Anonymous
    @Dieter Kief


    * Ludwig Witgenstein shed quite a bit of light on the different kind of ways , in which we follow rules, not least with regard to the diffrences in rule following between language and – stricter systems like logic, and mathematics etc.
     
    What knowledge did he contribute specifically?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  23. @Robert Dolan
    "The Bell Curve" has never been debunked.

    What caused BLM?

    C'mon. Does the name Susan Rosenberg ring a bell?

    BLM is not pro-black; it's anti-white.

    Murray pretends that "systemic racism" exists. It doesn't.
    The only real bigotry that exists today is anti-white bigotry.

    Obama was a failure because he is an evil man, a hate filled anti-white bigot. He actually went to a funeral for murdered cops and blabbed about "racism" being the problem.

    Was there ever a more clueless and stupid man?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Peter Akuleyev, @Robert Dolan, @War for Blair Mountain

    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t

    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn’t. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev



    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn’t.
     
    That's right. It is legally mandatory to discriminate against whites and Asians in favor of blacks. There are thousands of "equity" commissars spread across every significant organization to ensure that this takes place in matters large and small, and every exponent at every level of the world's most powerful government never misses a chance to denounce and calumny whites and to praise blacks. By any objective measure, systemic racism is real and huge.

    Replies: @rebel yell

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Peter Akuleyev wrote to Robert Dolan



    [RD] Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    [PA] Of course it does.
     
    Peter, do you know anything about life today in the USA????

    My kids got higher test scores than most of the kids admitted to Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton.

    But they (half Asian, half Caucasian) were rejected.

    The stats show that if they had been Black, they would have been shoo-ins.

    There just is not systemic racism against Blacks.

    I doubt that you can give a single example of such supposed systemic racism.

    Are there occasional jerks who are unfair to Blacks? Sure, and similarly for Polish-Americans and Irish-Americans and blond Americans and short Americans and...

    But an occasional jerk is not "systemic racism": the systemic racism is all against Whites and Asians and largely in favor of Blacks.

    Give us one single contrary example.

    Frankly, I doubt anyone at all really believes the lie about present-day systemic racism against Blacks: it is just a propaganda tool.

    But prove me wrong: give us an example.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Jack D

    , @angmoh
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Jumping in to support this point because people consistently misunderstand it (I assume because 'systemic racism' and similar concepts are so frequently deployed for progressive causes without a valid explanation of cause and effect).

    Murray makes a point that every mainstream person says they agree with: "IQ doesn't = human worth" - but in reality modern western society is literally set up so that IQ does in fact = worth to a decent extent and it's laughably naïve to go around saying the opposite. It is also laughable to pretend there is such a thing as objective reality in how social structures should be arranged.

    Disparate impact with the kind of clear differences you see in the USA is of course evidence that the system favours one ethnicity over another. Just because mainstream westerners have collectively decided that technological progress and modern-era European social mores are a good thing doesn't make that less true. HBD-aware people simply take those first principles to their logical conclusions with regards to IQ etc and conclude that 'oh well, too bad for the blacks' (after all it's the only game in town).

    On the right the above point is rarely acknowledged in polite society, even among HBD-aware people like Charles Murray. People are emotionally unable to permit themselves to make value judgements about the right of people and groups to exist in society on the basis of things like IQ differences, so they default to "no, it's fair goddammit". Admitting that it isn't, but you still don't want things to change, kind of makes you a 'white supremist' or at least a cognitive elitist. Richard Hanania is one of the few people I have read recently who is able to accept this premise and convey some of the policy implications in language that a relatively mainstream audience can engage with (ie not just directly appealing to ethnic interests).

    Elite leftist failure is to understand this point is funnier because it's the classic 'fish in water' problem - the importance of cognitive ability is so fundamental to worldview of the PMC+ class that I doubt they could genuinely engage with the logic required to propose a coherent set of proposals. Hence the quality of todays rhetoric and policy solutions from the mainstream left. Some more extremist leftist activists at least recognise that "equity" involves extracting fundamental concessions around how society should be set up - it wouldn't be just a pie-slicing exercise.

    Replies: @scrivener3, @Professional Slav, @The Last Real Calvinist

    , @Art Deco
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn’t.

    It's stupid to assert that it does. There is no institution of consequence that can be shown to adopt practices injurious to blacks. You can have work supervisors who are unfair to their black employees, but that's on the margins of economic life and manifestly unsystematic. Don't eat sh!t sandwiches and pretend you're knowledgeable about anything.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I can only hope that you're an aging Boomer stuck in the past that hasn't existed for more than 50 years. Otherwise, that may be one of the dumbest comments ever posted around here.

    The only systemic racism that someone can prove is against whites (and Asians). From day one, whites are discriminated against.

    Their parents are taxed to pay for blacks, thus lowering family income.

    At school, blacks are praised and promoted at the expense of whites. White children are told with no evidence to back it up that they and their ancestors are evil.

    Whites are discriminated against in college applications.

    Whites are discriminated against in hiring.

    Whites are discriminated against in promotions.

    Whites are discriminated against in government and corporate contract bids.

    Whites are absolutely trashed in the media.

    Etc.

    Blacks receive all of the benefits of the discriminations against whites.

    Your statement is embarrassing.

    , @Curle
    @Peter Akuleyev

    “ Of course it does.”

    The Hive Mind explains things much better. For the record, there is no hidden ‘irrationality force’. Believing in such things is just, as you say, stupid.

    https://jewamongyou.com/2016/06/08/a-review-of-hive-mind-by-garett-jones/

    , @Luke Lea
    @Peter Akuleyev

    "Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t"

    I would say that it does, in effect at least. I am thinking of current neoliberal economic policies favoring free trade, unrestricted capital mobility, and mass-low skilled immigration, which, between them, hurt the wages and living-standards of the least-skilled, most vulnerable segments of our working population, among whom African Americans are disproportionately represented.

    But of course this is really an issue of class, not race. Trump's putting those issues on the table explains the migration of working-class Blacks AS WELL AS Hispanics to the Republican Party better than anything else in my opinion. The wages of low-skilled Americans starting rising under Trump for the first time in decades and they noticed. It's really that simple.

    , @Pincher Martin
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Of course it [systemic racism against blacks] does.
     
    No, it does not. The system favors blacks to the point that any halfway-educated black man can write his own career ticket in whatever profession he chooses.
    , @JimDandy
    @Peter Akuleyev

    "Murray pretends that 'systemic racism' exists. It doesn’t

    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn’t."


    Ok, before I started calling you a moron, what it god's name are you talking about?

  24. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    "I'm completely flummoxed by this whole thing" says Charles Murray.
     
    Yeah right. It's the anti-White agenda and if he didn't have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he'd see that. Everyone else does.

    Charles Murray is all grumpy because he isn't getting love from the leftwing Establishment. His big desire was a pat on the head from them.

    As far as 2013 as the start of anti-White fever, this is just plain silly. However, around that time we began to see serious pushback from actual pro-White activists on the internet and in real life. This triggered the left. Again, Charles and Steve don't like such pro-White people, so they ignore it.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Almost Missouri, @eric

    “I’m completely flummoxed by this whole thing” says Charles Murray.

    Yeah right. It’s the anti-White agenda and if he didn’t have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he’d see that. Everyone else does.

    Agree. For such a smart guy working on such a realist subject, Murray is awfully—almost militantly—naïve.

    He says, “I joined in the general feeling that maybe [with Obama’s election] we’ll be able to put an awful lot of this [race] stuff behind us.”

    I’m not a famous Harvard/MIT sociologist, yet somehow it was obvious to me from day one that Obama was a pro-black anti-white racist with a corresponding agenda. Obama was smart enough to keep things vague initially, but once he reached his limit on won elections—i.e. 2013, then Obama’s true nature became undeniable and Murray got suddenly surprised by this reality. Hey, great sociology dude, you were totally oblivious to the biggest sociological freight train heading straight toward you!

    Steve tries to clue Murray in by describing some of the roots of the 2013 and subsequent reality, but of course Murray isn’t too interested in conceding that his worldview is obviously inadequate. Then to put the icing on his cake of obliviousness and condescension, Murray denounces anyone more realist than himself as “evil” “white supremacist” (without actually naming who these people are), followed by a little jag about how he is too noble and pure to think less of anyone simply because they have a lower IQ. This is a little rich coming from the guy who spent most of his life denying that Americans ought to prioritize fellow citizens over random foreigners, which would have been a very practical and constructive way of prioritizing something other than IQ, and someone who wrote a whole book (Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead) insisting that a bunch of things that are proxies for IQ are necessary and should be rewarded.

    So yeah, all in all Murray ends up being just another brick in the wall, which is a shame since his underlying quantitate sociology (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, Human Accomplishment, Coming Apart, Facing Reality) is actually very good.

    • Thanks: Mike Tre, Moses
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    @Almost Missouri


    Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
     
    The Ziocon AEI is Murray's last toehold in "academia". To paraphrase Upton Sinclair:
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his academic status depends on his not understanding it.” Academic cancellation deeply frightens the man.

    Maestro Steve does not fear cancellation, as he never had a position, academic or otherwise, from which he could be cancelled. The journey from TAC to UR was the result of a schism in the former, not cancellation. I suppose Rice University could rescind his MBA, but it wouldn't bother him. Long may he continue to be frank and fearless !

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Almost Missouri

    I don't know much about Charles Murray other than he weekends at the Noah Cross Ranch with Steve. Badminton and watercress sandwiches three days straight. Murray complaining of flummox indicates a low protein level. I stopped by with a gallon of egg salad and variety packs of nuts courtesy of Mr. Peanut but was met at the gate by NCR security who warned the Catalina Sherriff had been called. I informed the security guard about Mr. Peanut's monocle but still, no sale.

    , @Moses
    @Almost Missouri


    Agree. For such a smart guy working on such a realist subject, Murray is awfully—almost militantly—naïve.
     
    This naïveté is an example of Orwell’s “Crimestop.” It’s the result of years of propaganda, psychological conditioning and negative incentives to noticing.

    Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
     
    - “1984”

    I don’t believe Murray doesn’t see through it though. He’s afraid.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Almost Missouri

    Murray has gone backward in his realism. Circa 2006 or so he wrote an excellent paper marshalling the evidence and effectively proving that the B/W IQ gap is genetic in origin. http://www.bible-researcher.com/murray1.html

    But his latest, Facing Reality, just notes that the gap exists (which is uncontroversial) while feigning agnosticism and disinterest as to its cause. He would have done better to just say "hey, don't shoot the messenger, but the data sadly says what it says," rather than shucking and jiving for respectability. He's not exactly a profile in courage.

  25. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t

    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn’t.

    That’s right. It is legally mandatory to discriminate against whites and Asians in favor of blacks. There are thousands of “equity” commissars spread across every significant organization to ensure that this takes place in matters large and small, and every exponent at every level of the world’s most powerful government never misses a chance to denounce and calumny whites and to praise blacks. By any objective measure, systemic racism is real and huge.

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @Almost Missouri

    Agree, but I reject the word racism entirely - it is a word that will ultimately favor minorities over the majority no matter how you use it. It implies that it is wrong to dislike someone, which is not true. You can dislike anyone you want for any reason you want.
    When blacks are given preference over whites in college admissions, don't call it racist. Call it unfair. Call it cheating. Call it stealing. Call it fraud. It's a case of the weak (low test scores) stealing honors that rightly belong to the strong (higher test scores). It is a usurpation of someone else's earned accomplishments and reward.
    Minority rights are a usurpation of majority rule. Any minority set aside is a usurpation of someone better qualified.
    Minorities who grab stuff from whites aren't "racist". Call them what they are - thieves and life's losers.

  26. The shot is killing people. Relatively young people. But you’d rather race-bait.

    You are wrong. The shot killing people is what you should be talking about. What you are talking about is just a distraction.

    https://off-guardian.org/2022/01/22/hiding-the-bodies/

  27. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    Peter Akuleyev wrote to Robert Dolan

    [RD] Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t

    [PA] Of course it does.

    Peter, do you know anything about life today in the USA????

    My kids got higher test scores than most of the kids admitted to Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton.

    But they (half Asian, half Caucasian) were rejected.

    The stats show that if they had been Black, they would have been shoo-ins.

    There just is not systemic racism against Blacks.

    I doubt that you can give a single example of such supposed systemic racism.

    Are there occasional jerks who are unfair to Blacks? Sure, and similarly for Polish-Americans and Irish-Americans and blond Americans and short Americans and…

    But an occasional jerk is not “systemic racism”: the systemic racism is all against Whites and Asians and largely in favor of Blacks.

    Give us one single contrary example.

    Frankly, I doubt anyone at all really believes the lie about present-day systemic racism against Blacks: it is just a propaganda tool.

    But prove me wrong: give us an example.

    • Thanks: MEH 0910, Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    Systems that put increasing amounts of capable people on the outside while simultaneously filling the inside with increasing amounts of incapable people aren't long for this world.

    Keep the pressure going.

    , @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    I guess it depends what you mean by "systemic racism". If it means "institutional racism" then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants - if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions - if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be "racist", your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males - your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being "not racist".

    Denying that "systemic racism" exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves - go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of $ doesn't negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences - two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the "medicine" is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the "cure" doesn't work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Waylon Sisko, @Art Deco, @Dieter Kief, @Muggles, @houston 1992, @PhysicistDave, @Sam Malone

  28. @Dieter Kief

    My hypothesis is that (...) we should be grateful for the loose brain.
     
    This comment of yours is spot on, SafeNow. - Lots of great writers have - always I''d hold, - been (here and there or - purposely and big style - like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt - - eh - that's what I want to say: Lots of great writers have always been negating grammar and punctuation rules. And the social pressure or just the stiffness of conventions, that goes along with those rules (= with the way, in which everybody does it/ is expected to do it / has to do it).

    Language*, like any complex system, has its own constraints and those can be dealt with by - playing with them. A - dialectical - consequence of strict rules is to - loosen 'em up a bit. A universal dynamic*** signifying not only the restrictions that go along with rules, but also the way in which they are shaped over time. And to shape them means to break them on lots of occasions. - In the arts that is a playful and at times even welcome thing, in social contexts, it is a stabilizing thing to have/ follow rules; and to break them means oftentimes to get punished, or blamed or to appear unfit or useless etc. pp..

    * Ludwig Witgenstein shed quite a bit of light on the different kind of ways , in which we follow rules, not least with regard to the diffrences in rule following between language and - stricter systems like logic, and mathematics etc.

    *** One of the main themes in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Anonymous

    Dieter Kief wrote:

    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say

    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    • Agree: Coemgen, Gordo
    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @PhysicistDave

    "has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???"

    Yes.

    , @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave

    I know of a group of people who gather every thursday in Zürich to read Joyce. - Since thirty+ years. Fritz Senn is the Saint of the Zürich Joyce Intitute. An utterly charming and knowledgeable man:

    https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/zuercher-james-joyce-stiftung-wird-30-lesezirkel-als-100.html

    That said: One of my favorite literary anecdotes goes like this (it stems from Italo Svevo, if I remember right): A man on an ocean liner chats with his neighbor about books and his neighbor in the deck chair then hands him over Ulysses and and says, that this book 'd be great and the man is very pleased. The next day he gives the book back with the words: Very interesting!
    - I've spent quite some hours with Ulysses - the famous soliloquy of Molly Bloom and such gems. And I liked that!

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ulysses+blooms+monolog&view=detail&mid=BFD253E466821B7B6112BFD253E466821B7B6112&FORM=VIRE

    One of the - rather informal - measures I apply to find out what books are worth, so to speak, and (= what kinds of insights they actually generate) is to look out for contexts, in which these books are cited / referred to in such a way, the the reference in - especially other than genuinely literary contexts - is inspiring, revealing, interesting etc.

    You find gazillions of such contexts in which Shakespeare's or Goethe's works are mentioned/quoted, or - to a lesser extent, but nonetheless: Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain***** - or Mark Twain, of course... but Ulysses: Not that many. 

    *****That sheds invaluable light on the Covid-sheaningans of our times, because this otherworldly well written novel's its main medical focus is the placebo***** (!) tuberculosis treatment of the upper-crusties in - - - Davos (!!!).
      
    ***** Swiss Professor for the History of Medicine Christoph Mörgeli did look into the treatments of tuberculosis that the elite-patients from all over the world received in Davos and found that none (!) of them worked - not a single one of them. It was all an illusion. and a quite nice boost for the economy of formerly rather backward Davos... 

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Alfa158, @PhysicistDave

    , @thenon
    @PhysicistDave

    I listened to Ulysses with Donald Donnelly on audio, and found it quite amusing and instructive. Joyce was blind when he finished the book by dictating to his secretary, and the audio I believe is much more easily understood because of that. writing as a medium does have its limitations.

    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    @PhysicistDave


    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

     

    I absolutely have done so. I reread 'The Dead', and a couple more of Joyce's superb short stories, not long ago.

    Don't try to read Ulysses. Read Dubliners.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    , @martin_2
    @PhysicistDave

    Joyce's early short stories - The Dubliners -and his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man are very good. I have read the latter book at least twice.

    , @Emil Nikola Richard
    @PhysicistDave

    Portrait of the Artist is great and after I read that I chose to read Ulysses and quickly gave up.

    Years later I learned a neat trick which makes it easy. Read as much of it out loud as you can. Ulysses is also pretty great but tricky.

    , @Meretricious
    @PhysicistDave

    Joyce was a consummate artist

    , @stillCARealist
    @PhysicistDave

    Hey I give you props for understanding what Dieter Kief was trying to say. Has this commenter ever written a simple, declarative English sentence in his life? I wish he would write his stuff in German, and then translate directly into English and push "publish." He might be readable that way.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @kaganovitch
    @PhysicistDave

    Has anyone ever read Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    The craze for Ulysses walking tours of Dublin, Leopold Bloom birthday celebrations, etc. bespeak genuine enthusiasm not cod liver oil consumption. That said,I'm with you , Ulysses leaves me cold.

  29. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    “has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???”

    Yes.

  30. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    I know of a group of people who gather every thursday in Zürich to read Joyce. – Since thirty+ years. Fritz Senn is the Saint of the Zürich Joyce Intitute. An utterly charming and knowledgeable man:

    https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/zuercher-james-joyce-stiftung-wird-30-lesezirkel-als-100.html

    That said: One of my favorite literary anecdotes goes like this (it stems from Italo Svevo, if I remember right): A man on an ocean liner chats with his neighbor about books and his neighbor in the deck chair then hands him over Ulysses and and says, that this book ‘d be great and the man is very pleased. The next day he gives the book back with the words: Very interesting!
    – I’ve spent quite some hours with Ulysses – the famous soliloquy of Molly Bloom and such gems. And I liked that!

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ulysses+blooms+monolog&view=detail&mid=BFD253E466821B7B6112BFD253E466821B7B6112&FORM=VIRE

    One of the – rather informal – measures I apply to find out what books are worth, so to speak, and (= what kinds of insights they actually generate) is to look out for contexts, in which these books are cited / referred to in such a way, the the reference in – especially other than genuinely literary contexts – is inspiring, revealing, interesting etc.

    You find gazillions of such contexts in which Shakespeare’s or Goethe’s works are mentioned/quoted, or – to a lesser extent, but nonetheless: Thomas Mann’s Magic Mountain***** – or Mark Twain, of course… but Ulysses: Not that many. 

    *****That sheds invaluable light on the Covid-sheaningans of our times, because this otherworldly well written novel’s its main medical focus is the placebo***** (!) tuberculosis treatment of the upper-crusties in – – – Davos (!!!).
      
    ***** Swiss Professor for the History of Medicine Christoph Mörgeli did look into the treatments of tuberculosis that the elite-patients from all over the world received in Davos and found that none (!) of them worked – not a single one of them. It was all an illusion. and a quite nice boost for the economy of formerly rather backward Davos… 

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Dieter Kief

    Have they heard the academic conspiracy theory that James Joyce ripped off an Italian author who supposedly preceded his linguistic innovations? Something like Aldous Huxley reading all the most important aspects of Brave New World in a novel by Witkacy, or Orwell/Zamatian.
    ----------
    (That's almost all of medicine. If we were to demand that the only things allowed were absolutely positively known to work, a wide range of things would be dropped. Years ago Ben Goldacre talked about pharmacology getting away from mechanism of action [he was quite sensibly against this], and everyone knows about placebo effect which for the above purposes would not be good enough. There are also practices hospitals use as a function of having to house a number of patients, which arguably introduce risk. And there's excessive testing, which is known to be positively harmful.)

    , @Alfa158
    @Dieter Kief

    The guy with Ulysses needed to be in a more boring environment than an ocean liner. I once had occasion to be on a container ship for two weeks testing electronic systems, with pretty much no sources of entertainment or any real work to do but collect data. I have never spent that much time in a situation with no distractions or work to occupy my waking hours, so I plowed through Gravity’s Rainbow with time left over. I should have brought War and Peace.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @Dieter Kief

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kef wrote to me:


    I know of a group of people who gather every thursday in Zürich to read Joyce.
     
    That sorta makes my point, you know: books chosen for reading groups tend to be books people think they should read. A reading group does not need to choose a book that people would read for fun anyway, say Andy Weir's latest (Project Hail Mary, which I heartily recommend to anyone who enjoys "hard" scifi).

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  31. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    I listened to Ulysses with Donald Donnelly on audio, and found it quite amusing and instructive. Joyce was blind when he finished the book by dictating to his secretary, and the audio I believe is much more easily understood because of that. writing as a medium does have its limitations.

  32. The thing that was missing from this was Obama’s conflict with Netanyahu. In 2008, McCain campaigned on a pledge to invade Iran for the sake of Israel. Obama got elected in response to this, and his next 8 years were largely standing down Netanyahu’s push for a war in Iran. Obama played the white/black racial card as a way of keeping Jewish voters close to him. Many Jews who would have exploded if a white Republican had fought with Netanyahu the way Obama did were willing to go soft with Obama as long as he played the white/black racial card. That accounts for a lot of the queries about 2013.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Patrick McNally

    In 2008, McCain campaigned on a pledge to invade Iran for the sake of Israel.

    When did he advocate that.


    Obama got elected in response to this,

    You're projecting. Almost no one cast a ballot on this basis.



    and his next 8 years were largely standing down Netanyahu’s push for a war in Iran. Obama played the white/black racial card as a way of keeping Jewish voters close to him.

    Non sequitur.


    Many Jews who would have exploded if a white Republican had fought with Netanyahu the way Obama did were willing to go soft with Obama as long as he played the white/black racial card.


    In your imagination only.




    Inventive daisy chain to blame Israel for everything.

    Replies: @houston 1992, @Jack D

    , @Hibernian
    @Patrick McNally


    Obama got elected in response to this...
     
    He got elected in response to the economic crisis and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  33. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I absolutely have done so. I reread ‘The Dead’, and a couple more of Joyce’s superb short stories, not long ago.

    Don’t try to read Ulysses. Read Dubliners.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Doesn't get much better than "The Dead"--and the style is very accessible.

  34. They are getting closer to Darwin:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10432807/Imperial-College-scientists-urge-university-not-cancel-founding-father-Thomas-Huxley.html

    The move comes after a report was published in October by an independent history group, formed in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, which has examined Imperial college’s links to colonialism.

    Their report argued that Huxley wrote an essay which ‘espouses a racial hierarchy of intelligence, a belief system of “scientific racism” that fed the dangerous and false ideology of eugenics’.

    Thomas Huxley (1825 to 1895) was an English biologist known for his advocacy of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which led to his nickname ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’.

    In 1860, he engaged in the ‘Oxford evolution debate’ with evangelist Samuel Wilberforce, which was widely seen as a crucial step in the public acceptance of human evolution.

    Huxley was instrumental in advancing scientific thought in Britain and coined the term “agnosticism” in 1869. In 1889, he expanded upon it as a means to assess what is knowable and what is not.

    He worked on invertebrates, examining the relationships between groups pf species which were previously only vaguely understood. Later, he worked on vertebrates, particularly the relationship between apes and humans.

    The group concluded that Huxley ‘might now be called racist’ and suggested the removal of his bust, as well as renaming the Huxley building.

    But a group of 39 leading scientists (incl Richard Dawkins and Paul Nurse) have risen up to object to the report’s characterisation of Huxley, and they have asked Imperial College not to cut its links with him.

    Their letter stated: ‘Huxley was an ardent abolitionist who fought the virulent pro-slavery scientific racism of his day and publicly welcomed the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865,” they say.

    He’d definitely be doomed it he’d supported the Confederates. But he was on The Right Side Of History!

  35. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    Jumping in to support this point because people consistently misunderstand it (I assume because ‘systemic racism’ and similar concepts are so frequently deployed for progressive causes without a valid explanation of cause and effect).

    Murray makes a point that every mainstream person says they agree with: “IQ doesn’t = human worth” – but in reality modern western society is literally set up so that IQ does in fact = worth to a decent extent and it’s laughably naïve to go around saying the opposite. It is also laughable to pretend there is such a thing as objective reality in how social structures should be arranged.

    Disparate impact with the kind of clear differences you see in the USA is of course evidence that the system favours one ethnicity over another. Just because mainstream westerners have collectively decided that technological progress and modern-era European social mores are a good thing doesn’t make that less true. HBD-aware people simply take those first principles to their logical conclusions with regards to IQ etc and conclude that ‘oh well, too bad for the blacks’ (after all it’s the only game in town).

    On the right the above point is rarely acknowledged in polite society, even among HBD-aware people like Charles Murray. People are emotionally unable to permit themselves to make value judgements about the right of people and groups to exist in society on the basis of things like IQ differences, so they default to “no, it’s fair goddammit”. Admitting that it isn’t, but you still don’t want things to change, kind of makes you a ‘white supremist’ or at least a cognitive elitist. Richard Hanania is one of the few people I have read recently who is able to accept this premise and convey some of the policy implications in language that a relatively mainstream audience can engage with (ie not just directly appealing to ethnic interests).

    Elite leftist failure is to understand this point is funnier because it’s the classic ‘fish in water’ problem – the importance of cognitive ability is so fundamental to worldview of the PMC+ class that I doubt they could genuinely engage with the logic required to propose a coherent set of proposals. Hence the quality of todays rhetoric and policy solutions from the mainstream left. Some more extremist leftist activists at least recognise that “equity” involves extracting fundamental concessions around how society should be set up – it wouldn’t be just a pie-slicing exercise.

    • Replies: @scrivener3
    @angmoh

    IQ = human worth in modern western society? That is laughable.

    My father worked in a chemical factory running a machine that put labels on bottles and similar stuff. He was never fired for failure to work, never got drunk and beat people up, was never arrested, he was very honest (his co-workers had him hold and payout the cash for the various sports pools and paycheck lotteries they liked to participate in), he raised a family and devoted time to them, he went to church when my mother made him, he helped family with labor (never loans) he dedicated time to the moral education of his children. He didn't feel sorry for himself when his health declined.

    I think he had a great deal of human worth. Higher IQ people can make more money in a free society because they can give more value to their fellow man but no one thinks the richest people are the best people in modern western society. When you have a free society people are able to live according to their lights and can ignore brainier people.

    Replies: @angmoh, @very old statistician

    , @Professional Slav
    @angmoh


    Just because mainstream westerners have collectively decided that technological progress and modern-era European social mores are a good thing doesn’t make that less true. HBD-aware people simply take those first principles to their logical conclusions
     
    It's not just mainstream westerners collectively deciding this, it's the entire world. Hence mass migration is only happening one way.
    You're making a culturally relativist argument that doesn't mirror reality.

    Replies: @angmoh

    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    @angmoh


    Murray makes a point that every mainstream person says they agree with: “IQ doesn’t = human worth” – but in reality modern western society is literally set up so that IQ does in fact = worth to a decent extent and it’s laughably naïve to go around saying the opposite. It is also laughable to pretend there is such a thing as objective reality in how social structures should be arranged.

     

    Murry is a nice Iowa ur-boomer who cannot grok the post-Christian west. His worldview is suffused with the fading rosy glow still emitted by the bonfire on which Christendom's immense store of cultural capital has been unceremoniously tossed.

    The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop. In orthodox Christian anthropology, all people are made in the image of God; all are sinners who fall short of God's glory; all are capable (if not chosen, but that's another post) of redemption and of becoming sons and daughters of God.

    St Paul deals crisply with the question of human diversity with his analogy of the body: not all parts are the same -- an eye cannot be an ear, and so on -- but all parts are of equal worth, all parts contribute functions that are essential to the health and function of the body, and all parts are worthy of honor and respect.

    But this vision quickly breaks down out when the Christian belief that upholds and empowers it is lost. The possessors of some function rise to the top and are quickly identified as being of greater worth than their inferiors. In the past martial prowess typically defined the elite. Now it's intelligence.

    We're holding on to a cultural interregnum in which many non-Christians (like Murray, so far as I can tell) still cling to one of the most deeply-held and attractive features of Christian society, but in which there are no longer any solid foundations to uphold it. If there is no revival, its vestiges will be swept away, and we will return to a tribal social structure in which 'worth' is more stratified, and in which some harsh hiearachy will simply be accepted as 'the way things are'. We're seeing it already in the pullulating contempt woke white people pour out upon their deplorable cousins.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @nebulafox

  36. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    "I'm completely flummoxed by this whole thing" says Charles Murray.
     
    Yeah right. It's the anti-White agenda and if he didn't have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he'd see that. Everyone else does.

    Charles Murray is all grumpy because he isn't getting love from the leftwing Establishment. His big desire was a pat on the head from them.

    As far as 2013 as the start of anti-White fever, this is just plain silly. However, around that time we began to see serious pushback from actual pro-White activists on the internet and in real life. This triggered the left. Again, Charles and Steve don't like such pro-White people, so they ignore it.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Almost Missouri, @eric

    Murray notes that he had great hopes in 2012 because America voted for a Black President and that we would then be able to put all the Black-white dissension behind us. We have had ‘first’ Black mayors and these same hopes, for over 60 years. Often Blacks occupy every major administrative municipal post–police chief, school superintendent, city council president. The results have not been good on any level.

    How could Murray have sincerely thought that a Black President would break this pattern? It seems willfully blind.

    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @eric


    How could Murray have sincerely thought that a Black President would break this pattern?
     
    It is the same reason that little children believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

    The word of the day is:

    Neoteny.

    Murray needs to become an adult.
    , @Barnard
    @eric

    The left believed Obama was better because he had received training and education from the swamp where most of those mayors, Congressional black Caucus members etc., were just people who had learned how to play the political game in their local communities. They thought the blacks in charge would be like their friends from elite schools.

    , @Jack D
    @eric

    It's easy to have the "appeasement" mentality. We are seeing it now with Putin - people say "just give him what he wants and he won't bother us any more". Of course that's not how it works - when the bully sees that his bullying tactics work, it just increases his appetite for another meal. The bully sees success as affirmation that his approach is fundamentally correct.

    Murray made the same mistake with Obama. Instead of the black community saying "we are grateful that you have answered our prayers and shown that you trust blacks enough to give us the highest office", the lesson that they took from this was "Every office should be filled by blacks from now on."

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Anonymous

    , @Currahee
    @eric

    I thought that the one and only positive thing about Obama's election would be a big STFU to negros; but that did not happen (of course).

  37. @SafeNow
    @Reg Cæsar

    Okay okay, fair enough, Reg, it should be me, not myself. But I would like to repeat my defense and theory about Steve’s grammar lapses (which are actually quite infrequent). Steve has a loose brain, extracting all sorts of great analogies and comparisons and related bits of information out of the recesses of his mind. Grammar, on the other hand, is a constrained, rules-based mental state. My hypothesis is that you can’t be great at both at the same time, and we should be grateful for the loose brain. (I think neuroscientists call it “exuberant synapses”)

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Dieter Kief, @Reg Cæsar

    Grammar, spelling and the like are minor things when the writer or speaker is a real brain like Steve with something to say. Steve could write in Ebonics for all I care, because he writes the truth. On the other hand™, Reg’s point is correct and kinda fun, so who cares?

  38. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    Joyce’s early short stories – The Dubliners -and his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man are very good. I have read the latter book at least twice.

  39. OT

    Even WF Buckley has been blackwashed:

    https://www.youngvic.org/whats-on/best-of-enemies

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    @Bill B.

    ...but James Baldwin remains black of course. Gets hammered here:

    https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/01/his-thuggish-materials/

  40. @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave

    I know of a group of people who gather every thursday in Zürich to read Joyce. - Since thirty+ years. Fritz Senn is the Saint of the Zürich Joyce Intitute. An utterly charming and knowledgeable man:

    https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/zuercher-james-joyce-stiftung-wird-30-lesezirkel-als-100.html

    That said: One of my favorite literary anecdotes goes like this (it stems from Italo Svevo, if I remember right): A man on an ocean liner chats with his neighbor about books and his neighbor in the deck chair then hands him over Ulysses and and says, that this book 'd be great and the man is very pleased. The next day he gives the book back with the words: Very interesting!
    - I've spent quite some hours with Ulysses - the famous soliloquy of Molly Bloom and such gems. And I liked that!

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ulysses+blooms+monolog&view=detail&mid=BFD253E466821B7B6112BFD253E466821B7B6112&FORM=VIRE

    One of the - rather informal - measures I apply to find out what books are worth, so to speak, and (= what kinds of insights they actually generate) is to look out for contexts, in which these books are cited / referred to in such a way, the the reference in - especially other than genuinely literary contexts - is inspiring, revealing, interesting etc.

    You find gazillions of such contexts in which Shakespeare's or Goethe's works are mentioned/quoted, or - to a lesser extent, but nonetheless: Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain***** - or Mark Twain, of course... but Ulysses: Not that many. 

    *****That sheds invaluable light on the Covid-sheaningans of our times, because this otherworldly well written novel's its main medical focus is the placebo***** (!) tuberculosis treatment of the upper-crusties in - - - Davos (!!!).
      
    ***** Swiss Professor for the History of Medicine Christoph Mörgeli did look into the treatments of tuberculosis that the elite-patients from all over the world received in Davos and found that none (!) of them worked - not a single one of them. It was all an illusion. and a quite nice boost for the economy of formerly rather backward Davos... 

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Alfa158, @PhysicistDave

    Have they heard the academic conspiracy theory that James Joyce ripped off an Italian author who supposedly preceded his linguistic innovations? Something like Aldous Huxley reading all the most important aspects of Brave New World in a novel by Witkacy, or Orwell/Zamatian.
    ———-
    (That’s almost all of medicine. If we were to demand that the only things allowed were absolutely positively known to work, a wide range of things would be dropped. Years ago Ben Goldacre talked about pharmacology getting away from mechanism of action [he was quite sensibly against this], and everyone knows about placebo effect which for the above purposes would not be good enough. There are also practices hospitals use as a function of having to house a number of patients, which arguably introduce risk. And there’s excessive testing, which is known to be positively harmful.)

  41. @Buzz Mohawk
    The sound is not coming through on my computer. Macbook Air, blah, blah, blah.

    I'm a dolt not willing to figure it out, but I can safely assume that Stevie and Charlie agree on most things. I'm sleepy and going to bed now... But thanks for doing the interview, Steve. You and we all know you belong on Tucker Carlson's show, and that you should have your own network.

    Thanks for your service.


    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/ea/af/52eaafd1aa6ea277933e49fec28f6b83.jpg

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Anonymous

    Just download an mp3 file of the whole podcast (it’s a small download icon to the far left from the icons of Apple Podcast, Spotify and Stitcher). It’s only 63 Mb.

    • Thanks: Buzz Mohawk
  42. OT So Germany, for all its censorship and greenie weenie ness and the Merkelboner, actually showed some objectivity, honesty, and sense in recognizing that Putin is not a Hitlerian threat to Europe (as I type Hugh Hewitt, who is objectively and wierdly ignorant about Russia, insists Putin “will not stop with Ukraine”) — aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there’s a school shooting in Heidelberg. The people of the future will marvel at our counter-survival tendency toward surprise at the knowable.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  43. The problem with all this talk is, again, preaching to the chorus. All three men know the basic facts and basically agree with each other at all times.

  44. @Reg Cæsar

    Steven Hayward of Powerline hosts a discussion between Charles Murray and myself here.
     
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qkjsCcEci-w/maxresdefault.jpg




    Only you can do things with or to (but not between) yourself.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @The Alarmist

    Way too many Brits utilise the same usage, and too many people assume it is correct because … well .. they equate being British with being able to use proper Queen’s English.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @The Alarmist

    I wish someone had hit the Disagree button. Then I'd have a full house!

  45. BTW, Steve, when are you going to cover militarised dolphins, or do you plan to leave that Phil Girardi?

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @The Alarmist

    William Gibson did 40 years ago.

    https://www.wired.com/story/2021-conspiracies-johnny-mnemonic/

    https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Jones

  46. Given the recent figures, this NBC documentary (A Peacock original so nobody will ever see it) is perhaps poorly timed. But it’s interesting that a major network would commission it and promote it, even on it’s streaming platform. But I was shocked by the trailer, I thought it was going to be a bit more sober but holy hell, they even got a picture of the tiki torches in there.

    Use of Force: The Policing of Black America

    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination. In most cases like this the minority ethnicity would probably have been incorporated into the greater society through their territory being conquered along with them. But in the US there is no agreed or accepted homeland so this powerful ethnocentric energy has no outlet and no resolution.

    And this isn’t irrelevant, people don’t always know what the true lines in society are, right now those lines are being tested ever more with all the mass shoplifting and theft being examples and the major jump in homicides being the most violent, by suggesting that young black males are illegitimately policed from mainstream outlets, it gives people permission.

    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @Calvin Hobbes
    @Altai


    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination.
     
    Blacks don’t want “self-determination”. Blacks want whites to be their de facto slaves (at least for the next 400 years). When Steve first brought this up, I thought it was exaggeration, but when you pay attention to what blacks think they’re entitled to, it’s not exaggeration.

    Except in the short term, I don’t think the absurd demands that blacks make of whites are in the collective interest of blacks. Individually though, there are lots of blacks who are cashing in big-time on this CRT nonsense. Also, tribalism, stupidity, and lack of future-time orientation prevent all but a tiny number of blacks (John McWhorter being one of the few exceptions) from expressing disagreement with those absurd demands.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    , @Jack D
    @Altai


    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination.
     
    I understand that the impulse is self determination - from revealed preferences, the black community would literally rather have 1,000 brothers shot by other brothers than one brother killed by a white cop. This is how tribal societies operate. Violence within the tribe is a family matter but violence from an outsider is an afront to the tribe and must be avenged.

    But how does this get you to a workable Western society? I see situations in big cities now where you have a black mayor and a black police commissioners going on TV and pleading with their black constituents not to kill other blacks. Once you take white people out of the equation, a society where young black males have impunity to rob and shoot and kill other blacks is not a workable society.

    Replies: @Altai, @Hangnail Hans

  47. @PhysicistDave
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Peter Akuleyev wrote to Robert Dolan



    [RD] Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    [PA] Of course it does.
     
    Peter, do you know anything about life today in the USA????

    My kids got higher test scores than most of the kids admitted to Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton.

    But they (half Asian, half Caucasian) were rejected.

    The stats show that if they had been Black, they would have been shoo-ins.

    There just is not systemic racism against Blacks.

    I doubt that you can give a single example of such supposed systemic racism.

    Are there occasional jerks who are unfair to Blacks? Sure, and similarly for Polish-Americans and Irish-Americans and blond Americans and short Americans and...

    But an occasional jerk is not "systemic racism": the systemic racism is all against Whites and Asians and largely in favor of Blacks.

    Give us one single contrary example.

    Frankly, I doubt anyone at all really believes the lie about present-day systemic racism against Blacks: it is just a propaganda tool.

    But prove me wrong: give us an example.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Jack D

    Systems that put increasing amounts of capable people on the outside while simultaneously filling the inside with increasing amounts of incapable people aren’t long for this world.

    Keep the pressure going.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  48. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn’t.

    It’s stupid to assert that it does. There is no institution of consequence that can be shown to adopt practices injurious to blacks. You can have work supervisors who are unfair to their black employees, but that’s on the margins of economic life and manifestly unsystematic. Don’t eat sh!t sandwiches and pretend you’re knowledgeable about anything.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  49. @Robert Dolan
    "The Bell Curve" has never been debunked.

    What caused BLM?

    C'mon. Does the name Susan Rosenberg ring a bell?

    BLM is not pro-black; it's anti-white.

    Murray pretends that "systemic racism" exists. It doesn't.
    The only real bigotry that exists today is anti-white bigotry.

    Obama was a failure because he is an evil man, a hate filled anti-white bigot. He actually went to a funeral for murdered cops and blabbed about "racism" being the problem.

    Was there ever a more clueless and stupid man?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Peter Akuleyev, @Robert Dolan, @War for Blair Mountain

    Nonsense.

    Show me “systemic racism.”

    It does NOT exist.

    You are the one being counter-productive to pretend that this nonsense marxist term has any legitimacy whatsoever.

    The term “racist” was coined by early marxists simply to demonize the innocent Russian Christians, and today’s Bolsheviks use the term in the very same way.

    As I said (and I’m 100% correct) the prevailing bigotry alive today is the monstrous anti-white bigotry that informs every aspect of our existence.

  50. Charles Murray… Rings a bell. Isn’t he the guy who says that his biggest fear for America is that there might be an increase in white identity politics?

  51. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Appropriate you chose a Black woman to salute Charles and Steve, since neither of them believe in racial loyalty.

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

    Appropriate you chose a Black woman to salute Charles and Steve, since neither of them believe in racial loyalty.

    As for Murray, I agree with what Almost Missouri and eric wrote about him. He does not seem to be bothered by the real systemic racism in America, which is against whites, and ridiculously characterizes whites who express realistic opinions about blacks as “evil”. I don’t recall him ever expressing concern about America’s immigration disaster. I seem to recall him saying somewhere that he had a higher opinion of some group like hard-working illegals from Guatemala than of many fellow Americans. And, hey, Google just found this for me:

    Re: Charles Murray on Immigration
    By JOHN DERBYSHIRE
    December 13, 2006 2:16 PM

    Some readers have taken exception to Charles Murray’s point (which I declared my agreement with) that:

    “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.”
    END QUOTE

    The Derb explains that he agrees with Murray on this, but that immigration is mostly a question of NUMBERS, and that the American people ought to be able to say who and how many get in. The Derb has a link to “Charles’s other points” where Murray apparently says about the same, but that link does not work anymore. So maybe, if pressed, Murray will say reasonable things about immigration, but you have to press him pretty hard. On the plus side for Murray (as Almost Missouri points out), he has written some truly great quantitative sociology books. On balance, Steve (being a glass-half-full kinda guy) seems to have a high opinion of Murray.

    As for Steve, I don’t think he’d be more effective in fighting systemic anti-white racism if he came out as more explicitly white nationalist. He constantly points out instances of anti-white racism, and, since he’s not explicitly “white nationalist”, some people who are instinctively “goodwhite” (like, for example, Charles Murray) pay attention to what Steve says. I can’t think of any individual who is more effective at fighting anti-white racism than Steve.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Calvin Hobbes


    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
     
    That quote from Charles Murray says a lot. It's that mentality of a person who only cares about his personal convenience in life, not any overriding loyalty to his people.

    On the plus side for Murray (as Almost Missouri points out), he has written some truly great quantitative sociology books.
     
    Here's the thing: who didn't know Blacks, on average, weren't as good at Algebra II? I think this was old news 500 years ago. So I don't see it as a breakthrough contribution. It's more like giving a detailed mathematical description of something everyone already knew.

    As for Steve, I don’t think he’d be more effective in fighting systemic anti-white racism if he came out as more explicitly white nationalist.
     
    I don't think he's "secretly" on the side of White people. He's not playing it on the down-low so as to influence the Establishment. He'd like less rancor in the country, that's all. More Nixonian slow surrender instead of confrontation and victory. Therefore, any actual pro-Whites need to realize his approach will get them to the same place the SPLC wants, just at a more leisurely, and (for him) more comfortable country club pace.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @northeast
    @Calvin Hobbes

    Yup...those two were mercilessly exposed for this inane quote by the late Lawrence Auster.

  52. The irony of Murray and Sailer is that they continually point out that because our elites have a huge blind spot – not accepting racial differences – they can’t understand societal outcomes and continue to prescribe ineffective policies; yet, Sailer and Murray suffer from a similar fate.

    Sailer and Murray’s blind spot is not accepting that ethnic loyalty is both natural and good. Because they reject that simple truth, they are continually baffled by the direction of society and people’s unwillingness to go along with their colorblind civic nationalism.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Natural, yes--most people are chauvinists for their kind, whether they see their kind as, say, whites, Croats, Catholics, etc.

    Is that good? And if it is, which version of "my kind" should I care the most about? That's the point of debate.

  53. @eric
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Murray notes that he had great hopes in 2012 because America voted for a Black President and that we would then be able to put all the Black-white dissension behind us. We have had 'first' Black mayors and these same hopes, for over 60 years. Often Blacks occupy every major administrative municipal post--police chief, school superintendent, city council president. The results have not been good on any level.

    How could Murray have sincerely thought that a Black President would break this pattern? It seems willfully blind.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Barnard, @Jack D, @Currahee

    How could Murray have sincerely thought that a Black President would break this pattern?

    It is the same reason that little children believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

    The word of the day is:

    Neoteny.

    Murray needs to become an adult.

  54. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    I can only hope that you’re an aging Boomer stuck in the past that hasn’t existed for more than 50 years. Otherwise, that may be one of the dumbest comments ever posted around here.

    The only systemic racism that someone can prove is against whites (and Asians). From day one, whites are discriminated against.

    Their parents are taxed to pay for blacks, thus lowering family income.

    At school, blacks are praised and promoted at the expense of whites. White children are told with no evidence to back it up that they and their ancestors are evil.

    Whites are discriminated against in college applications.

    Whites are discriminated against in hiring.

    Whites are discriminated against in promotions.

    Whites are discriminated against in government and corporate contract bids.

    Whites are absolutely trashed in the media.

    Etc.

    Blacks receive all of the benefits of the discriminations against whites.

    Your statement is embarrassing.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  55. @Altai
    Given the recent figures, this NBC documentary (A Peacock original so nobody will ever see it) is perhaps poorly timed. But it's interesting that a major network would commission it and promote it, even on it's streaming platform. But I was shocked by the trailer, I thought it was going to be a bit more sober but holy hell, they even got a picture of the tiki torches in there.

    Use of Force: The Policing of Black America

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7cauV6NfIU

    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination. In most cases like this the minority ethnicity would probably have been incorporated into the greater society through their territory being conquered along with them. But in the US there is no agreed or accepted homeland so this powerful ethnocentric energy has no outlet and no resolution.

    And this isn't irrelevant, people don't always know what the true lines in society are, right now those lines are being tested ever more with all the mass shoplifting and theft being examples and the major jump in homicides being the most violent, by suggesting that young black males are illegitimately policed from mainstream outlets, it gives people permission.

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes, @Jack D

    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination.

    Blacks don’t want “self-determination”. Blacks want whites to be their de facto slaves (at least for the next 400 years). When Steve first brought this up, I thought it was exaggeration, but when you pay attention to what blacks think they’re entitled to, it’s not exaggeration.

    Except in the short term, I don’t think the absurd demands that blacks make of whites are in the collective interest of blacks. Individually though, there are lots of blacks who are cashing in big-time on this CRT nonsense. Also, tribalism, stupidity, and lack of future-time orientation prevent all but a tiny number of blacks (John McWhorter being one of the few exceptions) from expressing disagreement with those absurd demands.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    @Calvin Hobbes

    On the wisdom of John McWhorter

    I was listening to his audio-taped lectures on linguistics, and he explained the Proto-Indo-European word snusos to mean sister-in-law.

    I looked it up online, and it is said to mean "daughter-in-law."

    Sister-in-law, give me a break, Professor. The Indo-Europeans were said to be a strongly patriarchal society, and what does a patriarch need more than anything else? Wives for his sons, to propagate the patriarchal line. Daughters-in-law, as it were.

    Is the good professor so woke, so cucked, so modern, so isolated from the facts-on-the-ground-of-traditional Central-Asian society that he cannot intuit that daughter-in-law is an important word in the way sister-in-law is, meh?

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

  56. @eric
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Murray notes that he had great hopes in 2012 because America voted for a Black President and that we would then be able to put all the Black-white dissension behind us. We have had 'first' Black mayors and these same hopes, for over 60 years. Often Blacks occupy every major administrative municipal post--police chief, school superintendent, city council president. The results have not been good on any level.

    How could Murray have sincerely thought that a Black President would break this pattern? It seems willfully blind.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Barnard, @Jack D, @Currahee

    The left believed Obama was better because he had received training and education from the swamp where most of those mayors, Congressional black Caucus members etc., were just people who had learned how to play the political game in their local communities. They thought the blacks in charge would be like their friends from elite schools.

  57. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    “ Of course it does.”

    The Hive Mind explains things much better. For the record, there is no hidden ‘irrationality force’. Believing in such things is just, as you say, stupid.

    https://jewamongyou.com/2016/06/08/a-review-of-hive-mind-by-garett-jones/

  58. @PhysicistDave
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Peter Akuleyev wrote to Robert Dolan



    [RD] Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    [PA] Of course it does.
     
    Peter, do you know anything about life today in the USA????

    My kids got higher test scores than most of the kids admitted to Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton.

    But they (half Asian, half Caucasian) were rejected.

    The stats show that if they had been Black, they would have been shoo-ins.

    There just is not systemic racism against Blacks.

    I doubt that you can give a single example of such supposed systemic racism.

    Are there occasional jerks who are unfair to Blacks? Sure, and similarly for Polish-Americans and Irish-Americans and blond Americans and short Americans and...

    But an occasional jerk is not "systemic racism": the systemic racism is all against Whites and Asians and largely in favor of Blacks.

    Give us one single contrary example.

    Frankly, I doubt anyone at all really believes the lie about present-day systemic racism against Blacks: it is just a propaganda tool.

    But prove me wrong: give us an example.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Jack D

    I guess it depends what you mean by “systemic racism”. If it means “institutional racism” then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants – if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions – if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be “racist”, your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males – your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being “not racist”.

    Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves – go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of \$ doesn’t negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences – two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the “medicine” is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the “cure” doesn’t work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • LOL: Gabe Ruth
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jack D

    Very clever - or is using that term anti-Semitic. ;)

    Your definition of "systemic racism" is basically the same as common sense. However, you know very well that the term system racism - as commonly understood - implies unfair systemic racism, yet you use the term in its more literal sense and thus mislead the reader. Again, clever.

    Yes, there is systemic racism against blacks based on the behavior of blacks as a group. That makes sense. If blacks are 7 times more likely to commit a violent crime and I see a group of blacks walking down the street, I'd be insane to not use that knowledge.

    Are you arguing that I shouldn't? And if not, what's your point exactly?

    Same with Jews. Members of your tribe are causing all kinds of problems at astonishingly high per capita rates. Should I just ignore that?

    If law-abiding blacks don't want whites to fear them, they should reign in blacks causing whites to correctly think that they way. The same goes for Jews.

    Of course, maybe you belong to the colorblind civic nationalist crowd and thus don't believe any of us should lump people together by race or religion. If so, perhaps you should wonder why your Citizenism has been such an abject failure for more than half a century and why your cousins in Israel are so successful with their loyalty to tribe and with their belief in ethno-nationalism - at least when it comes to Jews.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    , @Waylon Sisko
    @Jack D

    If I understand it correctly, "systemic racism" isn't just a description of, say, discriminating cab drivers, it's a catch-all for quite literally ALL disparate outcomes that run in a certain, narrative-reinforcing direction.

    Blacks are overrepresented on basketball courts, professionally or in the neighborhood, that's fine -- but if they're underrepresented on tennis courts, that is and must be and can ONLY be caused by systemic racism.

    (Further proof isn't required, and expecting further proof is apparently racist.)

    It's nonsense, very destructive nonsense for those who like having a free society, but it's one part of the lunacy that has taken hold of the people who run this country and who are running it into the ground.

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go.

    It most certainly is. It's a nonsense term and everything you're assigning to the heading is trivia.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Jack D

    Cab drivers in New York don't pick up a young black man? - Hm. And there'd be no other reason for that behavior except racism?

    And who is it that drives those cabs in NYC, btw.?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Muggles
    @Jack D

    There is always a stereotypical ethnic "tax" to be paid for anyone fitting into some category of that. Or even regional (in some cases even more common). Texas, Californians, New Englanders and Southerners, to name a few, all come with baggage with those labels.

    This "tax" is behavioral and is levied when the taxer reacts to a stereotype in a given situation.

    There are many examples.

    Servers know that blacks (Blacks!) and women tend to be bad tippers. Or are noisy and demanding. So maybe slow service.

    Jews (when this is suspected) can be pushy, argumentative, cheap (though in my experience rarely.) So shop elsewhere.

    Old white guys (hello iSteve readers!) can be cranky, fussy and dismissive. Etc. Food might be cold.

    Asians, etc. all have this inherent tax just by being seen as falling into a group.

    Fair? Maybe, maybe not. "Systemic" no. Just human nature. Read any history of anywhere and you read about this. "Treacherous Persians" (or Greeks, etc.) and virtually anyone not part of your local region/language/religion/race/social status, etc.

    Recipients of this tax don't usually like it, unless it might contain an undeserved benefit ("Asian guys are smarter", etc.).

    Of course we individuals can't control the group behavior/tendency of those in our own group. So if we are treated less well, it is "unfair discrimination." What can we do about bad behavior/tendency in our own group? Very little, other than "policing" behavior of those we can influence.

    Cops in black African countries are usually very tough. Especially on non fellow tribe members. But also, because they know that the element they are hired to control are often bad actors and respond only to hard nosed tactics. Racist? No, but at other levels, the "tax" is levied. Igbos are shifty so watch them carefully...

    The individual solution is to grow up and out of any group you don't want to be associated with. Get educated or skilled. Stay sober in public. Don't be an aggressor or mooch, etc.

    Whining about systemic racism is merely an excuse to blame others and justify doing nothing to improve your own status individually.

    Of course these observations aren't new or original. But often they are the Truth We Cannot Speak.

    , @houston 1992
    @Jack D

    Black cab drivers are probably even more discriminatory than non-Black cab drivers towards Blacks, So the racism charge is a weapon leveled against Whites. It often guilts them, delegtimatises them and their communities. The term institutional racism is not a good faith effort to describe or to try to resolve the problem, and no honest debate is allowed on the term's origin, use, intent by the MSM. The term is a weapon.

    Jack, is it antisemitic for secular Jews to criticize the effects of Hasidic Jews on their zip codes?
    Can Whites not make an assessment on the net public policy direction that Jews have upon White , or formerly White societies? Can Whites not draw their own conclusions and note that what Jews advocate for Whites they would never advocate for themselves? You rate this noticing "anti semitic".

    Jews have different personalities than Whites. Most of my interactions with your group are good and even great. I refer other gentiles to their services. But the most venomous anti-White experiences I have had have come form Jews. Their gloating of having "transformed" White America was a searing imprint in my memory. Similarly, when a gentile atheist picks Christianity the gloating tone has seemed lighter and less malicious than when Jews do it.

    When I was growing up there seemed. innumerable books analyzing the US failures in Vietnam and examined deeply the motives of LBJ, McNamara, JFK etc One does not see the same examination of the architects of the WOT fiascos Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, a deeper examination is circumscribed if not prohibited. There is no MASH equivalent on TV. In MASH the blow hard, incompetent WASP, Frank Burns, stands in for the WASP establishment mismanaging the war in Korea (Vietnam.)
    Would Jews permit the new "meritocratic: establishment to be identified and mocked over the WOT , or anything at all?

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Jack D

    Jack D wrote:


    Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go.
     
    No, it is the way to go simply because it is true: the systemic racism is completely -- 100 percent-- against Whites and Asians.

    I do not care that saying that may irritate some Blacks, though, I think, more the Woke Whites. In fact, its irritating these people seems to me a very, very good reason to keep repeating it.

    Again and again and again.

    As long as decent people keep walking on eggshells to try to avoid offending the thugs, it only encourages the thugs.

    We need to start telling the truth, unapologetically and unremittingly, until they get tired and give up.

    Or even better, until they commit suicide and leave the world a better place.

    Replies: @3g4me

    , @Sam Malone
    @Jack D


    Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go.
     
    Nice try, except that your own examples - such as the landlord preferring non-black tenants, or the Sikh cab driver choosing not to pick up young black males - clearly demonstrate that the prejudice which exists in America today against blacks is the opposite of systemic as that term is meant to be understood by most people.

    Far from being coordinated across individuals or groups, or promulgated or tacitly encouraged at the institutional level, this discrimination is entirely the result of billions upon billions of individual decisions made by hundreds of millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds based on personal judgment and reasonable self-interest in the privacy of one's thoughts.

    What's more, these numberless individual decisions are almost always made not due to animus against blacks as blacks, but by an awareness, whether inchoate or data-driven, that blacks are particularly prone to criminal/slovenly behavior and that, by and large, good things don't come from interacting with them.

    Giving in and agreeing to the charge that "systemic racism" exists today against blacks not only is untrue (and a slur on the Americans of all types who justifiably will continue to mostly avoid blacks until their societal behavior improves), but it also opens the door to all the radical demands of the left for the deconstruction of what's left of the country as we know it.

  59. @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave

    I know of a group of people who gather every thursday in Zürich to read Joyce. - Since thirty+ years. Fritz Senn is the Saint of the Zürich Joyce Intitute. An utterly charming and knowledgeable man:

    https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/zuercher-james-joyce-stiftung-wird-30-lesezirkel-als-100.html

    That said: One of my favorite literary anecdotes goes like this (it stems from Italo Svevo, if I remember right): A man on an ocean liner chats with his neighbor about books and his neighbor in the deck chair then hands him over Ulysses and and says, that this book 'd be great and the man is very pleased. The next day he gives the book back with the words: Very interesting!
    - I've spent quite some hours with Ulysses - the famous soliloquy of Molly Bloom and such gems. And I liked that!

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ulysses+blooms+monolog&view=detail&mid=BFD253E466821B7B6112BFD253E466821B7B6112&FORM=VIRE

    One of the - rather informal - measures I apply to find out what books are worth, so to speak, and (= what kinds of insights they actually generate) is to look out for contexts, in which these books are cited / referred to in such a way, the the reference in - especially other than genuinely literary contexts - is inspiring, revealing, interesting etc.

    You find gazillions of such contexts in which Shakespeare's or Goethe's works are mentioned/quoted, or - to a lesser extent, but nonetheless: Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain***** - or Mark Twain, of course... but Ulysses: Not that many. 

    *****That sheds invaluable light on the Covid-sheaningans of our times, because this otherworldly well written novel's its main medical focus is the placebo***** (!) tuberculosis treatment of the upper-crusties in - - - Davos (!!!).
      
    ***** Swiss Professor for the History of Medicine Christoph Mörgeli did look into the treatments of tuberculosis that the elite-patients from all over the world received in Davos and found that none (!) of them worked - not a single one of them. It was all an illusion. and a quite nice boost for the economy of formerly rather backward Davos... 

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Alfa158, @PhysicistDave

    The guy with Ulysses needed to be in a more boring environment than an ocean liner. I once had occasion to be on a container ship for two weeks testing electronic systems, with pretty much no sources of entertainment or any real work to do but collect data. I have never spent that much time in a situation with no distractions or work to occupy my waking hours, so I plowed through Gravity’s Rainbow with time left over. I should have brought War and Peace.

    • Replies: @SafeNow
    @Alfa158


    with no distractions or work to occupy my waking hours, so I plowed through Gravity’s Rainbow with time left over. I should have brought War and Peace.
     
    I tried-out my trusty “book trailer” technique, which is to check-out the online quotes from these books. Goodreads or Brainy Quote. The Gravity’s Rainbow quotes are terrible, to me. War and Peace, mixed, only fair for the best ones, for me. By contrast, the quotes from Proust and Euripides are fantastic.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Alfa158

    Answer in No. 32

  60. @Altai
    Given the recent figures, this NBC documentary (A Peacock original so nobody will ever see it) is perhaps poorly timed. But it's interesting that a major network would commission it and promote it, even on it's streaming platform. But I was shocked by the trailer, I thought it was going to be a bit more sober but holy hell, they even got a picture of the tiki torches in there.

    Use of Force: The Policing of Black America

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7cauV6NfIU

    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination. In most cases like this the minority ethnicity would probably have been incorporated into the greater society through their territory being conquered along with them. But in the US there is no agreed or accepted homeland so this powerful ethnocentric energy has no outlet and no resolution.

    And this isn't irrelevant, people don't always know what the true lines in society are, right now those lines are being tested ever more with all the mass shoplifting and theft being examples and the major jump in homicides being the most violent, by suggesting that young black males are illegitimately policed from mainstream outlets, it gives people permission.

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes, @Jack D

    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination.

    I understand that the impulse is self determination – from revealed preferences, the black community would literally rather have 1,000 brothers shot by other brothers than one brother killed by a white cop. This is how tribal societies operate. Violence within the tribe is a family matter but violence from an outsider is an afront to the tribe and must be avenged.

    But how does this get you to a workable Western society? I see situations in big cities now where you have a black mayor and a black police commissioners going on TV and pleading with their black constituents not to kill other blacks. Once you take white people out of the equation, a society where young black males have impunity to rob and shoot and kill other blacks is not a workable society.

    • Replies: @Altai
    @Jack D


    But how does this get you to a workable Western society? I see situations in big cities now where you have a black mayor and a black police commissioners going on TV and pleading with their black constituents not to kill other blacks. Once you take white people out of the equation, a society where young black males have impunity to rob and shoot and kill other blacks is not a workable society.
     
    Well America never seems to see that this kind of alienation, marginalisation and sense of the police as an occupying force is quite evident in places where the people are the 'core' population too. Just never nearly as violent or cohesive but it's certainly there.

    The complete detachment of these places from the rest of society and from any hope of things changing or getting better in terms of social status are ultimately the driving force for this anger.

    But if anyone knew how to fix this outright, they'd have done it. Poverty like this needs a big expansion of economic possibility through some kind of big expansion of new well-paying working class work but the kinds of economic revolutions like that are neither predictable nor very common. That's why it's annoying to me to see the left not seeing the tragedy of having places like Sweden which had managed to create a proper flat society in the post-war years get riddled with inequality and ethnic tensions with absolutely no hope of a similar opportunities for creating a more equal society in terms of economic revolutions on the horizon.

    Those kinds of positive economic disruptions which allow ordinary people to profit aren't just not happening in the West today (In part through mass migration at every skill level leading to wage stagnation and greater job insecurity) they are going in reverse, we're seeing a new Robber Baron era on steroids. Meaning all this will go on for at least another 3 generations.

    So far the violence has been contained to the black ghettos and a sustainable proportion of non-black middle class people live close enough to them to make the new normal probably go on given the local nature of DAs. Most non-black middle class people are untouched by the severe violence. (Except in places like San Fransisco due to it's geography making moving away harder) Places like Portland are interesting since they now have a large enough black population that this violent crime increase is no joke but also small enough that it won't impact much beyond those black areas and it's white supermajority with a very homogeneous mostly WASP population with high trust and empathy from little population disruption will be unable to articulate arguments against depolicing since any voice against it will be painted as racist and uncaring towards troubled young black men. That's the problem, people will feel real empathy with their imagine of a young troubled man and that individual with blot out the greater context and all the young troubled men who get killed.

    Here is Seth Rogen explaining the attitude that may prevail, particularly if the current mood makes complaining about the surge in crime a mortal sin of racism.

    https://twitter.com/CountDankulaTV/status/1463844620002025478

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Hangnail Hans
    @Jack D


    This is how tribal societies operate. Violence within the tribe is a family matter but violence from an outsider is an afront to the tribe and must be avenged.
     
    Say, that reminds me of something.
  61. @anon
    Damn, Powerline Blog is still a thing? That's a blast from the past. I guess 'Ace of Spades' still has weekly posts simping about photos of women from the 1950s and swearing that they'd totally use muh second amendment to defend them, any, time, now, too.

    Replies: @Waylon Sisko

    Yup, AOSHQ is still around.

    His cobloggers and their weekend threads, I could take or leave, but I find Ace’s posts are usually worth a glimpse for the day’s news and his increasingly (and justifiably) angry view of the Uniparty — it strikes a better balance between frequent updates and Instapundit’s deluge of daily posts.

    I think it’s a good sign Ace has had enough of the establishment, even if he doesn’t go nearly far enough in drawing heretical conclusions.

  62. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    I guess it depends what you mean by "systemic racism". If it means "institutional racism" then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants - if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions - if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be "racist", your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males - your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being "not racist".

    Denying that "systemic racism" exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves - go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of $ doesn't negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences - two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the "medicine" is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the "cure" doesn't work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Waylon Sisko, @Art Deco, @Dieter Kief, @Muggles, @houston 1992, @PhysicistDave, @Sam Malone

    Very clever – or is using that term anti-Semitic. 😉

    Your definition of “systemic racism” is basically the same as common sense. However, you know very well that the term system racism – as commonly understood – implies unfair systemic racism, yet you use the term in its more literal sense and thus mislead the reader. Again, clever.

    Yes, there is systemic racism against blacks based on the behavior of blacks as a group. That makes sense. If blacks are 7 times more likely to commit a violent crime and I see a group of blacks walking down the street, I’d be insane to not use that knowledge.

    Are you arguing that I shouldn’t? And if not, what’s your point exactly?

    Same with Jews. Members of your tribe are causing all kinds of problems at astonishingly high per capita rates. Should I just ignore that?

    If law-abiding blacks don’t want whites to fear them, they should reign in blacks causing whites to correctly think that they way. The same goes for Jews.

    Of course, maybe you belong to the colorblind civic nationalist crowd and thus don’t believe any of us should lump people together by race or religion. If so, perhaps you should wonder why your Citizenism has been such an abject failure for more than half a century and why your cousins in Israel are so successful with their loyalty to tribe and with their belief in ethno-nationalism – at least when it comes to Jews.

    • Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Jack D has a lot on his plate. He's trying to get America to "stand up" to Putin!

    I notice Bill Kristol had a friendly sit down talk with Charles Murray a few years back. Jonah Goldberg is still in his orbit of friends. Gosh, it's as if all this HBD stuff was a deliberate time wasting strategy to derail White energy from addressing real issues!

    No, I don't think they plan this out decades in advance, it's just the natural instinct of those who want White activism aborted.

    The irony is that Charles Murray and Steve Sailer imagine themselves above the passionate masses who would deal in such "crude" things as good vs evil. Yet they are the pets of those who most definitely believe in destroying what they view as evil.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  63. It was an enjoyable to hear such a polite and carefully reasoned discussion, without any of the nastiness that race-related social issues usually generate (see a few of the comments above for one side of the nastiness; leftist blogs have plenty of the other side of this nastiness). During the discussion Murray and Sailer went out of their way to find reasonable opponents on the leftist side and praise them where possible for at least confronting some issues honestly.

    Maybe society could move forward on race-related issues through honest, reasonable dialogue?

    If Murray and Sailer stand for anything, it is openness to real-world data and honest analysis of it. That came across in the podcast. It was so refreshing that the nastiness usually associated with race-related social analysis was missing from their discussion.

    Maybe there is a message in that for commenters here.

    • Thanks: YetAnotherAnon
  64. @eric
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Murray notes that he had great hopes in 2012 because America voted for a Black President and that we would then be able to put all the Black-white dissension behind us. We have had 'first' Black mayors and these same hopes, for over 60 years. Often Blacks occupy every major administrative municipal post--police chief, school superintendent, city council president. The results have not been good on any level.

    How could Murray have sincerely thought that a Black President would break this pattern? It seems willfully blind.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Barnard, @Jack D, @Currahee

    It’s easy to have the “appeasement” mentality. We are seeing it now with Putin – people say “just give him what he wants and he won’t bother us any more”. Of course that’s not how it works – when the bully sees that his bullying tactics work, it just increases his appetite for another meal. The bully sees success as affirmation that his approach is fundamentally correct.

    Murray made the same mistake with Obama. Instead of the black community saying “we are grateful that you have answered our prayers and shown that you trust blacks enough to give us the highest office”, the lesson that they took from this was “Every office should be filled by blacks from now on.”

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    the lesson that they took from this was “Every office should be filled by blacks from now on.”

    Can you give me the name of someone who even suggested such a thing?

    Replies: @Muggles, @Jack D, @anon

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jack D

    I'm stunned that you have a problem with Putin and Russia. I'm kidding of course.

    The (((Americans))) are the ones being a bully in this case. This whole thing is a centuries-old grudge that has nothing to do with American interests.

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D

    You’re using this topic to push the idea that we should go to war with Russia??

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  65. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    Portrait of the Artist is great and after I read that I chose to read Ulysses and quickly gave up.

    Years later I learned a neat trick which makes it easy. Read as much of it out loud as you can. Ulysses is also pretty great but tricky.

  66. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    I guess it depends what you mean by "systemic racism". If it means "institutional racism" then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants - if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions - if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be "racist", your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males - your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being "not racist".

    Denying that "systemic racism" exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves - go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of $ doesn't negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences - two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the "medicine" is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the "cure" doesn't work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Waylon Sisko, @Art Deco, @Dieter Kief, @Muggles, @houston 1992, @PhysicistDave, @Sam Malone

    If I understand it correctly, “systemic racism” isn’t just a description of, say, discriminating cab drivers, it’s a catch-all for quite literally ALL disparate outcomes that run in a certain, narrative-reinforcing direction.

    Blacks are overrepresented on basketball courts, professionally or in the neighborhood, that’s fine — but if they’re underrepresented on tennis courts, that is and must be and can ONLY be caused by systemic racism.

    (Further proof isn’t required, and expecting further proof is apparently racist.)

    It’s nonsense, very destructive nonsense for those who like having a free society, but it’s one part of the lunacy that has taken hold of the people who run this country and who are running it into the ground.

  67. @Jack D
    @eric

    It's easy to have the "appeasement" mentality. We are seeing it now with Putin - people say "just give him what he wants and he won't bother us any more". Of course that's not how it works - when the bully sees that his bullying tactics work, it just increases his appetite for another meal. The bully sees success as affirmation that his approach is fundamentally correct.

    Murray made the same mistake with Obama. Instead of the black community saying "we are grateful that you have answered our prayers and shown that you trust blacks enough to give us the highest office", the lesson that they took from this was "Every office should be filled by blacks from now on."

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Anonymous

    the lesson that they took from this was “Every office should be filled by blacks from now on.”

    Can you give me the name of someone who even suggested such a thing?

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @Art Deco


    Can you give me the name of someone who even suggested such a thing?
     
    I don't speak for Jack D, but I suggest the entire editorial board of the New York Times.

    You'll find their names on the masthead.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Kamala Harris.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @anon
    @Art Deco

    I saved a 1996 article from the San Francisco Examiner about a visit to a black middle school by a Hastings law professor named Eva Patterson. Addressing the topic of Prop. 209, she told the kids, "they're against affirmative action so you won't be able to go to college and you won't be able to eat and you'll have to die." Can you analogize from that?

    Replies: @Art Deco

  68. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    “Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t”

    I would say that it does, in effect at least. I am thinking of current neoliberal economic policies favoring free trade, unrestricted capital mobility, and mass-low skilled immigration, which, between them, hurt the wages and living-standards of the least-skilled, most vulnerable segments of our working population, among whom African Americans are disproportionately represented.

    But of course this is really an issue of class, not race. Trump’s putting those issues on the table explains the migration of working-class Blacks AS WELL AS Hispanics to the Republican Party better than anything else in my opinion. The wages of low-skilled Americans starting rising under Trump for the first time in decades and they noticed. It’s really that simple.

  69. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    I guess it depends what you mean by "systemic racism". If it means "institutional racism" then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants - if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions - if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be "racist", your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males - your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being "not racist".

    Denying that "systemic racism" exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves - go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of $ doesn't negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences - two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the "medicine" is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the "cure" doesn't work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Waylon Sisko, @Art Deco, @Dieter Kief, @Muggles, @houston 1992, @PhysicistDave, @Sam Malone

    Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go.

    It most certainly is. It’s a nonsense term and everything you’re assigning to the heading is trivia.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Art Deco

    This. The important thing is that it's a nonsense concept from a dishonest actor. If you look at any nonsense with reasonable objectivity you will come to a point, like in the Black Monk, where you don't know what's up (as opposed to down). The way black's pretty to the purest heart. Thing is, it's not up to you to read beauty into black. It's up to [Penn Jillette voice] THIS #*$HOLE [/pjv] to PROVE it. There isn't a single (you know the brachiator I want to specify) who uses the phrase "systemic racism" and can prove it, and Jack D knows this. Note that Jurid Doctorae goes and composes his own meaning to them term. Is there, in the fullness of time and the most open-minded tulpascape, a sense in which "systemic racism" logically and grammatically works? I don't care, I want to pay far less for gas and groceries. And if Putin, in his expansionism, expansionistically retains control over his own navy, expansionistically, then there are rocks the US State Department can kick.

  70. @Jack D
    @eric

    It's easy to have the "appeasement" mentality. We are seeing it now with Putin - people say "just give him what he wants and he won't bother us any more". Of course that's not how it works - when the bully sees that his bullying tactics work, it just increases his appetite for another meal. The bully sees success as affirmation that his approach is fundamentally correct.

    Murray made the same mistake with Obama. Instead of the black community saying "we are grateful that you have answered our prayers and shown that you trust blacks enough to give us the highest office", the lesson that they took from this was "Every office should be filled by blacks from now on."

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Anonymous

    I’m stunned that you have a problem with Putin and Russia. I’m kidding of course.

    The (((Americans))) are the ones being a bully in this case. This whole thing is a centuries-old grudge that has nothing to do with American interests.

  71. The Corrections. Or Freedom!
    Purity
    Back to Blood
    Budding Prospects!!
    Mason & Dixon by Thomas Pynchon, not Gravity’s Rainbow
    The Terrorist
    Scoop
    Magic Mountain
    Maxims and Reflections (Goehte)
    Joseph Joubert Aphorisms (ed. by Paul Auster! – wonderful preface)
    Hammerstein Hans Magnus Enzensberger
    Essays on Civil War Enzensberger
    Holidays in Hell O’Rourke (In my Top Ten 20th century books)
    Essays by Heinrich von Kleist
    Best Of – short-story collection by T. C. Boyle (my imaginary edition, hehe)
    ! Omon Ra – Viktor Pelewin
    ! The Good Stalin – Viktor Jerofejew

  72. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    I guess it depends what you mean by "systemic racism". If it means "institutional racism" then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants - if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions - if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be "racist", your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males - your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being "not racist".

    Denying that "systemic racism" exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves - go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of $ doesn't negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences - two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the "medicine" is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the "cure" doesn't work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Waylon Sisko, @Art Deco, @Dieter Kief, @Muggles, @houston 1992, @PhysicistDave, @Sam Malone

    Cab drivers in New York don’t pick up a young black man? – Hm. And there’d be no other reason for that behavior except racism?

    And who is it that drives those cabs in NYC, btw.?

    • Agree: Escher
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Dieter Kief

    Of course they have a reason. But "rational racism" is still racism. Picture that you are a black professional person. You would never mug a cab driver. But you still can't get a cab, solely due to your race. That's the very definition of racism - you are being judged solely by your race and not "the content of your character".

    Cab drivers today in NYC are mostly S. Asian but it wouldn't make any difference - the Ethiopian cab drivers in DC won't pick up young black males either.

    You are still missing the point - whether racism is rational or irrational, whether it is committed by immigrants or whites, it still exists and it is not only pointless but self-defeating to pretend that it doesn't exist. Every black person in America (and not just the deluded) would tell you that it exists and give you examples from their life - being followed around by store security, etc.

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population. That if blacks are performing less well in school, that black students are the ones that need to up their own game (if this is even genetically possible) and that it's not just a question of white people pouring more money into black schools or of spotting them extra points for their lower performance. Accepting that racism exists does not mean that the "cures" that have been adopted are the correct ones nor does it mean that the "cure" must come solely from other races - if blacks don't want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.

    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it's going to have to be on the down low and they won't be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that's part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs - the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials. If you make the whole admission process completely subjective, no one can touch your subjective judgments. Of course this doesn't work if the discriminated against are black (see disparate impact), but it may for other races.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Dieter Kief, @Calvin Hobbes, @frankie p

  73. That sounded like David Ogden Stiers and Thurston Howell III debating the phone book.

  74. @Bill B.
    OT

    Even WF Buckley has been blackwashed:

    https://www.youngvic.org/whats-on/best-of-enemies

    Replies: @Bill B.

    …but James Baldwin remains black of course. Gets hammered here:

    https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/01/his-thuggish-materials/

  75. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go.

    It most certainly is. It's a nonsense term and everything you're assigning to the heading is trivia.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    This. The important thing is that it’s a nonsense concept from a dishonest actor. If you look at any nonsense with reasonable objectivity you will come to a point, like in the Black Monk, where you don’t know what’s up (as opposed to down). The way black’s pretty to the purest heart. Thing is, it’s not up to you to read beauty into black. It’s up to [Penn Jillette voice] THIS #*\$HOLE [/pjv] to PROVE it. There isn’t a single (you know the brachiator I want to specify) who uses the phrase “systemic racism” and can prove it, and Jack D knows this. Note that Jurid Doctorae goes and composes his own meaning to them term. Is there, in the fullness of time and the most open-minded tulpascape, a sense in which “systemic racism” logically and grammatically works? I don’t care, I want to pay far less for gas and groceries. And if Putin, in his expansionism, expansionistically retains control over his own navy, expansionistically, then there are rocks the US State Department can kick.

  76. @Jack D
    @Altai


    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination.
     
    I understand that the impulse is self determination - from revealed preferences, the black community would literally rather have 1,000 brothers shot by other brothers than one brother killed by a white cop. This is how tribal societies operate. Violence within the tribe is a family matter but violence from an outsider is an afront to the tribe and must be avenged.

    But how does this get you to a workable Western society? I see situations in big cities now where you have a black mayor and a black police commissioners going on TV and pleading with their black constituents not to kill other blacks. Once you take white people out of the equation, a society where young black males have impunity to rob and shoot and kill other blacks is not a workable society.

    Replies: @Altai, @Hangnail Hans

    But how does this get you to a workable Western society? I see situations in big cities now where you have a black mayor and a black police commissioners going on TV and pleading with their black constituents not to kill other blacks. Once you take white people out of the equation, a society where young black males have impunity to rob and shoot and kill other blacks is not a workable society.

    Well America never seems to see that this kind of alienation, marginalisation and sense of the police as an occupying force is quite evident in places where the people are the ‘core’ population too. Just never nearly as violent or cohesive but it’s certainly there.

    The complete detachment of these places from the rest of society and from any hope of things changing or getting better in terms of social status are ultimately the driving force for this anger.

    But if anyone knew how to fix this outright, they’d have done it. Poverty like this needs a big expansion of economic possibility through some kind of big expansion of new well-paying working class work but the kinds of economic revolutions like that are neither predictable nor very common. That’s why it’s annoying to me to see the left not seeing the tragedy of having places like Sweden which had managed to create a proper flat society in the post-war years get riddled with inequality and ethnic tensions with absolutely no hope of a similar opportunities for creating a more equal society in terms of economic revolutions on the horizon.

    Those kinds of positive economic disruptions which allow ordinary people to profit aren’t just not happening in the West today (In part through mass migration at every skill level leading to wage stagnation and greater job insecurity) they are going in reverse, we’re seeing a new Robber Baron era on steroids. Meaning all this will go on for at least another 3 generations.

    So far the violence has been contained to the black ghettos and a sustainable proportion of non-black middle class people live close enough to them to make the new normal probably go on given the local nature of DAs. Most non-black middle class people are untouched by the severe violence. (Except in places like San Fransisco due to it’s geography making moving away harder) Places like Portland are interesting since they now have a large enough black population that this violent crime increase is no joke but also small enough that it won’t impact much beyond those black areas and it’s white supermajority with a very homogeneous mostly WASP population with high trust and empathy from little population disruption will be unable to articulate arguments against depolicing since any voice against it will be painted as racist and uncaring towards troubled young black men. That’s the problem, people will feel real empathy with their imagine of a young troubled man and that individual with blot out the greater context and all the young troubled men who get killed.

    Here is Seth Rogen explaining the attitude that may prevail, particularly if the current mood makes complaining about the surge in crime a mortal sin of racism.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Altai

    According to the internet, Rogen has a net worth of $80 million. I doubt the internet really knows but in any case it must be many millions of $. Losing a car to him (or the insurance deductible) is like the average working person losing a pair of sneakers - it's nothing to get excited about. You could be mad for a second, but hey, that's life in the big city.

    You're a working shnook and you can't afford comprehensive insurance and some ninny stole your wheels and now you can't get to your $15/hr job at the Wal-Mart store? Let them eat cake!

  77. Listening to more of this podcast over lunch. Now, it’s getting pretty funny – and sad.

    I can’t believe that I once respected Murray. He’s hilarious. Murray says that there really are “white supremist” groups out doing dastardly things and what’s more they can’t understand a simple bell curve and thus believe that there are no smart blacks.

    Jeez, this is embarrassing. Naturally, Murray won’t list any names, just that they’re out there, kind of like how systemic racism is just out there somewhere.

    Oh god, he used the term white supremist again. Oh man, it’s hard to watch someone of his intellect do this. I mean, sure, there’s probably some crazies out there, but what group of any size or influence is a white supremist group, Mr. Murray?

    I had to stop to listening for a minute. Steve, please tell me that you jumped in and tried to stop Murray from making a fool of himself.

    Started listening again and no better. Murray uses the phrase “Judeo-Christian.” Lord, what happened to this guy.

    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @Calvin Hobbes
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Oh god, he used the term white supremist again. Oh man, it’s hard to watch someone of his intellect do this. I mean, sure, there’s probably some crazies out there, but what group of any size or influence is a white supremist group, Mr. Murray?
     
    If you’re a guy who focuses on the x percent of the glass that’s full, then there’s a lot to admire about Murray. If you’re a guy who focuses on the (100 - x) percent of the glass that’s empty, then there’s a lot to dislike about Murray.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  78. @Almost Missouri
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship



    “I’m completely flummoxed by this whole thing” says Charles Murray.
     
    Yeah right. It’s the anti-White agenda and if he didn’t have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he’d see that. Everyone else does.
     
    Agree. For such a smart guy working on such a realist subject, Murray is awfully—almost militantly—naïve.

    He says, "I joined in the general feeling that maybe [with Obama's election] we'll be able to put an awful lot of this [race] stuff behind us."

    I'm not a famous Harvard/MIT sociologist, yet somehow it was obvious to me from day one that Obama was a pro-black anti-white racist with a corresponding agenda. Obama was smart enough to keep things vague initially, but once he reached his limit on won elections—i.e. 2013, then Obama's true nature became undeniable and Murray got suddenly surprised by this reality. Hey, great sociology dude, you were totally oblivious to the biggest sociological freight train heading straight toward you!

    Steve tries to clue Murray in by describing some of the roots of the 2013 and subsequent reality, but of course Murray isn't too interested in conceding that his worldview is obviously inadequate. Then to put the icing on his cake of obliviousness and condescension, Murray denounces anyone more realist than himself as "evil" "white supremacist" (without actually naming who these people are), followed by a little jag about how he is too noble and pure to think less of anyone simply because they have a lower IQ. This is a little rich coming from the guy who spent most of his life denying that Americans ought to prioritize fellow citizens over random foreigners, which would have been a very practical and constructive way of prioritizing something other than IQ, and someone who wrote a whole book (Curmudgeon's Guide to Getting Ahead) insisting that a bunch of things that are proxies for IQ are necessary and should be rewarded.

    So yeah, all in all Murray ends up being just another brick in the wall, which is a shame since his underlying quantitate sociology (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, Human Accomplishment, Coming Apart, Facing Reality) is actually very good.

    Replies: @Verymuchalive, @SunBakedSuburb, @Moses, @Hypnotoad666

    Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    The Ziocon AEI is Murray’s last toehold in “academia”. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair:
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his academic status depends on his not understanding it.” Academic cancellation deeply frightens the man.

    Maestro Steve does not fear cancellation, as he never had a position, academic or otherwise, from which he could be cancelled. The journey from TAC to UR was the result of a schism in the former, not cancellation. I suppose Rice University could rescind his MBA, but it wouldn’t bother him. Long may he continue to be frank and fearless !

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Verymuchalive

    Steve got his MBA from UCLA, his bachelor's degree is from Rice.

  79. Haven’t finished the podcast, but let me take a wild guess that Hayward doesn’t ask Steve or Murray the most important question of our time for whites:

    Steve and Charles, I understand that you would prefer a society where individuals are judged on their own merit and not as part of a group, but the fact is that whites are being demonized and attacked as a group, why is it wrong for them to join the together and fight back? Why should whites be the only ethnicity not playing the identity politics game?

    Hopefully, I’m wrong, but I’d be stunned if that question was asked by Hayward or if Steve or Murray had the awareness to bring it up themselves.

    And let’s face it, if these three can’t figure out that this is the question of our time, well, maybe they are no longer relevant to our time.

    I’ll finish later and see if I was right.

  80. @Dieter Kief
    @Jack D

    Cab drivers in New York don't pick up a young black man? - Hm. And there'd be no other reason for that behavior except racism?

    And who is it that drives those cabs in NYC, btw.?

    Replies: @Jack D

    Of course they have a reason. But “rational racism” is still racism. Picture that you are a black professional person. You would never mug a cab driver. But you still can’t get a cab, solely due to your race. That’s the very definition of racism – you are being judged solely by your race and not “the content of your character”.

    Cab drivers today in NYC are mostly S. Asian but it wouldn’t make any difference – the Ethiopian cab drivers in DC won’t pick up young black males either.

    You are still missing the point – whether racism is rational or irrational, whether it is committed by immigrants or whites, it still exists and it is not only pointless but self-defeating to pretend that it doesn’t exist. Every black person in America (and not just the deluded) would tell you that it exists and give you examples from their life – being followed around by store security, etc.

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population. That if blacks are performing less well in school, that black students are the ones that need to up their own game (if this is even genetically possible) and that it’s not just a question of white people pouring more money into black schools or of spotting them extra points for their lower performance. Accepting that racism exists does not mean that the “cures” that have been adopted are the correct ones nor does it mean that the “cure” must come solely from other races – if blacks don’t want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.

    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it’s going to have to be on the down low and they won’t be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that’s part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs – the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials. If you make the whole admission process completely subjective, no one can touch your subjective judgments. Of course this doesn’t work if the discriminated against are black (see disparate impact), but it may for other races.

    • Agree: Edmund
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @Jack D


    That’s the very definition of racism – you are being judged solely by your race and not “the content of your character”.
     
    You've moved the goalposts. The OP was referring to "systemic racism", which does not exist. The idea that some invisible system exists, in which not just my founding stock Americans, but Irish, Italians, Jews, Polish, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians (7-11's, not casinos) and others can be successful, but blacks can not is absurd.

    "Being judged"...by a cabdriver is not "systemic". The instances you cite are individual decisions made by individual people and as you note, are generally for good reasons. "Racism" used to mean objecting to people solely because of their race. The "racism" you cite is people objecting to/seeking to avoid a pattern of behavior, and has nothing to do with skin color (if it did, cabdrivers would not stop for Indians).

    The rest of your post is spot on.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population.

    It would be helpful for agreeable social relations if everyone understood there will be occasions where they will not be treated fairly and that for the most part the frictional costs of doing much about it or making much of it suggest to the prudent person that they usually benefit from writing it off and forgetting about it.

    You're here chuffering about hailing cabs on the street, something almost never done by the 97% of the population who do not live in New York City. (My last attempt at this was in Baltimore in 1983). Your other complaint was that some random landlord was more likely to rent to a white applicant than a black applicant. A grand total of 0.55% of the black population are vagrants, so I don't think finding a place to rent is an insuperable obstacle for blacks; blacks spend about 38.5% of their personal income on housing, as opposed to 34.5% for other racial categories. Since it's a fundamental expenditure (though one sensitive to considerations of amenity), it's not surprising they spend proportionately more on it as they are a less affluent population. For the same reason, it's not surprising they're less likely to be owner-occupiers (47%) than are others (69%). We all learned the hard way during the period running from 2003 to 2009 that there isn't some untapped population for whom owner-occupied housing is suitable.

    And, no, none of this is 'systemic'. It's scattered, infrequent, almost furtive.

    , @Calvin Hobbes
    @Jack D

    You apparently regard “rational racism” as immoral. You’re a smart guy, but that’s a stupid opinion, distressingly common even among otherwise intelligent people, but stupid nonetheless.

    You’ve probably read the Derb’s version of “The Talk”:

    The Talk: Nonblack Version

    https://www.takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/

    I think what Derbyshire wrote in his version of “The Talk” is just good sense and not immoral in any way. The one thing he writes there that I disagree with is:

    “ (13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.”

    I think that amulet is completely worthless. George Zimmerman, for example, had lots of black friends and went out of his way to help black people, but lots of blacks and leftists still wanted him dead after he killed Saint Skittles in self defense.

    When I Googled “Derbyshire The Talk”, the first hit was this willfully stupid piece of political correctness:

    The Talk: What Parents Tell Their Children About John Derbyshire

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/the-talk-what-parents-tell-their-children-about-john-derbyshire/255578/

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Jack D


    if blacks don’t want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.
     
    Here you contradict your taxi-example. Seen from hat angle, it's clear that as a social being nobody can live on its own. You are born into a group of people and you share the fate of that group here and there. If you would not want that, you'd have to try and live alone or - in some superficial (or special) environment (a recluse).

    The idividual, which is the basis of our juridical system and the basis of our moral universalism is (indeed, sigh) a social construct = something highly abstract (HIGHLY abstract).
    It is not easy to get these things straight outside of these (as I said: abstract (and rigorous) terms - and contexts = the Evening's Empire's long history...(see This Too a Histrory of Philosophy2019, by Jürgen Habermas). The old man goes through all these stories and customs and terms and - - - through all these ages from ancient Greece through classical Rome, medieval times,the renaissance, with glimpses at Asia and the Middle East and Egypt and northern Africa and - - - on to the UK and the US and on and on, Japan, China.... two volumes.... 700 000 words...).

    Inside the logic of this term individualism, one deviation is at the following junction, where we (some of us) understand, that the very nature of being an individual in the sense I sketched above, means at the same time to socialise. - And that includes to belong to groups: We don't exist as indivials if we don't live together with others. Being an indiviual alone - makes no sense (=is inexistent in the real world).
    So - in real life, we're all people with a heritage and a social focus and for most people this is not least their racial group (see the data for interracial marriages).

    Barrack Obama (and Matt Taibbi at times too, who's work I like a lot) speaks almost like a schizophrenic (in lots of emphatically brought forward non-sequiturs) when trying to bridge the gap between the two fundamentally different types of destiny a black and a white kid grow up with.

    Interlude

    Of course , destiny is taboo too. But real nonetheless. If I would have written a one-sentnce answer to the quote above, it could have been htese words: You try to get rid of the word 8the concept) of destinym which is a theoretically sound approach...

    On track again:

    Thing is. It looks as if it would be easier to eradicate social facts like the one you note in the quote above, because they are no hard facts like a rock - but just social facts.
    One of the sources for the self-deception that such an agument reflcts, lies in the illusion, that societal facts could be pushed aside more easily because they consist of nothing but language. This is a double-deception. Yes- these differences only show up in social interactions, but they are by no means less real than a rock or a lightning-stroke.

    Second self-deception: Because these differences are somehow attached to language (lots of aspects of this dynamic would indeed be impossible to grasp, without putting them in words - : - because this is indeed so, many people develop the illusion, these evils would go away, if they'd change the way we talk about them. The deception here is: These things become only visible while talking about them, and thus could be mastered by censoring the way we talk about them or by nudging poeple into the right way to talk about themvia internet-censorship and other kids of social pressure.

    This would only be a reasonable startegy, if our social lives would be nothing but speech/ written words, wich is an absurd idea. But it neverthless is one of the strongest ideas that there are today. Wokism is real. That's right. But from this observation does not follow that wokism would be a) resonable. Or b) right. Unfortunatly neither a=) nor b). Just c) - a complete "Irrliecht diser Zeit" (Andreas Gryphius 1642) (erring light o' our times- ignis fatuus).

    , @Calvin Hobbes
    @Jack D


    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it’s going to have to be on the down low and they won’t be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that’s part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs – the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials.
     
    Yeah, this time is going to be different from all the times before. I’ve been watching these affirmative action cases since Bakke, and the pattern is expressed in this cartoon clip:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ivn0C8oebg&t=1s

    Maybe affirmative action will “lose”, but if so my expectation is that the ruling will be muddy enough so that, with some holistic creativity, the universities will be able to discriminate as much as they want.

    , @frankie p
    @Jack D

    "Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population."

    This is for you:

    Jews need to understand that even if antisemitism is morally wrong, it is (and always has been) still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the Jewish population.

    Replies: @Jack D

  81. @Altai
    @Jack D


    But how does this get you to a workable Western society? I see situations in big cities now where you have a black mayor and a black police commissioners going on TV and pleading with their black constituents not to kill other blacks. Once you take white people out of the equation, a society where young black males have impunity to rob and shoot and kill other blacks is not a workable society.
     
    Well America never seems to see that this kind of alienation, marginalisation and sense of the police as an occupying force is quite evident in places where the people are the 'core' population too. Just never nearly as violent or cohesive but it's certainly there.

    The complete detachment of these places from the rest of society and from any hope of things changing or getting better in terms of social status are ultimately the driving force for this anger.

    But if anyone knew how to fix this outright, they'd have done it. Poverty like this needs a big expansion of economic possibility through some kind of big expansion of new well-paying working class work but the kinds of economic revolutions like that are neither predictable nor very common. That's why it's annoying to me to see the left not seeing the tragedy of having places like Sweden which had managed to create a proper flat society in the post-war years get riddled with inequality and ethnic tensions with absolutely no hope of a similar opportunities for creating a more equal society in terms of economic revolutions on the horizon.

    Those kinds of positive economic disruptions which allow ordinary people to profit aren't just not happening in the West today (In part through mass migration at every skill level leading to wage stagnation and greater job insecurity) they are going in reverse, we're seeing a new Robber Baron era on steroids. Meaning all this will go on for at least another 3 generations.

    So far the violence has been contained to the black ghettos and a sustainable proportion of non-black middle class people live close enough to them to make the new normal probably go on given the local nature of DAs. Most non-black middle class people are untouched by the severe violence. (Except in places like San Fransisco due to it's geography making moving away harder) Places like Portland are interesting since they now have a large enough black population that this violent crime increase is no joke but also small enough that it won't impact much beyond those black areas and it's white supermajority with a very homogeneous mostly WASP population with high trust and empathy from little population disruption will be unable to articulate arguments against depolicing since any voice against it will be painted as racist and uncaring towards troubled young black men. That's the problem, people will feel real empathy with their imagine of a young troubled man and that individual with blot out the greater context and all the young troubled men who get killed.

    Here is Seth Rogen explaining the attitude that may prevail, particularly if the current mood makes complaining about the surge in crime a mortal sin of racism.

    https://twitter.com/CountDankulaTV/status/1463844620002025478

    Replies: @Jack D

    According to the internet, Rogen has a net worth of \$80 million. I doubt the internet really knows but in any case it must be many millions of \$. Losing a car to him (or the insurance deductible) is like the average working person losing a pair of sneakers – it’s nothing to get excited about. You could be mad for a second, but hey, that’s life in the big city.

    You’re a working shnook and you can’t afford comprehensive insurance and some ninny stole your wheels and now you can’t get to your \$15/hr job at the Wal-Mart store? Let them eat cake!

  82. @Jack D
    @Altai


    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination.
     
    I understand that the impulse is self determination - from revealed preferences, the black community would literally rather have 1,000 brothers shot by other brothers than one brother killed by a white cop. This is how tribal societies operate. Violence within the tribe is a family matter but violence from an outsider is an afront to the tribe and must be avenged.

    But how does this get you to a workable Western society? I see situations in big cities now where you have a black mayor and a black police commissioners going on TV and pleading with their black constituents not to kill other blacks. Once you take white people out of the equation, a society where young black males have impunity to rob and shoot and kill other blacks is not a workable society.

    Replies: @Altai, @Hangnail Hans

    This is how tribal societies operate. Violence within the tribe is a family matter but violence from an outsider is an afront to the tribe and must be avenged.

    Say, that reminds me of something.

  83. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    I guess it depends what you mean by "systemic racism". If it means "institutional racism" then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants - if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions - if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be "racist", your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males - your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being "not racist".

    Denying that "systemic racism" exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves - go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of $ doesn't negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences - two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the "medicine" is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the "cure" doesn't work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Waylon Sisko, @Art Deco, @Dieter Kief, @Muggles, @houston 1992, @PhysicistDave, @Sam Malone

    There is always a stereotypical ethnic “tax” to be paid for anyone fitting into some category of that. Or even regional (in some cases even more common). Texas, Californians, New Englanders and Southerners, to name a few, all come with baggage with those labels.

    This “tax” is behavioral and is levied when the taxer reacts to a stereotype in a given situation.

    There are many examples.

    Servers know that blacks (Blacks!) and women tend to be bad tippers. Or are noisy and demanding. So maybe slow service.

    Jews (when this is suspected) can be pushy, argumentative, cheap (though in my experience rarely.) So shop elsewhere.

    Old white guys (hello iSteve readers!) can be cranky, fussy and dismissive. Etc. Food might be cold.

    Asians, etc. all have this inherent tax just by being seen as falling into a group.

    Fair? Maybe, maybe not. “Systemic” no. Just human nature. Read any history of anywhere and you read about this. “Treacherous Persians” (or Greeks, etc.) and virtually anyone not part of your local region/language/religion/race/social status, etc.

    Recipients of this tax don’t usually like it, unless it might contain an undeserved benefit (“Asian guys are smarter”, etc.).

    Of course we individuals can’t control the group behavior/tendency of those in our own group. So if we are treated less well, it is “unfair discrimination.” What can we do about bad behavior/tendency in our own group? Very little, other than “policing” behavior of those we can influence.

    Cops in black African countries are usually very tough. Especially on non fellow tribe members. But also, because they know that the element they are hired to control are often bad actors and respond only to hard nosed tactics. Racist? No, but at other levels, the “tax” is levied. Igbos are shifty so watch them carefully…

    The individual solution is to grow up and out of any group you don’t want to be associated with. Get educated or skilled. Stay sober in public. Don’t be an aggressor or mooch, etc.

    Whining about systemic racism is merely an excuse to blame others and justify doing nothing to improve your own status individually.

    Of course these observations aren’t new or original. But often they are the Truth We Cannot Speak.

    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
  84. @Robert Dolan
    "The Bell Curve" has never been debunked.

    What caused BLM?

    C'mon. Does the name Susan Rosenberg ring a bell?

    BLM is not pro-black; it's anti-white.

    Murray pretends that "systemic racism" exists. It doesn't.
    The only real bigotry that exists today is anti-white bigotry.

    Obama was a failure because he is an evil man, a hate filled anti-white bigot. He actually went to a funeral for murdered cops and blabbed about "racism" being the problem.

    Was there ever a more clueless and stupid man?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Peter Akuleyev, @Robert Dolan, @War for Blair Mountain

    You want an eternal debate about policy wonk psychometrics……Even though it is completely irrelevant to post-1965 race-replacement immigration policy…

    A White Father and his two year child were just slaughtered by another Black..Black Lives Matter Supporter….And the Han and Hindu will get to nullify the Native White Working Class Vote on Nov 3 2023….To the delight of Asianphile Charles Murray…

  85. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    the lesson that they took from this was “Every office should be filled by blacks from now on.”

    Can you give me the name of someone who even suggested such a thing?

    Replies: @Muggles, @Jack D, @anon

    Can you give me the name of someone who even suggested such a thing?

    I don’t speak for Jack D, but I suggest the entire editorial board of the New York Times.

    You’ll find their names on the masthead.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Muggles

    AG Sulzberger is an odious character who is an enemy of civic well-being. When did he ever suggest what Jack D suggests?


    I'm aware of partisan Democrats (including one of my more obnoxious shirt-tails) who fancy being black is a fine thing to have on the resume of a politician. That's stupid, but it's part of the affirmative-action mentality generally (and not at all novel).

  86. @Jack D
    @Dieter Kief

    Of course they have a reason. But "rational racism" is still racism. Picture that you are a black professional person. You would never mug a cab driver. But you still can't get a cab, solely due to your race. That's the very definition of racism - you are being judged solely by your race and not "the content of your character".

    Cab drivers today in NYC are mostly S. Asian but it wouldn't make any difference - the Ethiopian cab drivers in DC won't pick up young black males either.

    You are still missing the point - whether racism is rational or irrational, whether it is committed by immigrants or whites, it still exists and it is not only pointless but self-defeating to pretend that it doesn't exist. Every black person in America (and not just the deluded) would tell you that it exists and give you examples from their life - being followed around by store security, etc.

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population. That if blacks are performing less well in school, that black students are the ones that need to up their own game (if this is even genetically possible) and that it's not just a question of white people pouring more money into black schools or of spotting them extra points for their lower performance. Accepting that racism exists does not mean that the "cures" that have been adopted are the correct ones nor does it mean that the "cure" must come solely from other races - if blacks don't want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.

    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it's going to have to be on the down low and they won't be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that's part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs - the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials. If you make the whole admission process completely subjective, no one can touch your subjective judgments. Of course this doesn't work if the discriminated against are black (see disparate impact), but it may for other races.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Dieter Kief, @Calvin Hobbes, @frankie p

    That’s the very definition of racism – you are being judged solely by your race and not “the content of your character”.

    You’ve moved the goalposts. The OP was referring to “systemic racism”, which does not exist. The idea that some invisible system exists, in which not just my founding stock Americans, but Irish, Italians, Jews, Polish, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians (7-11’s, not casinos) and others can be successful, but blacks can not is absurd.

    “Being judged”…by a cabdriver is not “systemic”. The instances you cite are individual decisions made by individual people and as you note, are generally for good reasons. “Racism” used to mean objecting to people solely because of their race. The “racism” you cite is people objecting to/seeking to avoid a pattern of behavior, and has nothing to do with skin color (if it did, cabdrivers would not stop for Indians).

    The rest of your post is spot on.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @William Badwhite

    Frank Herbert once said that prejudgment is wrong, but bias isn't.

  87. @Muggles
    @Art Deco


    Can you give me the name of someone who even suggested such a thing?
     
    I don't speak for Jack D, but I suggest the entire editorial board of the New York Times.

    You'll find their names on the masthead.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    AG Sulzberger is an odious character who is an enemy of civic well-being. When did he ever suggest what Jack D suggests?

    I’m aware of partisan Democrats (including one of my more obnoxious shirt-tails) who fancy being black is a fine thing to have on the resume of a politician. That’s stupid, but it’s part of the affirmative-action mentality generally (and not at all novel).

  88. @Alfa158
    @Dieter Kief

    The guy with Ulysses needed to be in a more boring environment than an ocean liner. I once had occasion to be on a container ship for two weeks testing electronic systems, with pretty much no sources of entertainment or any real work to do but collect data. I have never spent that much time in a situation with no distractions or work to occupy my waking hours, so I plowed through Gravity’s Rainbow with time left over. I should have brought War and Peace.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @Dieter Kief

    with no distractions or work to occupy my waking hours, so I plowed through Gravity’s Rainbow with time left over. I should have brought War and Peace.

    I tried-out my trusty “book trailer” technique, which is to check-out the online quotes from these books. Goodreads or Brainy Quote. The Gravity’s Rainbow quotes are terrible, to me. War and Peace, mixed, only fair for the best ones, for me. By contrast, the quotes from Proust and Euripides are fantastic.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @SafeNow


    I tried-out my trusty “book trailer” technique, which is to check-out the online quotes from these books. Goodreads or Brainy Quote.
     
    That is a great way to go!

    I'm a lot into aphorisms and proverbs etc. - and novels are often like preperations or showcases for certain sentences: All happy families are alike... etc.

    That's what makes th French moralsits so interesting. They sowmhwo detected the truth of this fact and specialised in one or jsut some-sentnces novels, and essais and philosophies even. i love Vauvenaurgues, Nicoals Chamfort (!), Jospeh Joubert (great littkle US-edition of his aphorisms put together by Paul Auster).
    Then there are JWv Goethe's Maxims and Reflections...(he too read and loved th French Moralists, btw.).
  89. @eric
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Murray notes that he had great hopes in 2012 because America voted for a Black President and that we would then be able to put all the Black-white dissension behind us. We have had 'first' Black mayors and these same hopes, for over 60 years. Often Blacks occupy every major administrative municipal post--police chief, school superintendent, city council president. The results have not been good on any level.

    How could Murray have sincerely thought that a Black President would break this pattern? It seems willfully blind.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Barnard, @Jack D, @Currahee

    I thought that the one and only positive thing about Obama’s election would be a big STFU to negros; but that did not happen (of course).

  90. @Jack D
    @Dieter Kief

    Of course they have a reason. But "rational racism" is still racism. Picture that you are a black professional person. You would never mug a cab driver. But you still can't get a cab, solely due to your race. That's the very definition of racism - you are being judged solely by your race and not "the content of your character".

    Cab drivers today in NYC are mostly S. Asian but it wouldn't make any difference - the Ethiopian cab drivers in DC won't pick up young black males either.

    You are still missing the point - whether racism is rational or irrational, whether it is committed by immigrants or whites, it still exists and it is not only pointless but self-defeating to pretend that it doesn't exist. Every black person in America (and not just the deluded) would tell you that it exists and give you examples from their life - being followed around by store security, etc.

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population. That if blacks are performing less well in school, that black students are the ones that need to up their own game (if this is even genetically possible) and that it's not just a question of white people pouring more money into black schools or of spotting them extra points for their lower performance. Accepting that racism exists does not mean that the "cures" that have been adopted are the correct ones nor does it mean that the "cure" must come solely from other races - if blacks don't want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.

    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it's going to have to be on the down low and they won't be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that's part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs - the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials. If you make the whole admission process completely subjective, no one can touch your subjective judgments. Of course this doesn't work if the discriminated against are black (see disparate impact), but it may for other races.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Dieter Kief, @Calvin Hobbes, @frankie p

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population.

    It would be helpful for agreeable social relations if everyone understood there will be occasions where they will not be treated fairly and that for the most part the frictional costs of doing much about it or making much of it suggest to the prudent person that they usually benefit from writing it off and forgetting about it.

    You’re here chuffering about hailing cabs on the street, something almost never done by the 97% of the population who do not live in New York City. (My last attempt at this was in Baltimore in 1983). Your other complaint was that some random landlord was more likely to rent to a white applicant than a black applicant. A grand total of 0.55% of the black population are vagrants, so I don’t think finding a place to rent is an insuperable obstacle for blacks; blacks spend about 38.5% of their personal income on housing, as opposed to 34.5% for other racial categories. Since it’s a fundamental expenditure (though one sensitive to considerations of amenity), it’s not surprising they spend proportionately more on it as they are a less affluent population. For the same reason, it’s not surprising they’re less likely to be owner-occupiers (47%) than are others (69%). We all learned the hard way during the period running from 2003 to 2009 that there isn’t some untapped population for whom owner-occupied housing is suitable.

    And, no, none of this is ‘systemic’. It’s scattered, infrequent, almost furtive.

  91. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    I guess it depends what you mean by "systemic racism". If it means "institutional racism" then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants - if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions - if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be "racist", your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males - your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being "not racist".

    Denying that "systemic racism" exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves - go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of $ doesn't negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences - two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the "medicine" is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the "cure" doesn't work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Waylon Sisko, @Art Deco, @Dieter Kief, @Muggles, @houston 1992, @PhysicistDave, @Sam Malone

    Black cab drivers are probably even more discriminatory than non-Black cab drivers towards Blacks, So the racism charge is a weapon leveled against Whites. It often guilts them, delegtimatises them and their communities. The term institutional racism is not a good faith effort to describe or to try to resolve the problem, and no honest debate is allowed on the term’s origin, use, intent by the MSM. The term is a weapon.

    Jack, is it antisemitic for secular Jews to criticize the effects of Hasidic Jews on their zip codes?
    Can Whites not make an assessment on the net public policy direction that Jews have upon White , or formerly White societies? Can Whites not draw their own conclusions and note that what Jews advocate for Whites they would never advocate for themselves? You rate this noticing “anti semitic”.

    Jews have different personalities than Whites. Most of my interactions with your group are good and even great. I refer other gentiles to their services. But the most venomous anti-White experiences I have had have come form Jews. Their gloating of having “transformed” White America was a searing imprint in my memory. Similarly, when a gentile atheist picks Christianity the gloating tone has seemed lighter and less malicious than when Jews do it.

    When I was growing up there seemed. innumerable books analyzing the US failures in Vietnam and examined deeply the motives of LBJ, McNamara, JFK etc One does not see the same examination of the architects of the WOT fiascos Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, a deeper examination is circumscribed if not prohibited. There is no MASH equivalent on TV. In MASH the blow hard, incompetent WASP, Frank Burns, stands in for the WASP establishment mismanaging the war in Korea (Vietnam.)
    Would Jews permit the new “meritocratic: establishment to be identified and mocked over the WOT , or anything at all?

  92. @Jack D
    @Dieter Kief

    Of course they have a reason. But "rational racism" is still racism. Picture that you are a black professional person. You would never mug a cab driver. But you still can't get a cab, solely due to your race. That's the very definition of racism - you are being judged solely by your race and not "the content of your character".

    Cab drivers today in NYC are mostly S. Asian but it wouldn't make any difference - the Ethiopian cab drivers in DC won't pick up young black males either.

    You are still missing the point - whether racism is rational or irrational, whether it is committed by immigrants or whites, it still exists and it is not only pointless but self-defeating to pretend that it doesn't exist. Every black person in America (and not just the deluded) would tell you that it exists and give you examples from their life - being followed around by store security, etc.

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population. That if blacks are performing less well in school, that black students are the ones that need to up their own game (if this is even genetically possible) and that it's not just a question of white people pouring more money into black schools or of spotting them extra points for their lower performance. Accepting that racism exists does not mean that the "cures" that have been adopted are the correct ones nor does it mean that the "cure" must come solely from other races - if blacks don't want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.

    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it's going to have to be on the down low and they won't be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that's part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs - the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials. If you make the whole admission process completely subjective, no one can touch your subjective judgments. Of course this doesn't work if the discriminated against are black (see disparate impact), but it may for other races.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Dieter Kief, @Calvin Hobbes, @frankie p

    You apparently regard “rational racism” as immoral. You’re a smart guy, but that’s a stupid opinion, distressingly common even among otherwise intelligent people, but stupid nonetheless.

    You’ve probably read the Derb’s version of “The Talk”:

    The Talk: Nonblack Version

    https://www.takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/

    I think what Derbyshire wrote in his version of “The Talk” is just good sense and not immoral in any way. The one thing he writes there that I disagree with is:

    “ (13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.”

    I think that amulet is completely worthless. George Zimmerman, for example, had lots of black friends and went out of his way to help black people, but lots of blacks and leftists still wanted him dead after he killed Saint Skittles in self defense.

    When I Googled “Derbyshire The Talk”, the first hit was this willfully stupid piece of political correctness:

    The Talk: What Parents Tell Their Children About John Derbyshire

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/the-talk-what-parents-tell-their-children-about-john-derbyshire/255578/

  93. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    the lesson that they took from this was “Every office should be filled by blacks from now on.”

    Can you give me the name of someone who even suggested such a thing?

    Replies: @Muggles, @Jack D, @anon

    Kamala Harris.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    When and where?

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  94. @Jack D
    @eric

    It's easy to have the "appeasement" mentality. We are seeing it now with Putin - people say "just give him what he wants and he won't bother us any more". Of course that's not how it works - when the bully sees that his bullying tactics work, it just increases his appetite for another meal. The bully sees success as affirmation that his approach is fundamentally correct.

    Murray made the same mistake with Obama. Instead of the black community saying "we are grateful that you have answered our prayers and shown that you trust blacks enough to give us the highest office", the lesson that they took from this was "Every office should be filled by blacks from now on."

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Anonymous

    You’re using this topic to push the idea that we should go to war with Russia??

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    Jack D is a bright chap and always interesting to learn from - but he's (while not anywhere as bad) a bit like Wikipedia, which is fine for anything that's not politically contentious, but useless for anything that is.

    95% of topics he's sound. On Jews or Israel, he stands up for his people - fair enough, what else would he do?

    But on Russia, I always think that the galloping hooves of the Cossack Horde and the lash of the knout subliminally ring in his ears - an affliction he shares with half the State Department.

    China is by any rational measure a far greater challenge to the US, and one it shows little sign of wanting to meet. Russia is still recovering from its years under US tutelage, when the standard of living collapsed. It just wants to be left alone in security - something which the West just doesn't want to do.

    The Nuland ('Maidan') coup in 2014 Ukraine was a wake-up call for Russia* - it was obvious that the US, far from peaceful coexistence, was more into putting their weapons into every border state they could. No wonder they moved quickly to secure their only warm-water port, home of the Russian Navy for over 200 years.

    No Brit or American can blether about "no altering of borders by force" since Kosovo, when NATO, disposing of overwhelming force against a small country, basically sided with IRA-style ethnic cleansers to bomb Serbia into letting it go. It was as if we bombed Madrid in support of armed Basque separatists.

    We have no moral basis to make that argument any more - because we altered a sovereign country's borders by massive use of force.


    * they responded very quickly and effectively to the recent attempted Kazakh Maidan.

  95. @William Badwhite
    @Jack D


    That’s the very definition of racism – you are being judged solely by your race and not “the content of your character”.
     
    You've moved the goalposts. The OP was referring to "systemic racism", which does not exist. The idea that some invisible system exists, in which not just my founding stock Americans, but Irish, Italians, Jews, Polish, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians (7-11's, not casinos) and others can be successful, but blacks can not is absurd.

    "Being judged"...by a cabdriver is not "systemic". The instances you cite are individual decisions made by individual people and as you note, are generally for good reasons. "Racism" used to mean objecting to people solely because of their race. The "racism" you cite is people objecting to/seeking to avoid a pattern of behavior, and has nothing to do with skin color (if it did, cabdrivers would not stop for Indians).

    The rest of your post is spot on.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    Frank Herbert once said that prejudgment is wrong, but bias isn’t.

  96. I think the key takeaway for me is Charles Murray on the reaction to The Bell Curve.

    People didn’t read The Bell Curve even when it first came out… Were there responses I respected and of course the politic thing for me to say is, to be very serious, yes, there were… Well, it’s really hard for me to think of any that impressed me and there were some were written by very famous scholars that I just thought were pure “horse manure.” and others in which I thought they were knowingly lying, that these people were too smart and too well informed not to know that they were lying about what was in the book.

  97. Murray said that Hispanic drift towards R’s would accelerate if there were more candidates like Youngkin and fewer like Trump. Has he ever met any Hispanics? It’s wishful thinking to think that Hispanics would prefer a fleece-pullover PE investor over Trump. But you see a lot of people like Murray imputing their own preferences to Hispanics and blacks.

  98. Paywalled.

    Five bucks a month for this, ten bucks a month for that – I’m long past the point where I said enough already.

    I’d love to listen, but if it doesn’t come with what I already kick in during iSteve fund drives, I’ll just live without it.

    • Disagree: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @Calvin Hobbes
    @I, Libertine


    Paywalled
     
    Not paywalled. Do you think all the usual suspects here paid up? Try again.
  99. @Alfa158
    @Dieter Kief

    The guy with Ulysses needed to be in a more boring environment than an ocean liner. I once had occasion to be on a container ship for two weeks testing electronic systems, with pretty much no sources of entertainment or any real work to do but collect data. I have never spent that much time in a situation with no distractions or work to occupy my waking hours, so I plowed through Gravity’s Rainbow with time left over. I should have brought War and Peace.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @Dieter Kief

    Answer in No. 32

  100. @SafeNow
    @Reg Cæsar

    Okay okay, fair enough, Reg, it should be me, not myself. But I would like to repeat my defense and theory about Steve’s grammar lapses (which are actually quite infrequent). Steve has a loose brain, extracting all sorts of great analogies and comparisons and related bits of information out of the recesses of his mind. Grammar, on the other hand, is a constrained, rules-based mental state. My hypothesis is that you can’t be great at both at the same time, and we should be grateful for the loose brain. (I think neuroscientists call it “exuberant synapses”)

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Dieter Kief, @Reg Cæsar

    Answer in No. 12

  101. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Kamala Harris.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    When and where?

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Art Deco

    I don't think Jack means literally that Kamala said this. He means the very existence of Kamala as VP speaks to the expectation that Blacks always have to be represented at the very apex of American politics. This is, mutatis mutandis, repeated across the culture. 'Oscars so White', Beyonce needs to win more Grammys, etc. etc.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  102. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    Of course it [systemic racism against blacks] does.

    No, it does not. The system favors blacks to the point that any halfway-educated black man can write his own career ticket in whatever profession he chooses.

  103. @Almost Missouri
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship



    “I’m completely flummoxed by this whole thing” says Charles Murray.
     
    Yeah right. It’s the anti-White agenda and if he didn’t have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he’d see that. Everyone else does.
     
    Agree. For such a smart guy working on such a realist subject, Murray is awfully—almost militantly—naïve.

    He says, "I joined in the general feeling that maybe [with Obama's election] we'll be able to put an awful lot of this [race] stuff behind us."

    I'm not a famous Harvard/MIT sociologist, yet somehow it was obvious to me from day one that Obama was a pro-black anti-white racist with a corresponding agenda. Obama was smart enough to keep things vague initially, but once he reached his limit on won elections—i.e. 2013, then Obama's true nature became undeniable and Murray got suddenly surprised by this reality. Hey, great sociology dude, you were totally oblivious to the biggest sociological freight train heading straight toward you!

    Steve tries to clue Murray in by describing some of the roots of the 2013 and subsequent reality, but of course Murray isn't too interested in conceding that his worldview is obviously inadequate. Then to put the icing on his cake of obliviousness and condescension, Murray denounces anyone more realist than himself as "evil" "white supremacist" (without actually naming who these people are), followed by a little jag about how he is too noble and pure to think less of anyone simply because they have a lower IQ. This is a little rich coming from the guy who spent most of his life denying that Americans ought to prioritize fellow citizens over random foreigners, which would have been a very practical and constructive way of prioritizing something other than IQ, and someone who wrote a whole book (Curmudgeon's Guide to Getting Ahead) insisting that a bunch of things that are proxies for IQ are necessary and should be rewarded.

    So yeah, all in all Murray ends up being just another brick in the wall, which is a shame since his underlying quantitate sociology (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, Human Accomplishment, Coming Apart, Facing Reality) is actually very good.

    Replies: @Verymuchalive, @SunBakedSuburb, @Moses, @Hypnotoad666

    I don’t know much about Charles Murray other than he weekends at the Noah Cross Ranch with Steve. Badminton and watercress sandwiches three days straight. Murray complaining of flummox indicates a low protein level. I stopped by with a gallon of egg salad and variety packs of nuts courtesy of Mr. Peanut but was met at the gate by NCR security who warned the Catalina Sherriff had been called. I informed the security guard about Mr. Peanut’s monocle but still, no sale.

    • LOL: Dieter Kief
  104. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    Joyce was a consummate artist

  105. @Jack D
    @Dieter Kief

    Of course they have a reason. But "rational racism" is still racism. Picture that you are a black professional person. You would never mug a cab driver. But you still can't get a cab, solely due to your race. That's the very definition of racism - you are being judged solely by your race and not "the content of your character".

    Cab drivers today in NYC are mostly S. Asian but it wouldn't make any difference - the Ethiopian cab drivers in DC won't pick up young black males either.

    You are still missing the point - whether racism is rational or irrational, whether it is committed by immigrants or whites, it still exists and it is not only pointless but self-defeating to pretend that it doesn't exist. Every black person in America (and not just the deluded) would tell you that it exists and give you examples from their life - being followed around by store security, etc.

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population. That if blacks are performing less well in school, that black students are the ones that need to up their own game (if this is even genetically possible) and that it's not just a question of white people pouring more money into black schools or of spotting them extra points for their lower performance. Accepting that racism exists does not mean that the "cures" that have been adopted are the correct ones nor does it mean that the "cure" must come solely from other races - if blacks don't want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.

    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it's going to have to be on the down low and they won't be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that's part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs - the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials. If you make the whole admission process completely subjective, no one can touch your subjective judgments. Of course this doesn't work if the discriminated against are black (see disparate impact), but it may for other races.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Dieter Kief, @Calvin Hobbes, @frankie p

    if blacks don’t want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.

    Here you contradict your taxi-example. Seen from hat angle, it’s clear that as a social being nobody can live on its own. You are born into a group of people and you share the fate of that group here and there. If you would not want that, you’d have to try and live alone or – in some superficial (or special) environment (a recluse).

    The idividual, which is the basis of our juridical system and the basis of our moral universalism is (indeed, sigh) a social construct = something highly abstract (HIGHLY abstract).
    It is not easy to get these things straight outside of these (as I said: abstract (and rigorous) terms – and contexts = the Evening’s Empire’s long history…(see This Too a Histrory of Philosophy2019, by Jürgen Habermas). The old man goes through all these stories and customs and terms and – – – through all these ages from ancient Greece through classical Rome, medieval times,the renaissance, with glimpses at Asia and the Middle East and Egypt and northern Africa and – – – on to the UK and the US and on and on, Japan, China…. two volumes…. 700 000 words…).

    Inside the logic of this term individualism, one deviation is at the following junction, where we (some of us) understand, that the very nature of being an individual in the sense I sketched above, means at the same time to socialise. – And that includes to belong to groups: We don’t exist as indivials if we don’t live together with others. Being an indiviual alone – makes no sense (=is inexistent in the real world).
    So – in real life, we’re all people with a heritage and a social focus and for most people this is not least their racial group (see the data for interracial marriages).

    Barrack Obama (and Matt Taibbi at times too, who’s work I like a lot) speaks almost like a schizophrenic (in lots of emphatically brought forward non-sequiturs) when trying to bridge the gap between the two fundamentally different types of destiny a black and a white kid grow up with.

    Interlude

    Of course , destiny is taboo too. But real nonetheless. If I would have written a one-sentnce answer to the quote above, it could have been htese words: You try to get rid of the word 8the concept) of destinym which is a theoretically sound approach…

    On track again:

    Thing is. It looks as if it would be easier to eradicate social facts like the one you note in the quote above, because they are no hard facts like a rock – but just social facts.
    One of the sources for the self-deception that such an agument reflcts, lies in the illusion, that societal facts could be pushed aside more easily because they consist of nothing but language. This is a double-deception. Yes- these differences only show up in social interactions, but they are by no means less real than a rock or a lightning-stroke.

    Second self-deception: Because these differences are somehow attached to language (lots of aspects of this dynamic would indeed be impossible to grasp, without putting them in words – : – because this is indeed so, many people develop the illusion, these evils would go away, if they’d change the way we talk about them. The deception here is: These things become only visible while talking about them, and thus could be mastered by censoring the way we talk about them or by nudging poeple into the right way to talk about themvia internet-censorship and other kids of social pressure.

    This would only be a reasonable startegy, if our social lives would be nothing but speech/ written words, wich is an absurd idea. But it neverthless is one of the strongest ideas that there are today. Wokism is real. That’s right. But from this observation does not follow that wokism would be a) resonable. Or b) right. Unfortunatly neither a=) nor b). Just c) – a complete “Irrliecht diser Zeit” (Andreas Gryphius 1642) (erring light o’ our times- ignis fatuus).

    • Thanks: New Dealer
  106. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    Hey I give you props for understanding what Dieter Kief was trying to say. Has this commenter ever written a simple, declarative English sentence in his life? I wish he would write his stuff in German, and then translate directly into English and push “publish.” He might be readable that way.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @stillCARealist

    There is nothing wrong with Dieter's English translation. If you could listen to him in German, I'll bet you he sounds exactly the same. In fact, that is the problem. Different nationalities have different modes of thought so that it's hard for an English thinker to understand what a German thinker or a Chinese thinker is thinking. Even if the translation itself is perfect, the modes of thought are different. To an English thinker, German thought seems overly abstract and incomprehensible. To a German, English thought seems superficial and has childlike obviousness - the map is not the territory.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  107. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Robert Dolan


    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn't. The problem with the left is seeing systemic racism as the only issue, and proposing systemic racism against blacks be addressed by installing systemic racism against whites. (Who actually benefits from systemic racism against both blacks and whites? South Asians presumably.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @PhysicistDave, @angmoh, @Art Deco, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle, @Luke Lea, @Pincher Martin, @JimDandy

    “Murray pretends that ‘systemic racism’ exists. It doesn’t

    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn’t.”

    Ok, before I started calling you a moron, what it god’s name are you talking about?

    • LOL: northeast
  108. @I, Libertine
    Paywalled.

    Five bucks a month for this, ten bucks a month for that - I'm long past the point where I said enough already.

    I'd love to listen, but if it doesn't come with what I already kick in during iSteve fund drives, I'll just live without it.

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

    Paywalled

    Not paywalled. Do you think all the usual suspects here paid up? Try again.

  109. US/Nato is in Ukraine, Russia’s backyard, with troops and weapons cornering Russia and Putin is the bully. Insane.

  110. @Kronos
    I’m just about to go to bed and then you post something cool like this. Thanks Steve!

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldlan

    Now you’re going to bed with Charles Murray.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @Bardon Kaldlan

    Kronos: “Good night Charles”

    Charles: “Good night Kronos”

    Kronos: (*Sniff sniff,*) “Hey Charles what’s that smell?”

    Charles: That’s just Herrnstein under the bed.

    Kronos: “But didn’t he pass away like aroun— AHHH! A dead body!”

  111. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Listening to more of this podcast over lunch. Now, it's getting pretty funny - and sad.

    I can't believe that I once respected Murray. He's hilarious. Murray says that there really are "white supremist" groups out doing dastardly things and what's more they can't understand a simple bell curve and thus believe that there are no smart blacks.

    Jeez, this is embarrassing. Naturally, Murray won't list any names, just that they're out there, kind of like how systemic racism is just out there somewhere.

    Oh god, he used the term white supremist again. Oh man, it's hard to watch someone of his intellect do this. I mean, sure, there's probably some crazies out there, but what group of any size or influence is a white supremist group, Mr. Murray?

    I had to stop to listening for a minute. Steve, please tell me that you jumped in and tried to stop Murray from making a fool of himself.

    Started listening again and no better. Murray uses the phrase "Judeo-Christian." Lord, what happened to this guy.

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

    Oh god, he used the term white supremist again. Oh man, it’s hard to watch someone of his intellect do this. I mean, sure, there’s probably some crazies out there, but what group of any size or influence is a white supremist group, Mr. Murray?

    If you’re a guy who focuses on the x percent of the glass that’s full, then there’s a lot to admire about Murray. If you’re a guy who focuses on the (100 – x) percent of the glass that’s empty, then there’s a lot to dislike about Murray.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Calvin Hobbes

    Agree. Murray has done some very good work and has shown a lot of integrity.

    But his comments about white supremists are simply a lie and a dangerous lie at that. He deserves to be called out on them. And, frankly, Steve should have done that.

    Both of them should be ashamed.

  112. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    Lots of great writers have – always I”d hold, – been (here and there or – purposely and big style – like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt – – eh – that’s what I want to say
     
    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    I read Huck Finn because it actually seemed interesting and amusing. I know people who read Jane Austen for pleasure.

    But James Joyce?

    Anyone?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Dieter Kief, @thenon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @martin_2, @Emil Nikola Richard, @Meretricious, @stillCARealist, @kaganovitch

    Has anyone ever read Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

    The craze for Ulysses walking tours of Dublin, Leopold Bloom birthday celebrations, etc. bespeak genuine enthusiasm not cod liver oil consumption. That said,I’m with you , Ulysses leaves me cold.

  113. anon[215] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    the lesson that they took from this was “Every office should be filled by blacks from now on.”

    Can you give me the name of someone who even suggested such a thing?

    Replies: @Muggles, @Jack D, @anon

    I saved a 1996 article from the San Francisco Examiner about a visit to a black middle school by a Hastings law professor named Eva Patterson. Addressing the topic of Prop. 209, she told the kids, “they’re against affirmative action so you won’t be able to go to college and you won’t be able to eat and you’ll have to die.” Can you analogize from that?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @anon

    I don't think that's an analogous to saying that all elected offices should now be occupied by blacks. What you report she said is on the spectrum which runs from vicious mendacity to frank insanity, but it is a different thing from his assertion.

  114. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    When and where?

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    I don’t think Jack means literally that Kamala said this. He means the very existence of Kamala as VP speaks to the expectation that Blacks always have to be represented at the very apex of American politics. This is, mutatis mutandis, repeated across the culture. ‘Oscars so White’, Beyonce needs to win more Grammys, etc. etc.

    • Agree: Jack D, Muggles
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @kaganovitch

    He means the very existence of Kamala as VP speaks to the expectation that Blacks always have to be represented at the very apex of American politics.

    Not sure how she in particular speaks to that. Her ancestry is about 25% west African and 50% East Indian, she grew up in Toronto, her husband is Jewish, and she has no children.

    That aside, the mentality you're speaking of has been around for > 50 years, though it's much more prevalent than it used to be. A fairly stark example I can think of is the leftoid lawyer in Los Angeles who used to run the League of Ordinary Gentlemen / Ordinary Times site, yapping on and on about what a 'badass' Harriet Tubman was and how we ought to have her on the currency. That we've had a six digit population of combat veterans just as courageous as Harriet Tubman hardly occurred to him. That no one of note ever suggested we put Audie Murphy on the currency never occurred to him either. His opening premise was that we must have a dame / black on the currency and isn't she interesting. I don't think the tiresome Mr. Likko was inspired by Obama to think this way.

    Replies: @res, @kaganovitch

  115. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @PhysicistDave


    Has anyone ever read James Joyce for any reason except that they thought they were supposed to???

     

    I absolutely have done so. I reread 'The Dead', and a couple more of Joyce's superb short stories, not long ago.

    Don't try to read Ulysses. Read Dubliners.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    Doesn’t get much better than “The Dead”–and the style is very accessible.

  116. @Anonymous
    @Jack D

    You’re using this topic to push the idea that we should go to war with Russia??

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    Jack D is a bright chap and always interesting to learn from – but he’s (while not anywhere as bad) a bit like Wikipedia, which is fine for anything that’s not politically contentious, but useless for anything that is.

    95% of topics he’s sound. On Jews or Israel, he stands up for his people – fair enough, what else would he do?

    But on Russia, I always think that the galloping hooves of the Cossack Horde and the lash of the knout subliminally ring in his ears – an affliction he shares with half the State Department.

    China is by any rational measure a far greater challenge to the US, and one it shows little sign of wanting to meet. Russia is still recovering from its years under US tutelage, when the standard of living collapsed. It just wants to be left alone in security – something which the West just doesn’t want to do.

    The Nuland (‘Maidan’) coup in 2014 Ukraine was a wake-up call for Russia* – it was obvious that the US, far from peaceful coexistence, was more into putting their weapons into every border state they could. No wonder they moved quickly to secure their only warm-water port, home of the Russian Navy for over 200 years.

    No Brit or American can blether about “no altering of borders by force” since Kosovo, when NATO, disposing of overwhelming force against a small country, basically sided with IRA-style ethnic cleansers to bomb Serbia into letting it go. It was as if we bombed Madrid in support of armed Basque separatists.

    We have no moral basis to make that argument any more – because we altered a sovereign country’s borders by massive use of force.

    * they responded very quickly and effectively to the recent attempted Kazakh Maidan.

  117. @Jack D
    @Dieter Kief

    Of course they have a reason. But "rational racism" is still racism. Picture that you are a black professional person. You would never mug a cab driver. But you still can't get a cab, solely due to your race. That's the very definition of racism - you are being judged solely by your race and not "the content of your character".

    Cab drivers today in NYC are mostly S. Asian but it wouldn't make any difference - the Ethiopian cab drivers in DC won't pick up young black males either.

    You are still missing the point - whether racism is rational or irrational, whether it is committed by immigrants or whites, it still exists and it is not only pointless but self-defeating to pretend that it doesn't exist. Every black person in America (and not just the deluded) would tell you that it exists and give you examples from their life - being followed around by store security, etc.

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population. That if blacks are performing less well in school, that black students are the ones that need to up their own game (if this is even genetically possible) and that it's not just a question of white people pouring more money into black schools or of spotting them extra points for their lower performance. Accepting that racism exists does not mean that the "cures" that have been adopted are the correct ones nor does it mean that the "cure" must come solely from other races - if blacks don't want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.

    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it's going to have to be on the down low and they won't be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that's part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs - the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials. If you make the whole admission process completely subjective, no one can touch your subjective judgments. Of course this doesn't work if the discriminated against are black (see disparate impact), but it may for other races.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Dieter Kief, @Calvin Hobbes, @frankie p

    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it’s going to have to be on the down low and they won’t be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that’s part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs – the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials.

    Yeah, this time is going to be different from all the times before. I’ve been watching these affirmative action cases since Bakke, and the pattern is expressed in this cartoon clip:

    Maybe affirmative action will “lose”, but if so my expectation is that the ruling will be muddy enough so that, with some holistic creativity, the universities will be able to discriminate as much as they want.

  118. @angmoh
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Jumping in to support this point because people consistently misunderstand it (I assume because 'systemic racism' and similar concepts are so frequently deployed for progressive causes without a valid explanation of cause and effect).

    Murray makes a point that every mainstream person says they agree with: "IQ doesn't = human worth" - but in reality modern western society is literally set up so that IQ does in fact = worth to a decent extent and it's laughably naïve to go around saying the opposite. It is also laughable to pretend there is such a thing as objective reality in how social structures should be arranged.

    Disparate impact with the kind of clear differences you see in the USA is of course evidence that the system favours one ethnicity over another. Just because mainstream westerners have collectively decided that technological progress and modern-era European social mores are a good thing doesn't make that less true. HBD-aware people simply take those first principles to their logical conclusions with regards to IQ etc and conclude that 'oh well, too bad for the blacks' (after all it's the only game in town).

    On the right the above point is rarely acknowledged in polite society, even among HBD-aware people like Charles Murray. People are emotionally unable to permit themselves to make value judgements about the right of people and groups to exist in society on the basis of things like IQ differences, so they default to "no, it's fair goddammit". Admitting that it isn't, but you still don't want things to change, kind of makes you a 'white supremist' or at least a cognitive elitist. Richard Hanania is one of the few people I have read recently who is able to accept this premise and convey some of the policy implications in language that a relatively mainstream audience can engage with (ie not just directly appealing to ethnic interests).

    Elite leftist failure is to understand this point is funnier because it's the classic 'fish in water' problem - the importance of cognitive ability is so fundamental to worldview of the PMC+ class that I doubt they could genuinely engage with the logic required to propose a coherent set of proposals. Hence the quality of todays rhetoric and policy solutions from the mainstream left. Some more extremist leftist activists at least recognise that "equity" involves extracting fundamental concessions around how society should be set up - it wouldn't be just a pie-slicing exercise.

    Replies: @scrivener3, @Professional Slav, @The Last Real Calvinist

    IQ = human worth in modern western society? That is laughable.

    My father worked in a chemical factory running a machine that put labels on bottles and similar stuff. He was never fired for failure to work, never got drunk and beat people up, was never arrested, he was very honest (his co-workers had him hold and payout the cash for the various sports pools and paycheck lotteries they liked to participate in), he raised a family and devoted time to them, he went to church when my mother made him, he helped family with labor (never loans) he dedicated time to the moral education of his children. He didn’t feel sorry for himself when his health declined.

    I think he had a great deal of human worth. Higher IQ people can make more money in a free society because they can give more value to their fellow man but no one thinks the richest people are the best people in modern western society. When you have a free society people are able to live according to their lights and can ignore brainier people.

    • Agree: Professional Slav
    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @angmoh
    @scrivener3

    True and I agree IQ isn't all that matters. But it is IQ still highly correlated with income and wellbeing so our western system does in fact reward it as a trait, moreso than many other things.

    The other big correlate with success is conscientiousness, which your father appears to have had in spades. You could make a similar argument for many 'WEIRD' traits. They are also subject to ethnic differences.

    The point I was making isn't that IQ is the be all and end all. It was that reality places values on behaviours implicitly, and statements like Murray's are weasel words if your plan of action is to do nothing about it.

    , @very old statistician
    @scrivener3

    why did he refuse to help with loans?

  119. @SafeNow
    @Reg Cæsar

    Okay okay, fair enough, Reg, it should be me, not myself. But I would like to repeat my defense and theory about Steve’s grammar lapses (which are actually quite infrequent). Steve has a loose brain, extracting all sorts of great analogies and comparisons and related bits of information out of the recesses of his mind. Grammar, on the other hand, is a constrained, rules-based mental state. My hypothesis is that you can’t be great at both at the same time, and we should be grateful for the loose brain. (I think neuroscientists call it “exuberant synapses”)

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Dieter Kief, @Reg Cæsar

    Steve has a loose brain, extracting all sorts of great analogies and comparisons and related bits of information out of the recesses of his mind.

    This is very true. Mine is even looser, a kind of James Burke of commenting, finding connections between the most distant specimens. I’m not that good with the bricks, so it’s more efficient to concentrate on the mortar.

    Grammar, on the other hand, is a constrained, rules-based mental state.

    Whether or not myself is bad grammar– it might not be– it is bad style. The -self is just bloat. It’s redundant. Me already assumes -self. A non-native German-speaker here once pointed out that there is a lot of informal redundancy in that spoken language, e.g., durch die Wand durchdringen, approximately “penetrate through the wall”.

    For all its slovenly nature, English can be more strictly logical than Continental languages, most of which are fine with double and quadruple negatives, which logically negate the odd-number ones.

    Perhaps Napoleon was wrong; England (along with her daughters) is a nation of lawyers, not shopkeepers.

    • Replies: @SafeNow
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yes, Reg, your brain, like Steve’s, is quite loose on connections. I still remember how you plucked “Just walk away, Renee, I won’t be following you back home” out of the ether. Being ancient with a decent memory, I recognized the song reference instantly, no Googling needed; although I never would have thought it up myself. Stay loose!

  120. @J.Ross
    Powerline is consistently one of the best news blogs out there; I was under the impression they were too respectable for the guests but am delighted to be corrected.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    Powerline is consistently one of the best news blogs out there; I was under the impression they were too respectable for the guests but am delighted to be corrected.

    Minnesota Nice!

    John Hinderaker is now president of the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis, a classic example of the nice-neocon variety. Yes, they exist– Charles Murray, another one, has spoken there. I saw him there on Ben Franklin’s birthday. He was starting to look like Ben!

    It helps that they, like the Manhattan Institute, and the Mackinac Center and the Badger and McIver Institutes in neighboring states, concentrate on domestic issues, which was the core of the original neoconservatism.

    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @Reg Cæsar

    domestic issues, which was [sic] the core of the original neoconservatism.

    The original Neo-cons were anti-Communist leftists who switched parties when the rest of the left abandoned the Cold War during and after Vietnam. They were always pretty wet on domestic issues.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  121. @Whereismyhandle
    Rich boomer nationaliam by two guys who defend their cowardly decision to avoid the fight by claiming they're just too darn nice.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Rich boomer nationaliam [sic] by two guys who defend their cowardly decision to avoid the fight by claiming they’re just too darn nice.

    Murray is not a “boomer” (unless he served on a submarine), and Steve isn’t rich. (Though if he can afford a house in Studio City, he could afford a mansion in West Virginia; cf. Peter Brimelow.)

    Murray turned 18 in 1961 (about three weeks after Steve turned two), and would have been draft-eligible through the escalation in Vietnam. Presumably he had a student deferment the first few years, then the Peace Corps took him to peaceful Thailand. But the Army would always have been in the back of his mind; he wasn’t interested in them, but they were interested in him.

    Steve, of course, was born in those lucky 33 months for which men didn’t even have to register. They were the only American men born after some date in the 1870s who could say that.

    So their experience vis-à-vis “cowardice” will be quite different, due to those 16 years’ difference in age.

  122. @Calvin Hobbes
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Oh god, he used the term white supremist again. Oh man, it’s hard to watch someone of his intellect do this. I mean, sure, there’s probably some crazies out there, but what group of any size or influence is a white supremist group, Mr. Murray?
     
    If you’re a guy who focuses on the x percent of the glass that’s full, then there’s a lot to admire about Murray. If you’re a guy who focuses on the (100 - x) percent of the glass that’s empty, then there’s a lot to dislike about Murray.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Agree. Murray has done some very good work and has shown a lot of integrity.

    But his comments about white supremists are simply a lie and a dangerous lie at that. He deserves to be called out on them. And, frankly, Steve should have done that.

    Both of them should be ashamed.

  123. @Calvin Hobbes
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship


    Appropriate you chose a Black woman to salute Charles and Steve, since neither of them believe in racial loyalty.
     
    As for Murray, I agree with what Almost Missouri and eric wrote about him. He does not seem to be bothered by the real systemic racism in America, which is against whites, and ridiculously characterizes whites who express realistic opinions about blacks as “evil”. I don’t recall him ever expressing concern about America’s immigration disaster. I seem to recall him saying somewhere that he had a higher opinion of some group like hard-working illegals from Guatemala than of many fellow Americans. And, hey, Google just found this for me:

    Re: Charles Murray on Immigration
    By JOHN DERBYSHIRE
    December 13, 2006 2:16 PM

    Some readers have taken exception to Charles Murray’s point (which I declared my agreement with) that:

    “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.”
    END QUOTE

    The Derb explains that he agrees with Murray on this, but that immigration is mostly a question of NUMBERS, and that the American people ought to be able to say who and how many get in. The Derb has a link to “Charles’s other points” where Murray apparently says about the same, but that link does not work anymore. So maybe, if pressed, Murray will say reasonable things about immigration, but you have to press him pretty hard. On the plus side for Murray (as Almost Missouri points out), he has written some truly great quantitative sociology books. On balance, Steve (being a glass-half-full kinda guy) seems to have a high opinion of Murray.

    As for Steve, I don’t think he’d be more effective in fighting systemic anti-white racism if he came out as more explicitly white nationalist. He constantly points out instances of anti-white racism, and, since he’s not explicitly “white nationalist”, some people who are instinctively “goodwhite” (like, for example, Charles Murray) pay attention to what Steve says. I can’t think of any individual who is more effective at fighting anti-white racism than Steve.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @northeast

    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

    That quote from Charles Murray says a lot. It’s that mentality of a person who only cares about his personal convenience in life, not any overriding loyalty to his people.

    On the plus side for Murray (as Almost Missouri points out), he has written some truly great quantitative sociology books.

    Here’s the thing: who didn’t know Blacks, on average, weren’t as good at Algebra II? I think this was old news 500 years ago. So I don’t see it as a breakthrough contribution. It’s more like giving a detailed mathematical description of something everyone already knew.

    As for Steve, I don’t think he’d be more effective in fighting systemic anti-white racism if he came out as more explicitly white nationalist.

    I don’t think he’s “secretly” on the side of White people. He’s not playing it on the down-low so as to influence the Establishment. He’d like less rancor in the country, that’s all. More Nixonian slow surrender instead of confrontation and victory. Therefore, any actual pro-Whites need to realize his approach will get them to the same place the SPLC wants, just at a more leisurely, and (for him) more comfortable country club pace.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship


    ... a more leisurely, and (for him) more comfortable country club pace.
     
    He's gonna need a bigger flashlight.


    https://64.media.tumblr.com/de2a72dfcabbbe264d99bda048df2738/tumblr_nb8hyvnktq1qa70eyo3_500.gif
  124. @Calvin Hobbes
    @Altai


    Again, all this just seems to me to be a desire for African-American self-determination.
     
    Blacks don’t want “self-determination”. Blacks want whites to be their de facto slaves (at least for the next 400 years). When Steve first brought this up, I thought it was exaggeration, but when you pay attention to what blacks think they’re entitled to, it’s not exaggeration.

    Except in the short term, I don’t think the absurd demands that blacks make of whites are in the collective interest of blacks. Individually though, there are lots of blacks who are cashing in big-time on this CRT nonsense. Also, tribalism, stupidity, and lack of future-time orientation prevent all but a tiny number of blacks (John McWhorter being one of the few exceptions) from expressing disagreement with those absurd demands.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    On the wisdom of John McWhorter

    I was listening to his audio-taped lectures on linguistics, and he explained the Proto-Indo-European word snusos to mean sister-in-law.

    I looked it up online, and it is said to mean “daughter-in-law.”

    Sister-in-law, give me a break, Professor. The Indo-Europeans were said to be a strongly patriarchal society, and what does a patriarch need more than anything else? Wives for his sons, to propagate the patriarchal line. Daughters-in-law, as it were.

    Is the good professor so woke, so cucked, so modern, so isolated from the facts-on-the-ground-of-traditional Central-Asian society that he cannot intuit that daughter-in-law is an important word in the way sister-in-law is, meh?

    • Replies: @Calvin Hobbes
    @Inquiring Mind

    I didn’t say McWhorter is perfect. Maybe he screwed up on the meaning of snusos.
    But his writing on how anti-racism is our new state religion is great.

    https://www.examiner-enterprise.com/story/opinion/2021/12/18/against-religion-woke-anti-racism/8937504002/

  125. @Patrick McNally
    The thing that was missing from this was Obama's conflict with Netanyahu. In 2008, McCain campaigned on a pledge to invade Iran for the sake of Israel. Obama got elected in response to this, and his next 8 years were largely standing down Netanyahu's push for a war in Iran. Obama played the white/black racial card as a way of keeping Jewish voters close to him. Many Jews who would have exploded if a white Republican had fought with Netanyahu the way Obama did were willing to go soft with Obama as long as he played the white/black racial card. That accounts for a lot of the queries about 2013.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Hibernian

    In 2008, McCain campaigned on a pledge to invade Iran for the sake of Israel.

    When did he advocate that.

    Obama got elected in response to this,

    You’re projecting. Almost no one cast a ballot on this basis.

    and his next 8 years were largely standing down Netanyahu’s push for a war in Iran. Obama played the white/black racial card as a way of keeping Jewish voters close to him.

    Non sequitur.

    Many Jews who would have exploded if a white Republican had fought with Netanyahu the way Obama did were willing to go soft with Obama as long as he played the white/black racial card.

    In your imagination only.

    Inventive daisy chain to blame Israel for everything.

    • Replies: @houston 1992
    @Art Deco

    One can easily find McCain humming bomb , bomb Iran to the old Beach Boys tune.....
    Upon being challenged, and alerted to the how quickly the YouTube video of his remarks reached 744K counts, McCain remained defiant and compared threatening Iran to calling an unruly teenager a jerk.

    see below link
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeThckstKNE

    McCain also spoke about a 100-year WOT.

    At least, some ppl I know voted for Obama because he seemed anti war during the campaign. And McCain seemed insane.

    Almost everyone I know acknowledges that the War Party is far from ethnically homogenous.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Houston is obviously (greatly) overstating his case but I don't think it is unfair to say that Obama's blackness (indeed the non-whiteness of any NAM politician) combined with his Leftism gave him cover to be slightly less friendly to Israel than a white right wing politician .

    If a white politician says anything bad about Israel he can be accused of being anti-Semitic but every "knows" that blacks are incapable of racism because they are themselves oppressed minorities - racism can only come from a place of privilege (and who is less privileged than POTUS?).

    In the US, a non-white can express solidarity with the Palestinians as fellow oppressed 3rd world people without being called "anti-Semitic". In the UK, Leftist white politicians have some space to do the same but in the US the dynamics of the Democrat Left are such that Ilhan Omar can say stuff that a white male Dem. congressman could not.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  126. @stillCARealist
    @PhysicistDave

    Hey I give you props for understanding what Dieter Kief was trying to say. Has this commenter ever written a simple, declarative English sentence in his life? I wish he would write his stuff in German, and then translate directly into English and push "publish." He might be readable that way.

    Replies: @Jack D

    There is nothing wrong with Dieter’s English translation. If you could listen to him in German, I’ll bet you he sounds exactly the same. In fact, that is the problem. Different nationalities have different modes of thought so that it’s hard for an English thinker to understand what a German thinker or a Chinese thinker is thinking. Even if the translation itself is perfect, the modes of thought are different. To an English thinker, German thought seems overly abstract and incomprehensible. To a German, English thought seems superficial and has childlike obviousness – the map is not the territory.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Jack D


    If you could listen to him in German, I’ll bet you he sounds exactly the same.
     
    That was Old Palo Altans a-ha! - moment, when he discovered this. - And he could see it, because I did send him some of my German texts after we had become a little bit more known to each other.
    He even said it once pretty much with the same words as you do...

    (I miss the old man's dry and well thought through (well most of the time, - as long as he could steer clear of Pope Francis and the like...the reform-Catholics: They were too much for him!) comments! - I so much (!) hope he is doing well! - Maybe in the Grand Chartreuse? - - - He mentioned once contemplating to go there. )
  127. @angmoh
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Jumping in to support this point because people consistently misunderstand it (I assume because 'systemic racism' and similar concepts are so frequently deployed for progressive causes without a valid explanation of cause and effect).

    Murray makes a point that every mainstream person says they agree with: "IQ doesn't = human worth" - but in reality modern western society is literally set up so that IQ does in fact = worth to a decent extent and it's laughably naïve to go around saying the opposite. It is also laughable to pretend there is such a thing as objective reality in how social structures should be arranged.

    Disparate impact with the kind of clear differences you see in the USA is of course evidence that the system favours one ethnicity over another. Just because mainstream westerners have collectively decided that technological progress and modern-era European social mores are a good thing doesn't make that less true. HBD-aware people simply take those first principles to their logical conclusions with regards to IQ etc and conclude that 'oh well, too bad for the blacks' (after all it's the only game in town).

    On the right the above point is rarely acknowledged in polite society, even among HBD-aware people like Charles Murray. People are emotionally unable to permit themselves to make value judgements about the right of people and groups to exist in society on the basis of things like IQ differences, so they default to "no, it's fair goddammit". Admitting that it isn't, but you still don't want things to change, kind of makes you a 'white supremist' or at least a cognitive elitist. Richard Hanania is one of the few people I have read recently who is able to accept this premise and convey some of the policy implications in language that a relatively mainstream audience can engage with (ie not just directly appealing to ethnic interests).

    Elite leftist failure is to understand this point is funnier because it's the classic 'fish in water' problem - the importance of cognitive ability is so fundamental to worldview of the PMC+ class that I doubt they could genuinely engage with the logic required to propose a coherent set of proposals. Hence the quality of todays rhetoric and policy solutions from the mainstream left. Some more extremist leftist activists at least recognise that "equity" involves extracting fundamental concessions around how society should be set up - it wouldn't be just a pie-slicing exercise.

    Replies: @scrivener3, @Professional Slav, @The Last Real Calvinist

    Just because mainstream westerners have collectively decided that technological progress and modern-era European social mores are a good thing doesn’t make that less true. HBD-aware people simply take those first principles to their logical conclusions

    It’s not just mainstream westerners collectively deciding this, it’s the entire world. Hence mass migration is only happening one way.
    You’re making a culturally relativist argument that doesn’t mirror reality.

    • Replies: @angmoh
    @Professional Slav

    I'm not really making a culturally relativist argument. I'm pointing out the existence of revealed preferences, in other societies the equilibrium lands in a different spot. As an example: I'd prefer to be a billionaire, but my preferred behaviours aren't compatible with that goal. My revealed preference is not to be a billionaire.

  128. @Zero Philosopher
    Off-topic, but extremely important: A simple chip that is implanted under your skin, and a quick way to prove that you have taken your mandatory shots. Dr. Anthony Fauci believes that it is very important to keep track that all people are up-do-date on their mandatory vaccines:
    https://youtu.be/EpFRcv7_fbk

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Mark G., @Jack D

    This is obviously not going to fly. People are afraid of such Big Brotherish inventions (even though pet dogs have had chips for decades) and they are not really necessary. For more important things than this, we have paper passports or drivers licenses or fingerprints or facial recognition, none of which require implanting something in your body.

    It is amazingly lame that the best that the US government could do for proof of vaccination was an easily forged index card (not even the right size to carry in your wallet) but that doesn’t mean that we have to go to the other extreme and start chipping people.

  129. @anon
    @Art Deco

    I saved a 1996 article from the San Francisco Examiner about a visit to a black middle school by a Hastings law professor named Eva Patterson. Addressing the topic of Prop. 209, she told the kids, "they're against affirmative action so you won't be able to go to college and you won't be able to eat and you'll have to die." Can you analogize from that?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I don’t think that’s an analogous to saying that all elected offices should now be occupied by blacks. What you report she said is on the spectrum which runs from vicious mendacity to frank insanity, but it is a different thing from his assertion.

  130. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jack D

    Very clever - or is using that term anti-Semitic. ;)

    Your definition of "systemic racism" is basically the same as common sense. However, you know very well that the term system racism - as commonly understood - implies unfair systemic racism, yet you use the term in its more literal sense and thus mislead the reader. Again, clever.

    Yes, there is systemic racism against blacks based on the behavior of blacks as a group. That makes sense. If blacks are 7 times more likely to commit a violent crime and I see a group of blacks walking down the street, I'd be insane to not use that knowledge.

    Are you arguing that I shouldn't? And if not, what's your point exactly?

    Same with Jews. Members of your tribe are causing all kinds of problems at astonishingly high per capita rates. Should I just ignore that?

    If law-abiding blacks don't want whites to fear them, they should reign in blacks causing whites to correctly think that they way. The same goes for Jews.

    Of course, maybe you belong to the colorblind civic nationalist crowd and thus don't believe any of us should lump people together by race or religion. If so, perhaps you should wonder why your Citizenism has been such an abject failure for more than half a century and why your cousins in Israel are so successful with their loyalty to tribe and with their belief in ethno-nationalism - at least when it comes to Jews.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Jack D has a lot on his plate. He’s trying to get America to “stand up” to Putin!

    I notice Bill Kristol had a friendly sit down talk with Charles Murray a few years back. Jonah Goldberg is still in his orbit of friends. Gosh, it’s as if all this HBD stuff was a deliberate time wasting strategy to derail White energy from addressing real issues!

    No, I don’t think they plan this out decades in advance, it’s just the natural instinct of those who want White activism aborted.

    The irony is that Charles Murray and Steve Sailer imagine themselves above the passionate masses who would deal in such “crude” things as good vs evil. Yet they are the pets of those who most definitely believe in destroying what they view as evil.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Yep, Murray is basically a compliant house ------, but he's so full of himself that he doesn't notice.

    Btw, I don't live that far from Murray. His whole shtick about living in "rural" Maryland is BS. He lives very close to vineyards and cute towns. He's not playing cornhole with truck-driving buddies.

    In another odd coincidence, I didn't grow up that far from Murray. I know him. I've known people like him all my life. (Oddly, Steve, even though he's a SoCal guy, reminds me so much of Midwest people.)

    Murray is Midwest nice. They're a special breed. Let's just say that they love a pat on head from whoever is in charge more than any group on the planet. Murray would literally rather die than not be accepted into polite society.

    That Murray can't understand love of one's own people is a serious indictment against him. That Murray is fine with other groups having a love of their own people but chastising whites for the same thing is inexcusable.

    Same goes for Sailer.

    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?

    These are not serious men.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @IHTG, @Almost Missouri

  131. @kaganovitch
    @Art Deco

    I don't think Jack means literally that Kamala said this. He means the very existence of Kamala as VP speaks to the expectation that Blacks always have to be represented at the very apex of American politics. This is, mutatis mutandis, repeated across the culture. 'Oscars so White', Beyonce needs to win more Grammys, etc. etc.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    He means the very existence of Kamala as VP speaks to the expectation that Blacks always have to be represented at the very apex of American politics.

    Not sure how she in particular speaks to that. Her ancestry is about 25% west African and 50% East Indian, she grew up in Toronto, her husband is Jewish, and she has no children.

    That aside, the mentality you’re speaking of has been around for > 50 years, though it’s much more prevalent than it used to be. A fairly stark example I can think of is the leftoid lawyer in Los Angeles who used to run the League of Ordinary Gentlemen / Ordinary Times site, yapping on and on about what a ‘badass’ Harriet Tubman was and how we ought to have her on the currency. That we’ve had a six digit population of combat veterans just as courageous as Harriet Tubman hardly occurred to him. That no one of note ever suggested we put Audie Murphy on the currency never occurred to him either. His opening premise was that we must have a dame / black on the currency and isn’t she interesting. I don’t think the tiresome Mr. Likko was inspired by Obama to think this way.

    • Replies: @res
    @Art Deco


    Not sure how she in particular speaks to that.
     
    Are you honestly claiming that Kamala is not seen as a representative of blacks in the VP slot? Did you miss the whole production about Biden needing to pick a "black woman" as VP?

    Replies: @Clyde

    , @kaganovitch
    @Art Deco

    Not sure how she in particular speaks to that. Her ancestry is about 25% west African and 50% East Indian, she grew up in Toronto, her husband is Jewish, and she has no children.

    You're right about her ancestry, but such is the power of Blackness even when largely imaginary. Do you think Biden or what passes for his brain trust chose Harris for her Desi background? It was her Blackness - such as it is - that made her viable in their eyes. Unless you think it was the wisdom she imbibed from the 'elders' during those long ago Kwanzaas that did the trick?

  132. @Jack D
    @Dieter Kief

    Of course they have a reason. But "rational racism" is still racism. Picture that you are a black professional person. You would never mug a cab driver. But you still can't get a cab, solely due to your race. That's the very definition of racism - you are being judged solely by your race and not "the content of your character".

    Cab drivers today in NYC are mostly S. Asian but it wouldn't make any difference - the Ethiopian cab drivers in DC won't pick up young black males either.

    You are still missing the point - whether racism is rational or irrational, whether it is committed by immigrants or whites, it still exists and it is not only pointless but self-defeating to pretend that it doesn't exist. Every black person in America (and not just the deluded) would tell you that it exists and give you examples from their life - being followed around by store security, etc.

    Given that it exists, the real question is what is the SOLUTION to racism? Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population. That if blacks are performing less well in school, that black students are the ones that need to up their own game (if this is even genetically possible) and that it's not just a question of white people pouring more money into black schools or of spotting them extra points for their lower performance. Accepting that racism exists does not mean that the "cures" that have been adopted are the correct ones nor does it mean that the "cure" must come solely from other races - if blacks don't want to be subject to stereotypical treatment, then they need to work on having their brothers stop behaving in a stereotypical way. The onus cannot be 100% on others. Blacks have to acknowledge that they have agency and are not merely victims.

    BTW, the Supreme Court today decided to take a new affirmative action case. Given the composition of the court, I predict that affirmative action is going to lose this time. Of course the universities will still practice it anyway, in a back door sort of way, but it's going to have to be on the down low and they won't be able to admit anymore that they are doing it. The people at Harvard probably saw this coming and that's part of the reason they are getting rid of the SATs - the less objective data they have, the less they can be accused of discriminating against people with objectively better credentials. If you make the whole admission process completely subjective, no one can touch your subjective judgments. Of course this doesn't work if the discriminated against are black (see disparate impact), but it may for other races.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Dieter Kief, @Calvin Hobbes, @frankie p

    “Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population.”

    This is for you:

    Jews need to understand that even if antisemitism is morally wrong, it is (and always has been) still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the Jewish population.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @frankie p

    In Jewish culture, there is something called a"schande far di goyim" - a disgrace in front of the non-Jews, someone who makes Jews look bad (e.g. Bernie Madoff). Needless to say, doing so does not gain you popularity in the Jewish community.

    AFAIK, there is no equivalent concept among blacks. No matter what depraved things a black person does, he is not shunned by other blacks.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that Jewish bad behavior doesn't usually consist of cold blooded robbery and murder:

    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-homicides-20220124-dtv6dkwlije5jfzk7jq3zbllc4-story.html

    What are the chances that the men who killed these two innocent white people are black vs that they are Jewish? 1,000 to 1? 10,000 to 1?

    Replies: @We, @David In TN

  133. OT. I do not have access to live NFL playoff games, but the recaps can be GREAT ! For example:

    Only about 17 minutes, and I’m sure lots of stuff is left out, but there’s a lot to be said in favor of 17 minutes of intense play, versus 3 hours (or whatever) of mostly standing-around time, with commercials.

    • Replies: @Calvin Hobbes
    @Calvin Hobbes

    Again, OT. This is also a great 20 minutes:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq3K2weNdhA

    Rams kicking the butts of the Buccaneers all game, but somehow old man Brady and the Bucs tie it with 42 seconds left in the 4th quarter, and then the Rams win it on a field goal.

    Possibly Methuselah Brady’s last game.

  134. @Mark G.
    @Zero Philosopher


    Off-topic, but extremely important: A simple chip that is implanted under your skin, and a quick way to prove that you have taken your mandatory shots.
     
    What's the point of mandating that people get Covid shots when the shots don't keep people from getting or transmitting Covid? Recent British, Danish and German studies show the vaccinated get the Omicron variant at the same rate as the unvaccinated. Those studies just verify what everyone can see with their own eyes by looking at the skyrocketing cases this winter.

    With little societal benefit of reduced transmission, the only reason to get vaccinated is the individual benefit of reduced deaths. Even here, a risk-benefit analysis would likely show this is only a good idea for older people over 60 who are in a higher risk category. For younger people, on the risk side is possible myocarditis, blood clots and unknown future negative side effects from repeated boosters. On the benefit side, 99.7% of people under sixty already survive Covid so a vaccine would only have a small effect.

    The small risk for young people could be reduced with early treatment programs instead of shots. A new peer reviewed Brazilian study shows a 50% reduction in hospitalizations and 70% reduction in deaths when Ivermectin is used in treating Covid. The Indian state of Uttar Pradesh had much lower rates of Covid hospitalizations and deaths than neighboring states by passing out packets with Ivermectin, Doxycycline, vitamin D and Zinc. The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association studied their success and then recommended everyone in Japan be given a similar packet. Dr. George Fareed and Dr. Brian Tyson used the same protocol, adding HCQ and steroids. Out of seven thousand patients, only three died overall and none died when treatment was started within seven days of the onset of the disease. Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory also had good success rates with early treatment protocols like this. Dr. McCullough thinks deaths could have been reduced 85% if such protocols had been widely adopted and Dr. Kory thinks 500,000 lives could have been saved using them.

    Replies: @HA, @Burnett, @NOTA

    “With little societal benefit of reduced transmission, the only reason to get vaccinated is the individual benefit of reduced deaths.”

    No, there is also the fact that since the vaxxed are less likely to go to the hospital (I can see why you yourself have trouble remembering that) and have fewer days in which they’re transmitting, so that they are less likely to clog the ICU’s and less likely to transmit the disease.

    …vaccinated people clear the virus faster, with lower levels of virus overall, and have less time with very high levels of virus present.

    Therefore, vaccinated people are, on average, likely to be less contagious.

    Not sure why any of this is relevant to a thread about Steve talking with Charles Murray, but I suspect you and your fellow truthers’ desperate need to keep bringing up COVID in unrelated threads is somehow connected to your misgivings about having foolishly wound up in a hospital with COVID — apparently complaining all the while that the treatment you got there wasn’t tailored to your specific needs and your own nonexistent medical expertise — and all because you foolishly refused a vaccine that could have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.

    In any case, if you’re going to keep trying to derail every thread, be aware that it gives those who recognize what you’re doing the opportunity of pointing all that out. And hey, if you ever decide to pass on derailing yet another thread, just know for the record that that would be a-OK with me.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @HA

    The ICU‘s are not clogged. Nurses are making TikTok videos. Please stop with this hysteria.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @HA

    , @Sam Malone
    @HA

    He was out-front in acknowledging that his comment was off topic, but it does touch on one of the big issues of the day, and I don't recall this person attempting to "derail" other threads, so it's somewhat churlish of you to repeatedly harass him on that point.

    I have to say that while you clearly know a lot about these medical matters and your contributions here have been quite welcome, a vituperative and emotional element has become prominent in your comments which is really off-putting to people like myself who are triple vaxxed but against the mandates and open to rational questioning of the vaccines. You've no doubt grown exasperated by all the irrational criticism of the vaccines, but you do a disservice to yourself and your viewpoint when you let it show so clearly.

    Replies: @HA

  135. @Patrick McNally
    The thing that was missing from this was Obama's conflict with Netanyahu. In 2008, McCain campaigned on a pledge to invade Iran for the sake of Israel. Obama got elected in response to this, and his next 8 years were largely standing down Netanyahu's push for a war in Iran. Obama played the white/black racial card as a way of keeping Jewish voters close to him. Many Jews who would have exploded if a white Republican had fought with Netanyahu the way Obama did were willing to go soft with Obama as long as he played the white/black racial card. That accounts for a lot of the queries about 2013.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Hibernian

    Obama got elected in response to this…

    He got elected in response to the economic crisis and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  136. @HA
    @Mark G.

    "With little societal benefit of reduced transmission, the only reason to get vaccinated is the individual benefit of reduced deaths."

    No, there is also the fact that since the vaxxed are less likely to go to the hospital (I can see why you yourself have trouble remembering that) and have fewer days in which they’re transmitting, so that they are less likely to clog the ICU's and less likely to transmit the disease.


    …vaccinated people clear the virus faster, with lower levels of virus overall, and have less time with very high levels of virus present.

    Therefore, vaccinated people are, on average, likely to be less contagious.
     

    Not sure why any of this is relevant to a thread about Steve talking with Charles Murray, but I suspect you and your fellow truthers' desperate need to keep bringing up COVID in unrelated threads is somehow connected to your misgivings about having foolishly wound up in a hospital with COVID -- apparently complaining all the while that the treatment you got there wasn't tailored to your specific needs and your own nonexistent medical expertise -- and all because you foolishly refused a vaccine that could have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.

    In any case, if you're going to keep trying to derail every thread, be aware that it gives those who recognize what you're doing the opportunity of pointing all that out. And hey, if you ever decide to pass on derailing yet another thread, just know for the record that that would be a-OK with me.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Sam Malone

    The ICU‘s are not clogged. Nurses are making TikTok videos. Please stop with this hysteria.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    The non-ICU parts of the hospitals are busy with omicron patients, but the ICUs less so.

    Replies: @Marquis, @Chrisnonymous, @Brutusale

    , @HA
    @Anonymous

    "The ICU‘s are not clogged. Nurses are making TikTok videos. Please stop with this hysteria."

    Is this the follow-up to the "hospitals are empty except for crisis actors!" meme that was floating around a year and a half ago?

    Sorry to disillusion you, but plenty of ICU's are getting clogged, not just by running out of beds, but by being short-staffed or else manned with workers pulling in way too many hours to be genuinely productive, because those same ICU's are now overpacked with contagious morons who force other vulnerable and immunocompromised people to delay treatment that is not nearly as easily preventable as COVID. And that kind of dangerous high-stress months-long overload can occur long before the beds are completely maxxed out. Granted, some of those people who choose to stay away out of a fear of catching something probably SHOULD be going to the ICU's, and in those cases you're right that hysteria is getting the better of them. But being able to err on both sides of assessing a given hazard doesn't change the fact that in this case, the hazard should be a lot less prevalent than it is.

    Plenty of people choose not to get their COVID news by way of TikTok videos. Maybe it's time you consider joining them.


    In Bellville, TX, Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

    Wilkinson's house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on Aug. 22 at age 46. [But hey, that can't be correct because some anonymous loon on iSteve told me this was just a TikTok conspiracy, am I right?]

    Kakli said, "I've never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever....

    Also in Texas earlier this month, Joe Valdez, a bystander shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

    Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge...[So yeah, you got a point there, but were it not for their foolish reluctance, the ICU's would be even more packed.]
     

  137. @Calvin Hobbes
    OT. I do not have access to live NFL playoff games, but the recaps can be GREAT ! For example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1dp2ZKi0cc

    Only about 17 minutes, and I’m sure lots of stuff is left out, but there’s a lot to be said in favor of 17 minutes of intense play, versus 3 hours (or whatever) of mostly standing-around time, with commercials.

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

    Again, OT. This is also a great 20 minutes:

    Rams kicking the butts of the Buccaneers all game, but somehow old man Brady and the Bucs tie it with 42 seconds left in the 4th quarter, and then the Rams win it on a field goal.

    Possibly Methuselah Brady’s last game.

  138. @Calvin Hobbes
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship


    Appropriate you chose a Black woman to salute Charles and Steve, since neither of them believe in racial loyalty.
     
    As for Murray, I agree with what Almost Missouri and eric wrote about him. He does not seem to be bothered by the real systemic racism in America, which is against whites, and ridiculously characterizes whites who express realistic opinions about blacks as “evil”. I don’t recall him ever expressing concern about America’s immigration disaster. I seem to recall him saying somewhere that he had a higher opinion of some group like hard-working illegals from Guatemala than of many fellow Americans. And, hey, Google just found this for me:

    Re: Charles Murray on Immigration
    By JOHN DERBYSHIRE
    December 13, 2006 2:16 PM

    Some readers have taken exception to Charles Murray’s point (which I declared my agreement with) that:

    “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.”
    END QUOTE

    The Derb explains that he agrees with Murray on this, but that immigration is mostly a question of NUMBERS, and that the American people ought to be able to say who and how many get in. The Derb has a link to “Charles’s other points” where Murray apparently says about the same, but that link does not work anymore. So maybe, if pressed, Murray will say reasonable things about immigration, but you have to press him pretty hard. On the plus side for Murray (as Almost Missouri points out), he has written some truly great quantitative sociology books. On balance, Steve (being a glass-half-full kinda guy) seems to have a high opinion of Murray.

    As for Steve, I don’t think he’d be more effective in fighting systemic anti-white racism if he came out as more explicitly white nationalist. He constantly points out instances of anti-white racism, and, since he’s not explicitly “white nationalist”, some people who are instinctively “goodwhite” (like, for example, Charles Murray) pay attention to what Steve says. I can’t think of any individual who is more effective at fighting anti-white racism than Steve.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @northeast

    Yup…those two were mercilessly exposed for this inane quote by the late Lawrence Auster.

  139. @Inquiring Mind
    @Calvin Hobbes

    On the wisdom of John McWhorter

    I was listening to his audio-taped lectures on linguistics, and he explained the Proto-Indo-European word snusos to mean sister-in-law.

    I looked it up online, and it is said to mean "daughter-in-law."

    Sister-in-law, give me a break, Professor. The Indo-Europeans were said to be a strongly patriarchal society, and what does a patriarch need more than anything else? Wives for his sons, to propagate the patriarchal line. Daughters-in-law, as it were.

    Is the good professor so woke, so cucked, so modern, so isolated from the facts-on-the-ground-of-traditional Central-Asian society that he cannot intuit that daughter-in-law is an important word in the way sister-in-law is, meh?

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

    I didn’t say McWhorter is perfect. Maybe he screwed up on the meaning of snusos.
    But his writing on how anti-racism is our new state religion is great.

    https://www.examiner-enterprise.com/story/opinion/2021/12/18/against-religion-woke-anti-racism/8937504002/

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Thanks: Inquiring Mind
  140. @Anonymous
    @HA

    The ICU‘s are not clogged. Nurses are making TikTok videos. Please stop with this hysteria.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @HA

    The non-ICU parts of the hospitals are busy with omicron patients, but the ICUs less so.

    • Replies: @Marquis
    @Steve Sailer

    They’re really not. Even Fauci has admitted that most of the hospital cases are “with” not “of.” You’re good at analyzing societal data. You’re not as good at parsing out dirty, and likely purposely falsified, data.

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    I got COVID. I was isolated in a hotel. The Japanese government took some big tourist hotels now empty due to travel restrictions and made them into isolation centers. You go there and stay out your isolation period. They serve meals twice a day that you pick up at the elevator lobby. You monitor yourself and send the data to a nurse remotely. Guessing maybe 300-500 people in this place with one consulting doctor and a couple nurses.

    I think the vaccines were a good thing for older and at-risk people, but I didn't get vaccinated. It's been pretty uneventful for me.

    There's at least one website that does hospital bed tracking in the USA. Data, not HA's cherry-picked news articles that he keeps recycling even when they're a half-year old.

    Replies: @HA

    , @Brutusale
    @Steve Sailer

    My girlfriend's ED has been full of asymptomatic people who tested positive on a home test and immediately hightailed it to the hospital.

    Massachusetts has 2,500 ICU beds. According to the Boston Globe, there are currently 433 patients in ICU beds.

  141. @angmoh
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Jumping in to support this point because people consistently misunderstand it (I assume because 'systemic racism' and similar concepts are so frequently deployed for progressive causes without a valid explanation of cause and effect).

    Murray makes a point that every mainstream person says they agree with: "IQ doesn't = human worth" - but in reality modern western society is literally set up so that IQ does in fact = worth to a decent extent and it's laughably naïve to go around saying the opposite. It is also laughable to pretend there is such a thing as objective reality in how social structures should be arranged.

    Disparate impact with the kind of clear differences you see in the USA is of course evidence that the system favours one ethnicity over another. Just because mainstream westerners have collectively decided that technological progress and modern-era European social mores are a good thing doesn't make that less true. HBD-aware people simply take those first principles to their logical conclusions with regards to IQ etc and conclude that 'oh well, too bad for the blacks' (after all it's the only game in town).

    On the right the above point is rarely acknowledged in polite society, even among HBD-aware people like Charles Murray. People are emotionally unable to permit themselves to make value judgements about the right of people and groups to exist in society on the basis of things like IQ differences, so they default to "no, it's fair goddammit". Admitting that it isn't, but you still don't want things to change, kind of makes you a 'white supremist' or at least a cognitive elitist. Richard Hanania is one of the few people I have read recently who is able to accept this premise and convey some of the policy implications in language that a relatively mainstream audience can engage with (ie not just directly appealing to ethnic interests).

    Elite leftist failure is to understand this point is funnier because it's the classic 'fish in water' problem - the importance of cognitive ability is so fundamental to worldview of the PMC+ class that I doubt they could genuinely engage with the logic required to propose a coherent set of proposals. Hence the quality of todays rhetoric and policy solutions from the mainstream left. Some more extremist leftist activists at least recognise that "equity" involves extracting fundamental concessions around how society should be set up - it wouldn't be just a pie-slicing exercise.

    Replies: @scrivener3, @Professional Slav, @The Last Real Calvinist

    Murray makes a point that every mainstream person says they agree with: “IQ doesn’t = human worth” – but in reality modern western society is literally set up so that IQ does in fact = worth to a decent extent and it’s laughably naïve to go around saying the opposite. It is also laughable to pretend there is such a thing as objective reality in how social structures should be arranged.

    Murry is a nice Iowa ur-boomer who cannot grok the post-Christian west. His worldview is suffused with the fading rosy glow still emitted by the bonfire on which Christendom’s immense store of cultural capital has been unceremoniously tossed.

    The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop. In orthodox Christian anthropology, all people are made in the image of God; all are sinners who fall short of God’s glory; all are capable (if not chosen, but that’s another post) of redemption and of becoming sons and daughters of God.

    St Paul deals crisply with the question of human diversity with his analogy of the body: not all parts are the same — an eye cannot be an ear, and so on — but all parts are of equal worth, all parts contribute functions that are essential to the health and function of the body, and all parts are worthy of honor and respect.

    But this vision quickly breaks down out when the Christian belief that upholds and empowers it is lost. The possessors of some function rise to the top and are quickly identified as being of greater worth than their inferiors. In the past martial prowess typically defined the elite. Now it’s intelligence.

    We’re holding on to a cultural interregnum in which many non-Christians (like Murray, so far as I can tell) still cling to one of the most deeply-held and attractive features of Christian society, but in which there are no longer any solid foundations to uphold it. If there is no revival, its vestiges will be swept away, and we will return to a tribal social structure in which ‘worth’ is more stratified, and in which some harsh hiearachy will simply be accepted as ‘the way things are’. We’re seeing it already in the pullulating contempt woke white people pour out upon their deplorable cousins.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    The Last Real Calvinist wrote to angmoh:


    The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop.
     
    That is just not true historically.

    Christianity began in the multi-culti Roman Empire. The idea that all humans were equal regardless of ethnicity was "in the air": certainly the Stoics held to that view, as well as the Epicureans. And, indeed, it fits in nicely with the various "mystery religions."

    TLRC also wrote:

    We’re holding on to a cultural interregnum in which many non-Christians (like Murray, so far as I can tell) still cling to one of the most deeply-held and attractive features of Christian society, but in which there are no longer any solid foundations to uphold it. If there is no revival...
     
    There will not be a revival of Christianity for a very simple reason:

    Christianity has, for nearly two thousand years, made certain very clear historical claims: at the minimum, the Resurrection and the Vicarious Atonement, not to mention the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. One of the main selling points for Christianity had been that all this really happened, as opposed to the mystery religions, which were quite clearly simply mythical and allegorical.

    The only near-contemporaneous documents backing up those claims are in the New Testament.

    And the problem is that, if you read the New Testament with the eyes of modern science or modern historical scholarship, it clearly does not hold up.

    Paul makes clear that the early Church consisted of people who engaged in speaking in tongues, who interpreted the hidden meaning of those who spoke in tongues, and who took all that seriously.

    From the perspective not simply of a modern scientist or historical scholar but to any normal modern middle-class person, these people were nuts, not the sort of people you would want to have as next-door neighbors or even the school-bus driver for your children.

    And the Gospels, which came out of such people, are obviously historical fiction: there is no mountain from which you can see all the kingdom of the world (Mt. 4:8). The Romans did not (and could not) conduct a census by having people return to the town one of their ancestors had lived in nine centuries (!) earlier (Luke 2:1-4). And if you try to think through where Matthew and Luke got the virgin birth tale... well, did Mary tell them that she conceived out of wedlock but that it was not what it seemed -- it was really virginal conception? And they believed it?

    Christianity simply collapses if you apply any degree of modern critical analysis, even the sort of thinking ordinary middle-class people use when they are choosing a new car.

    For a long time, the educated elite knew this but were fairly discreet about it: as the quote attributed to Voltaire says, "There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night"

    But the truth is out there now.

    For better or worse, Christianity is dead and cannot be saved.

    Replies: @Stan, @Ian M.

    , @nebulafox
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    >The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop.

    As I've mentioned before, it might seem strange to modern people, but people building hospitals in the 250s AD in Carthage during the Cyprian plague was a huge, bizarre deal. That's not how the sick were usually dealt with before then.

    The funny thing is, those who are busy pushing their new religion on the West betray fundamentally Christian impulses underneath. They can't get rid of that imprint, no matter how vehemently they reject the religion. The moral impulses, the fundamental assumptions: they betray not just the Christian world-view, but the DNA of the West as well, if twisted. They just throw out the stuff about grace and sin for all in favor of a Hindu-esque caste system, in which your moral worth is conferred on ancestral behavior: which, IMO, is a really, really bad thing if your goal is to have a society of people working to improve themselves and the world around them.

    As for the future of Christianity, contra Dave, I think the faith is not going anywhere... it's just not going to be the religion of the West, of "whites" like it has been since the High Middle Ages, which is what I suspect a lot of people here on Unz are truly bemoaning, instead of the death of the religion per se. But Africa? Latin America? Certain parts of East and Southeast Asia? (China is the fastest growing Christian country on the planet, and the Chinese have thousands of years of experience of assimilating faiths and subordinating them to the state.) Different story.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  142. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    I guess it depends what you mean by "systemic racism". If it means "institutional racism" then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants - if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions - if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be "racist", your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males - your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being "not racist".

    Denying that "systemic racism" exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves - go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of $ doesn't negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences - two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the "medicine" is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the "cure" doesn't work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Waylon Sisko, @Art Deco, @Dieter Kief, @Muggles, @houston 1992, @PhysicistDave, @Sam Malone

    Jack D wrote:

    Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go.

    No, it is the way to go simply because it is true: the systemic racism is completely — 100 percent– against Whites and Asians.

    I do not care that saying that may irritate some Blacks, though, I think, more the Woke Whites. In fact, its irritating these people seems to me a very, very good reason to keep repeating it.

    Again and again and again.

    As long as decent people keep walking on eggshells to try to avoid offending the thugs, it only encourages the thugs.

    We need to start telling the truth, unapologetically and unremittingly, until they get tired and give up.

    Or even better, until they commit suicide and leave the world a better place.

    • Replies: @3g4me
    @PhysicistDave

    @143 Physicist Dave: "We need to start telling the truth, unapologetically and unremittingly, until they get tired and give up.

    Or even better, until they commit suicide and leave the world a better place."

    But but but . . . . Dave, surely you wouldn't judge a group based on race! You vehemently rejected all prior criticisms of your racially-mixed marriage and family, insisting that race didn't matter, only ideology did! That YOUR allies and friends and enemies weren't based on anything as baseless and irrelevant as race, but rather on who shared your magic principles!

    But suddenly everything's different. Now that anti-White policies have directly affected YOUR family and kept YOUR progeny from the education you feel is their birthright, suddenly you've changed your tune. Well goooollleee, whoodathunkit? Blood matters? One ought to prefer one's own (family, people, RACE) over others? Surely that's deplorable, rayciss thinking from a mere stoopid non-physicist like moi.

    That's all right, Dave. You're one of the "decent people" because you don't see race, only principles and perceived merit. Surely being one of the just is consolation enough for a wise man like you.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  143. @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave

    I know of a group of people who gather every thursday in Zürich to read Joyce. - Since thirty+ years. Fritz Senn is the Saint of the Zürich Joyce Intitute. An utterly charming and knowledgeable man:

    https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/zuercher-james-joyce-stiftung-wird-30-lesezirkel-als-100.html

    That said: One of my favorite literary anecdotes goes like this (it stems from Italo Svevo, if I remember right): A man on an ocean liner chats with his neighbor about books and his neighbor in the deck chair then hands him over Ulysses and and says, that this book 'd be great and the man is very pleased. The next day he gives the book back with the words: Very interesting!
    - I've spent quite some hours with Ulysses - the famous soliloquy of Molly Bloom and such gems. And I liked that!

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ulysses+blooms+monolog&view=detail&mid=BFD253E466821B7B6112BFD253E466821B7B6112&FORM=VIRE

    One of the - rather informal - measures I apply to find out what books are worth, so to speak, and (= what kinds of insights they actually generate) is to look out for contexts, in which these books are cited / referred to in such a way, the the reference in - especially other than genuinely literary contexts - is inspiring, revealing, interesting etc.

    You find gazillions of such contexts in which Shakespeare's or Goethe's works are mentioned/quoted, or - to a lesser extent, but nonetheless: Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain***** - or Mark Twain, of course... but Ulysses: Not that many. 

    *****That sheds invaluable light on the Covid-sheaningans of our times, because this otherworldly well written novel's its main medical focus is the placebo***** (!) tuberculosis treatment of the upper-crusties in - - - Davos (!!!).
      
    ***** Swiss Professor for the History of Medicine Christoph Mörgeli did look into the treatments of tuberculosis that the elite-patients from all over the world received in Davos and found that none (!) of them worked - not a single one of them. It was all an illusion. and a quite nice boost for the economy of formerly rather backward Davos... 

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Alfa158, @PhysicistDave

    Dieter Kef wrote to me:

    I know of a group of people who gather every thursday in Zürich to read Joyce.

    That sorta makes my point, you know: books chosen for reading groups tend to be books people think they should read. A reading group does not need to choose a book that people would read for fun anyway, say Andy Weir’s latest (Project Hail Mary, which I heartily recommend to anyone who enjoys “hard” scifi).

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave

    Ok, but in Zürich it works the other way round: Poeple join the Joyce reading group because they find it so iteresting to read Ulysses. And in the end they even get hooked.

    If this reading-experience would be just a conventional thing and not intrinsically motivating them (= moving them inside - their minds and hearts), this group would not have lasted for decades now.
    But as I said - they can't count me in. I'd prefer to be in touch just lightly with Joyce's Ulyses - not to mention Finnagas Wake.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  144. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    The non-ICU parts of the hospitals are busy with omicron patients, but the ICUs less so.

    Replies: @Marquis, @Chrisnonymous, @Brutusale

    They’re really not. Even Fauci has admitted that most of the hospital cases are “with” not “of.” You’re good at analyzing societal data. You’re not as good at parsing out dirty, and likely purposely falsified, data.

  145. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Jack D has a lot on his plate. He's trying to get America to "stand up" to Putin!

    I notice Bill Kristol had a friendly sit down talk with Charles Murray a few years back. Jonah Goldberg is still in his orbit of friends. Gosh, it's as if all this HBD stuff was a deliberate time wasting strategy to derail White energy from addressing real issues!

    No, I don't think they plan this out decades in advance, it's just the natural instinct of those who want White activism aborted.

    The irony is that Charles Murray and Steve Sailer imagine themselves above the passionate masses who would deal in such "crude" things as good vs evil. Yet they are the pets of those who most definitely believe in destroying what they view as evil.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Yep, Murray is basically a compliant house ——, but he’s so full of himself that he doesn’t notice.

    Btw, I don’t live that far from Murray. His whole shtick about living in “rural” Maryland is BS. He lives very close to vineyards and cute towns. He’s not playing cornhole with truck-driving buddies.

    In another odd coincidence, I didn’t grow up that far from Murray. I know him. I’ve known people like him all my life. (Oddly, Steve, even though he’s a SoCal guy, reminds me so much of Midwest people.)

    Murray is Midwest nice. They’re a special breed. Let’s just say that they love a pat on head from whoever is in charge more than any group on the planet. Murray would literally rather die than not be accepted into polite society.

    That Murray can’t understand love of one’s own people is a serious indictment against him. That Murray is fine with other groups having a love of their own people but chastising whites for the same thing is inexcusable.

    Same goes for Sailer.

    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?

    These are not serious men.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    That Murray can’t understand love of one’s own people is a serious indictment against him. That Murray is fine with other groups having a love of their own people but chastising whites for the same thing is inexcusable.
     
    But who are Murray’s people? Didn’t Murray marry out and have POC children? As a consequence, could it be said that Murray’s people are POCs?

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?
     
    It's not always that easy. Who is closer to you, your mulatto or quadroon second cousin, or that Syrian or Iranian just off the boat Airbus? The latter may more closely resemble you.

    Who are my fellow Americans? 75% of the population? 50%? 25%

    Almost everyone in Vermont looks like me. A shrinking minority vote like me.

    Murray, by the way, has four children, two white, and two half-Thai. So that's one more white child than Steve!

    Replies: @houston 1992, @3g4me, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    That's good insight on the Midwest Nice crowd. There is something off about them.

    The emphasis on being seen as nice and well-behaved is strange. It's not connected to actual moral character.

    Someone here said Steve and many HBD'ers long to "live as White people", by which they meant without concern for White people as a group. It was dumbfounding. But now I think I understand it. They want a nice, settled area that other White men conquered and settled. In their dream it's so remote it doesn't require defending. So they get to sit around and play with data patterns, play golf, go antiquing or whatever pastime MidWesterners get up to. It's the most decadent thing I can imagine. They imagine such an environment is a free good that falls from heaven.

    Even worse, they often condemn the very White male conquerers who created a country for them to immigrate to. They definitely don't like the traits (fierce loyalty, moral clarity, willingness to fight, etc) that made it possible.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @IHTG
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Who are your people?
     
    "Who are your people?" is one question. One might also phrase it as "What is your tribe?"

    But in a multi-ethnic environment, an equally important question is "Which tribal confederation is your tribe part of?"
    , @Almost Missouri
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Murray is Midwest nice. They’re a special breed.
     
    When the Midwesterner Began to Hate...
  146. @Bardon Kaldlan
    @Kronos

    Now you're going to bed with Charles Murray.

    Replies: @Kronos

    Kronos: “Good night Charles”

    Charles: “Good night Kronos”

    Kronos: (*Sniff sniff,*) “Hey Charles what’s that smell?”

    Charles: That’s just Herrnstein under the bed.

    Kronos: “But didn’t he pass away like aroun— AHHH! A dead body!”

  147. Thoroughly off-topic, now that the voters of New York State have rejected an amendment enacting the Party’s favored reforms to voting laws (mail-ins, ballot harvesting etc., all designed to allow the Party to rule NY without challenge) , the Party-run legislature has just: approved those same “reforms” into law. The bill is on the Governor’s desk for signature; she will sign it.

    The polls must be really bad.

  148. @Anonymous
    @HA

    The ICU‘s are not clogged. Nurses are making TikTok videos. Please stop with this hysteria.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @HA

    “The ICU‘s are not clogged. Nurses are making TikTok videos. Please stop with this hysteria.”

    Is this the follow-up to the “hospitals are empty except for crisis actors!” meme that was floating around a year and a half ago?

    Sorry to disillusion you, but plenty of ICU’s are getting clogged, not just by running out of beds, but by being short-staffed or else manned with workers pulling in way too many hours to be genuinely productive, because those same ICU’s are now overpacked with contagious morons who force other vulnerable and immunocompromised people to delay treatment that is not nearly as easily preventable as COVID. And that kind of dangerous high-stress months-long overload can occur long before the beds are completely maxxed out. Granted, some of those people who choose to stay away out of a fear of catching something probably SHOULD be going to the ICU’s, and in those cases you’re right that hysteria is getting the better of them. But being able to err on both sides of assessing a given hazard doesn’t change the fact that in this case, the hazard should be a lot less prevalent than it is.

    Plenty of people choose not to get their COVID news by way of TikTok videos. Maybe it’s time you consider joining them.

    [MORE]

    In Bellville, TX, Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

    Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on Aug. 22 at age 46. [But hey, that can’t be correct because some anonymous loon on iSteve told me this was just a TikTok conspiracy, am I right?]

    Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever….

    Also in Texas earlier this month, Joe Valdez, a bystander shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

    Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge…[So yeah, you got a point there, but were it not for their foolish reluctance, the ICU’s would be even more packed.]

  149. @Mark G.
    @Zero Philosopher


    Off-topic, but extremely important: A simple chip that is implanted under your skin, and a quick way to prove that you have taken your mandatory shots.
     
    What's the point of mandating that people get Covid shots when the shots don't keep people from getting or transmitting Covid? Recent British, Danish and German studies show the vaccinated get the Omicron variant at the same rate as the unvaccinated. Those studies just verify what everyone can see with their own eyes by looking at the skyrocketing cases this winter.

    With little societal benefit of reduced transmission, the only reason to get vaccinated is the individual benefit of reduced deaths. Even here, a risk-benefit analysis would likely show this is only a good idea for older people over 60 who are in a higher risk category. For younger people, on the risk side is possible myocarditis, blood clots and unknown future negative side effects from repeated boosters. On the benefit side, 99.7% of people under sixty already survive Covid so a vaccine would only have a small effect.

    The small risk for young people could be reduced with early treatment programs instead of shots. A new peer reviewed Brazilian study shows a 50% reduction in hospitalizations and 70% reduction in deaths when Ivermectin is used in treating Covid. The Indian state of Uttar Pradesh had much lower rates of Covid hospitalizations and deaths than neighboring states by passing out packets with Ivermectin, Doxycycline, vitamin D and Zinc. The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association studied their success and then recommended everyone in Japan be given a similar packet. Dr. George Fareed and Dr. Brian Tyson used the same protocol, adding HCQ and steroids. Out of seven thousand patients, only three died overall and none died when treatment was started within seven days of the onset of the disease. Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory also had good success rates with early treatment protocols like this. Dr. McCullough thinks deaths could have been reduced 85% if such protocols had been widely adopted and Dr. Kory thinks 500,000 lives could have been saved using them.

    Replies: @HA, @Burnett, @NOTA

    Do you have any links that provide more detail or support? A lot of this stuff about the mainstream overlooking the value of early treatment protocols and widely available medications rings true. But when citing to data on specific areas and findings from specific peer reviewed studies, it would help to include links to the actual studies, or similar underlying support.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Burnett


    Do you have any links that provide more detail or support? A lot of this stuff about the mainstream overlooking the value of early treatment protocols and widely available medications rings true.
     
    Burnett, the new Brazilian Ivermectin study showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin is here:

    https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/new-scientific-study-on-the-efficacy-of-ivermectin-in-covid-19-positive-patients/

    People should read both sides of this issue. Unfortunately, politicians have intimidated the media by demanding they censor one side as "misinformation". Anyone who understands science knows you need to have an open discussion on any scientific issue.

    LewRockwell.com has lots of information on vaccines and alternative treatments as does childrenshealthdefense.org. On Twitter you can find Vinay Prasad, Peter McCullough, Pierre Kory, Simone Gold, Steve Kirsch and Martin Kulldorf. Substack has Robert Malone, Pierre Kory, FLCCC Alliance, Peter McCullough, Eugyppius, Alex Berenson, El Gato Malo, Toby Rogers, Steve Kirsch and Vinay Prasad. Books which cover alternative Covid treatments are The Truth about Covid-19 by Joseph Mercola, The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pandemic Blunder by Joel Hirschhorn, Do Not Consent by Simone Gold and Overcoming the Covid Darkness by Tyson and Fareed.

    Replies: @Rob

  150. @Dieter Kief

    My hypothesis is that (...) we should be grateful for the loose brain.
     
    This comment of yours is spot on, SafeNow. - Lots of great writers have - always I''d hold, - been (here and there or - purposely and big style - like Johann Fischart and Francois Rabelais and later James Joyce and postwar German literary mega brain Arno Schmidt - - eh - that's what I want to say: Lots of great writers have always been negating grammar and punctuation rules. And the social pressure or just the stiffness of conventions, that goes along with those rules (= with the way, in which everybody does it/ is expected to do it / has to do it).

    Language*, like any complex system, has its own constraints and those can be dealt with by - playing with them. A - dialectical - consequence of strict rules is to - loosen 'em up a bit. A universal dynamic*** signifying not only the restrictions that go along with rules, but also the way in which they are shaped over time. And to shape them means to break them on lots of occasions. - In the arts that is a playful and at times even welcome thing, in social contexts, it is a stabilizing thing to have/ follow rules; and to break them means oftentimes to get punished, or blamed or to appear unfit or useless etc. pp..

    * Ludwig Witgenstein shed quite a bit of light on the different kind of ways , in which we follow rules, not least with regard to the diffrences in rule following between language and - stricter systems like logic, and mathematics etc.

    *** One of the main themes in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Anonymous

    * Ludwig Witgenstein shed quite a bit of light on the different kind of ways , in which we follow rules, not least with regard to the diffrences in rule following between language and – stricter systems like logic, and mathematics etc.

    What knowledge did he contribute specifically?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Anonymous

    His lifelong philosophical struggle was to make sense of the difference between the spheres of (cold) calculation, logic, mathematics, (the measuring sciences) and everyday life, the arts (!), our sensual experiences (which for him  include the impenetrable, the metaphysical (= God).
    As an architect, he somehow reached a middle ground between the two spheres

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

    The German wiki-page has better fotos.

    A very good way to get a sense of the way he wrote and thought are his Mixed Remarks (In German: Vermischte Bemerkungen). A short and nice little book. Best book onWittgenstein is Thomas Rentsch's Heidegger und Wittgenstein - unfortunately not translated.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  151. Anonymous[211] • Disclaimer says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Yep, Murray is basically a compliant house ------, but he's so full of himself that he doesn't notice.

    Btw, I don't live that far from Murray. His whole shtick about living in "rural" Maryland is BS. He lives very close to vineyards and cute towns. He's not playing cornhole with truck-driving buddies.

    In another odd coincidence, I didn't grow up that far from Murray. I know him. I've known people like him all my life. (Oddly, Steve, even though he's a SoCal guy, reminds me so much of Midwest people.)

    Murray is Midwest nice. They're a special breed. Let's just say that they love a pat on head from whoever is in charge more than any group on the planet. Murray would literally rather die than not be accepted into polite society.

    That Murray can't understand love of one's own people is a serious indictment against him. That Murray is fine with other groups having a love of their own people but chastising whites for the same thing is inexcusable.

    Same goes for Sailer.

    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?

    These are not serious men.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @IHTG, @Almost Missouri

    That Murray can’t understand love of one’s own people is a serious indictment against him. That Murray is fine with other groups having a love of their own people but chastising whites for the same thing is inexcusable.

    But who are Murray’s people? Didn’t Murray marry out and have POC children? As a consequence, could it be said that Murray’s people are POCs?

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anonymous

    Then he should admit that.

    The question is always simple: Who are your people?

    If someone refuses to answer that question, you immediately know that they're either an idiot, a liar or delusional.

    Neither Steve nor Murray will answer that question. Neither Steve nor Murray are idiots, so the question is whether they are liars or delusional. My guess is delusional.

  152. @Anonymous
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    That Murray can’t understand love of one’s own people is a serious indictment against him. That Murray is fine with other groups having a love of their own people but chastising whites for the same thing is inexcusable.
     
    But who are Murray’s people? Didn’t Murray marry out and have POC children? As a consequence, could it be said that Murray’s people are POCs?

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Then he should admit that.

    The question is always simple: Who are your people?

    If someone refuses to answer that question, you immediately know that they’re either an idiot, a liar or delusional.

    Neither Steve nor Murray will answer that question. Neither Steve nor Murray are idiots, so the question is whether they are liars or delusional. My guess is delusional.

  153. @The Alarmist
    @Reg Cæsar

    Way too many Brits utilise the same usage, and too many people assume it is correct because ... well .. they equate being British with being able to use proper Queen’s English.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I wish someone had hit the Disagree button. Then I’d have a full house!

  154. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Yep, Murray is basically a compliant house ------, but he's so full of himself that he doesn't notice.

    Btw, I don't live that far from Murray. His whole shtick about living in "rural" Maryland is BS. He lives very close to vineyards and cute towns. He's not playing cornhole with truck-driving buddies.

    In another odd coincidence, I didn't grow up that far from Murray. I know him. I've known people like him all my life. (Oddly, Steve, even though he's a SoCal guy, reminds me so much of Midwest people.)

    Murray is Midwest nice. They're a special breed. Let's just say that they love a pat on head from whoever is in charge more than any group on the planet. Murray would literally rather die than not be accepted into polite society.

    That Murray can't understand love of one's own people is a serious indictment against him. That Murray is fine with other groups having a love of their own people but chastising whites for the same thing is inexcusable.

    Same goes for Sailer.

    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?

    These are not serious men.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @IHTG, @Almost Missouri

    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?

    It’s not always that easy. Who is closer to you, your mulatto or quadroon second cousin, or that Syrian or Iranian just off the boat Airbus? The latter may more closely resemble you.

    Who are my fellow Americans? 75% of the population? 50%? 25%

    Almost everyone in Vermont looks like me. A shrinking minority vote like me.

    Murray, by the way, has four children, two white, and two half-Thai. So that’s one more white child than Steve!

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • LOL: 3g4me
    • Replies: @houston 1992
    @Reg Cæsar

    How much reversion to the mean [of the Murray clan] do the Murray pair manifest? What economic niches do they occupy, and is their status and prosperity dependent on CM being appropriately vague so CM is not cancelled?

    , @3g4me
    @Reg Cæsar

    @155 Reg Caesar: Typical civic nationalist barflegarb. It IS 'that easy,' unless one is deliberately being obtuse. Will your mulatto or quadroon second cousin protect you from a mob of fellow mulattos and quadroons? And no serious White nationalist considers Syrians or Iranians the same as White Europeans - and you damn well know this. Citizen never said anything about 'fellow Americans,' precisely because paper citizenship is irrelevant in a racially-mixed country with birthright citizenship.

    Physicist Dave agrees with you because, like Murray, he has hapa children. He consciously chose to have a racially mixed family. He places his family first, but because he can't fall back on White racial solidarity, he has turned to the spectre of Woke Whites as the cause of all his angst (although he stated he doesn't particularly care if he offends some blacks).

    When there are racial riots in the street, Reg, which group will you go to for protection and for whom will you fight? Are you going to hang with the Mestizos and sub-Saharans? The Han and Koreans? Will they welcome you with open arms and open hearts?

    You'd better go ahead and count on it, because a large cohort of Whites know who has openly sided with them and who has not, and is keeping track.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Reg Cæsar

    Actually, it is that easy - except when certain individuals (or a particularly famous group who really enjoy small hats) with a vested in interest in whites not seeing themselves as a people try to muddy the waters.

    Your argument is no different - and no less stupid and disingenuous - as the argument made by those who deny that race exists because where do you draw the line between a European and an Arab or that ethnicity doesn't exist because where do you draw the line between a German and Frenchman or an Italian or that colors don't exist because where do your draw the line between yellow and orange.

    These are idiotic arguments, and you know that, yet you use them. Why? I think we know the answer. You are purposely attempting to mislead whites who stray onto this comment board.

    But, hey, by all means fellow whites (wait, that's your line), please join up with the colorblind civic nationalist crowd. I mean, look at how incredibly successful it's been over the past fifty years in achieving its goals and improving the lives of whites.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  155. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @angmoh


    Murray makes a point that every mainstream person says they agree with: “IQ doesn’t = human worth” – but in reality modern western society is literally set up so that IQ does in fact = worth to a decent extent and it’s laughably naïve to go around saying the opposite. It is also laughable to pretend there is such a thing as objective reality in how social structures should be arranged.

     

    Murry is a nice Iowa ur-boomer who cannot grok the post-Christian west. His worldview is suffused with the fading rosy glow still emitted by the bonfire on which Christendom's immense store of cultural capital has been unceremoniously tossed.

    The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop. In orthodox Christian anthropology, all people are made in the image of God; all are sinners who fall short of God's glory; all are capable (if not chosen, but that's another post) of redemption and of becoming sons and daughters of God.

    St Paul deals crisply with the question of human diversity with his analogy of the body: not all parts are the same -- an eye cannot be an ear, and so on -- but all parts are of equal worth, all parts contribute functions that are essential to the health and function of the body, and all parts are worthy of honor and respect.

    But this vision quickly breaks down out when the Christian belief that upholds and empowers it is lost. The possessors of some function rise to the top and are quickly identified as being of greater worth than their inferiors. In the past martial prowess typically defined the elite. Now it's intelligence.

    We're holding on to a cultural interregnum in which many non-Christians (like Murray, so far as I can tell) still cling to one of the most deeply-held and attractive features of Christian society, but in which there are no longer any solid foundations to uphold it. If there is no revival, its vestiges will be swept away, and we will return to a tribal social structure in which 'worth' is more stratified, and in which some harsh hiearachy will simply be accepted as 'the way things are'. We're seeing it already in the pullulating contempt woke white people pour out upon their deplorable cousins.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @nebulafox

    The Last Real Calvinist wrote to angmoh:

    The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop.

    That is just not true historically.

    Christianity began in the multi-culti Roman Empire. The idea that all humans were equal regardless of ethnicity was “in the air”: certainly the Stoics held to that view, as well as the Epicureans. And, indeed, it fits in nicely with the various “mystery religions.”

    TLRC also wrote:

    We’re holding on to a cultural interregnum in which many non-Christians (like Murray, so far as I can tell) still cling to one of the most deeply-held and attractive features of Christian society, but in which there are no longer any solid foundations to uphold it. If there is no revival…

    There will not be a revival of Christianity for a very simple reason:

    Christianity has, for nearly two thousand years, made certain very clear historical claims: at the minimum, the Resurrection and the Vicarious Atonement, not to mention the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. One of the main selling points for Christianity had been that all this really happened, as opposed to the mystery religions, which were quite clearly simply mythical and allegorical.

    The only near-contemporaneous documents backing up those claims are in the New Testament.

    And the problem is that, if you read the New Testament with the eyes of modern science or modern historical scholarship, it clearly does not hold up.

    Paul makes clear that the early Church consisted of people who engaged in speaking in tongues, who interpreted the hidden meaning of those who spoke in tongues, and who took all that seriously.

    From the perspective not simply of a modern scientist or historical scholar but to any normal modern middle-class person, these people were nuts, not the sort of people you would want to have as next-door neighbors or even the school-bus driver for your children.

    And the Gospels, which came out of such people, are obviously historical fiction: there is no mountain from which you can see all the kingdom of the world (Mt. 4:8). The Romans did not (and could not) conduct a census by having people return to the town one of their ancestors had lived in nine centuries (!) earlier (Luke 2:1-4). And if you try to think through where Matthew and Luke got the virgin birth tale… well, did Mary tell them that she conceived out of wedlock but that it was not what it seemed — it was really virginal conception? And they believed it?

    Christianity simply collapses if you apply any degree of modern critical analysis, even the sort of thinking ordinary middle-class people use when they are choosing a new car.

    For a long time, the educated elite knew this but were fairly discreet about it: as the quote attributed to Voltaire says, “There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night”

    But the truth is out there now.

    For better or worse, Christianity is dead and cannot be saved.

    • Replies: @Stan
    @PhysicistDave

    Meditate on the meaning of Jesus response to Pontius Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world."

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Ian M.
    @PhysicistDave


    ...if you read the New Testament with the eyes of modern science or modern historical scholarship, it clearly does not hold up.
     
    Obviously, the problem is with the ideology of modern science and modern historical scholarship, which begs the question in favor of naturalism.

    ...there is no mountain from which you can see all the kingdom of the world (Mt. 4:8).
     
    This example really ought to disqualify you from speaking further on the subject. It would be like objecting to a map of NYC by insisting that there was no way eight million people could fit into a 1" square. Do you interpret everything in such an absurdly hyper-literal way, or only scripture selectively when it suits your purposes?

    Replies: @HA, @The Last Real Calvinist, @PhysicistDave

  156. @Almost Missouri
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship



    “I’m completely flummoxed by this whole thing” says Charles Murray.
     
    Yeah right. It’s the anti-White agenda and if he didn’t have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he’d see that. Everyone else does.
     
    Agree. For such a smart guy working on such a realist subject, Murray is awfully—almost militantly—naïve.

    He says, "I joined in the general feeling that maybe [with Obama's election] we'll be able to put an awful lot of this [race] stuff behind us."

    I'm not a famous Harvard/MIT sociologist, yet somehow it was obvious to me from day one that Obama was a pro-black anti-white racist with a corresponding agenda. Obama was smart enough to keep things vague initially, but once he reached his limit on won elections—i.e. 2013, then Obama's true nature became undeniable and Murray got suddenly surprised by this reality. Hey, great sociology dude, you were totally oblivious to the biggest sociological freight train heading straight toward you!

    Steve tries to clue Murray in by describing some of the roots of the 2013 and subsequent reality, but of course Murray isn't too interested in conceding that his worldview is obviously inadequate. Then to put the icing on his cake of obliviousness and condescension, Murray denounces anyone more realist than himself as "evil" "white supremacist" (without actually naming who these people are), followed by a little jag about how he is too noble and pure to think less of anyone simply because they have a lower IQ. This is a little rich coming from the guy who spent most of his life denying that Americans ought to prioritize fellow citizens over random foreigners, which would have been a very practical and constructive way of prioritizing something other than IQ, and someone who wrote a whole book (Curmudgeon's Guide to Getting Ahead) insisting that a bunch of things that are proxies for IQ are necessary and should be rewarded.

    So yeah, all in all Murray ends up being just another brick in the wall, which is a shame since his underlying quantitate sociology (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, Human Accomplishment, Coming Apart, Facing Reality) is actually very good.

    Replies: @Verymuchalive, @SunBakedSuburb, @Moses, @Hypnotoad666

    Agree. For such a smart guy working on such a realist subject, Murray is awfully—almost militantly—naïve.

    This naïveté is an example of Orwell’s “Crimestop.” It’s the result of years of propaganda, psychological conditioning and negative incentives to noticing.

    Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

    – “1984”

    I don’t believe Murray doesn’t see through it though. He’s afraid.

  157. @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev



    Murray pretends that “systemic racism” exists. It doesn’t
     
    Of course it does. It is stupid and counterproductive to pretend it doesn’t.
     
    That's right. It is legally mandatory to discriminate against whites and Asians in favor of blacks. There are thousands of "equity" commissars spread across every significant organization to ensure that this takes place in matters large and small, and every exponent at every level of the world's most powerful government never misses a chance to denounce and calumny whites and to praise blacks. By any objective measure, systemic racism is real and huge.

    Replies: @rebel yell

    Agree, but I reject the word racism entirely – it is a word that will ultimately favor minorities over the majority no matter how you use it. It implies that it is wrong to dislike someone, which is not true. You can dislike anyone you want for any reason you want.
    When blacks are given preference over whites in college admissions, don’t call it racist. Call it unfair. Call it cheating. Call it stealing. Call it fraud. It’s a case of the weak (low test scores) stealing honors that rightly belong to the strong (higher test scores). It is a usurpation of someone else’s earned accomplishments and reward.
    Minority rights are a usurpation of majority rule. Any minority set aside is a usurpation of someone better qualified.
    Minorities who grab stuff from whites aren’t “racist”. Call them what they are – thieves and life’s losers.

    • Agree: Calvin Hobbes
  158. @Almost Missouri
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship



    “I’m completely flummoxed by this whole thing” says Charles Murray.
     
    Yeah right. It’s the anti-White agenda and if he didn’t have so much contempt for Deplorable White people, he’d see that. Everyone else does.
     
    Agree. For such a smart guy working on such a realist subject, Murray is awfully—almost militantly—naïve.

    He says, "I joined in the general feeling that maybe [with Obama's election] we'll be able to put an awful lot of this [race] stuff behind us."

    I'm not a famous Harvard/MIT sociologist, yet somehow it was obvious to me from day one that Obama was a pro-black anti-white racist with a corresponding agenda. Obama was smart enough to keep things vague initially, but once he reached his limit on won elections—i.e. 2013, then Obama's true nature became undeniable and Murray got suddenly surprised by this reality. Hey, great sociology dude, you were totally oblivious to the biggest sociological freight train heading straight toward you!

    Steve tries to clue Murray in by describing some of the roots of the 2013 and subsequent reality, but of course Murray isn't too interested in conceding that his worldview is obviously inadequate. Then to put the icing on his cake of obliviousness and condescension, Murray denounces anyone more realist than himself as "evil" "white supremacist" (without actually naming who these people are), followed by a little jag about how he is too noble and pure to think less of anyone simply because they have a lower IQ. This is a little rich coming from the guy who spent most of his life denying that Americans ought to prioritize fellow citizens over random foreigners, which would have been a very practical and constructive way of prioritizing something other than IQ, and someone who wrote a whole book (Curmudgeon's Guide to Getting Ahead) insisting that a bunch of things that are proxies for IQ are necessary and should be rewarded.

    So yeah, all in all Murray ends up being just another brick in the wall, which is a shame since his underlying quantitate sociology (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, Human Accomplishment, Coming Apart, Facing Reality) is actually very good.

    Replies: @Verymuchalive, @SunBakedSuburb, @Moses, @Hypnotoad666

    Murray has gone backward in his realism. Circa 2006 or so he wrote an excellent paper marshalling the evidence and effectively proving that the B/W IQ gap is genetic in origin. http://www.bible-researcher.com/murray1.html

    But his latest, Facing Reality, just notes that the gap exists (which is uncontroversial) while feigning agnosticism and disinterest as to its cause. He would have done better to just say “hey, don’t shoot the messenger, but the data sadly says what it says,” rather than shucking and jiving for respectability. He’s not exactly a profile in courage.

    • Agree: houston 1992
  159. @PhysicistDave
    @Jack D

    Jack D wrote:


    Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go.
     
    No, it is the way to go simply because it is true: the systemic racism is completely -- 100 percent-- against Whites and Asians.

    I do not care that saying that may irritate some Blacks, though, I think, more the Woke Whites. In fact, its irritating these people seems to me a very, very good reason to keep repeating it.

    Again and again and again.

    As long as decent people keep walking on eggshells to try to avoid offending the thugs, it only encourages the thugs.

    We need to start telling the truth, unapologetically and unremittingly, until they get tired and give up.

    Or even better, until they commit suicide and leave the world a better place.

    Replies: @3g4me

    @143 Physicist Dave: “We need to start telling the truth, unapologetically and unremittingly, until they get tired and give up.

    Or even better, until they commit suicide and leave the world a better place.”

    But but but . . . . Dave, surely you wouldn’t judge a group based on race! You vehemently rejected all prior criticisms of your racially-mixed marriage and family, insisting that race didn’t matter, only ideology did! That YOUR allies and friends and enemies weren’t based on anything as baseless and irrelevant as race, but rather on who shared your magic principles!

    But suddenly everything’s different. Now that anti-White policies have directly affected YOUR family and kept YOUR progeny from the education you feel is their birthright, suddenly you’ve changed your tune. Well goooollleee, whoodathunkit? Blood matters? One ought to prefer one’s own (family, people, RACE) over others? Surely that’s deplorable, rayciss thinking from a mere stoopid non-physicist like moi.

    That’s all right, Dave. You’re one of the “decent people” because you don’t see race, only principles and perceived merit. Surely being one of the just is consolation enough for a wise man like you.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @3g4me

    3g4me wrote to me:


    But but but . . . . Dave, surely you wouldn’t judge a group based on race!
     
    No, I don't. I judge people on the basis of lying.

    And most of these liars are Whites.

    3g4m3 also wrote to me:


    But suddenly everything’s different. Now that anti-White policies have directly affected YOUR family and kept YOUR progeny from the education you feel is their birthright, suddenly you’ve changed your tune.
     
    Suddenly??? No, I am talking about things that happened in the middle of the last decade.

    I have always held the view I am expressing here: it is wrong to systematically discriminate against people on the basis of race. And I have known and maintained that this sort of reverse discrimination, which happened to my own kids many years ago, is wrong for decades.

    3g4me also wrote:


    That’s all right, Dave. You’re one of the “decent people” because you don’t see race, only principles and perceived merit. Surely being one of the just is consolation enough for a wise man like you.
     
    What will really console me is when the Woke (predominantly White) Left realizes they have lost and all commit mass suicide.
  160. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?
     
    It's not always that easy. Who is closer to you, your mulatto or quadroon second cousin, or that Syrian or Iranian just off the boat Airbus? The latter may more closely resemble you.

    Who are my fellow Americans? 75% of the population? 50%? 25%

    Almost everyone in Vermont looks like me. A shrinking minority vote like me.

    Murray, by the way, has four children, two white, and two half-Thai. So that's one more white child than Steve!

    Replies: @houston 1992, @3g4me, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    How much reversion to the mean [of the Murray clan] do the Murray pair manifest? What economic niches do they occupy, and is their status and prosperity dependent on CM being appropriately vague so CM is not cancelled?

  161. I own practically every book Charles Murray has written and Steve Sailer is one of my favorite bloggers. With the exception of a few boring trolls who like to engage in insults and verbal abuse, Steve also has a good collection of commenters. So, I really enjoyed this podcast with both of them.

    Murray self-identifies as a libertarian but says in the podcast that, unlike him, most libertarians don’t believe in genetic differences in races that would lead to different educational and economic outcomes. As a libertarian, I used to fall into this category but finding the truth has always been the most important thing to me rather than just blindly believing in a certain ideology, so I was finally forced to admit Murray is right. Murray does a good job showing in his books how libertarianism can be made compatible with a belief in race realism.

  162. @Art Deco
    @Patrick McNally

    In 2008, McCain campaigned on a pledge to invade Iran for the sake of Israel.

    When did he advocate that.


    Obama got elected in response to this,

    You're projecting. Almost no one cast a ballot on this basis.



    and his next 8 years were largely standing down Netanyahu’s push for a war in Iran. Obama played the white/black racial card as a way of keeping Jewish voters close to him.

    Non sequitur.


    Many Jews who would have exploded if a white Republican had fought with Netanyahu the way Obama did were willing to go soft with Obama as long as he played the white/black racial card.


    In your imagination only.




    Inventive daisy chain to blame Israel for everything.

    Replies: @houston 1992, @Jack D

    One can easily find McCain humming bomb , bomb Iran to the old Beach Boys tune…..
    Upon being challenged, and alerted to the how quickly the YouTube video of his remarks reached 744K counts, McCain remained defiant and compared threatening Iran to calling an unruly teenager a jerk.

    see below link

    McCain also spoke about a 100-year WOT.

    At least, some ppl I know voted for Obama because he seemed anti war during the campaign. And McCain seemed insane.

    Almost everyone I know acknowledges that the War Party is far from ethnically homogenous.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @houston 1992

    One can easily find McCain humming bomb , bomb Iran to the old Beach Boys tune

    You've stolen several bases to get from there to "In 2008, McCain campaigned on a pledge to invade Iran for the sake of Israel. ".

  163. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?
     
    It's not always that easy. Who is closer to you, your mulatto or quadroon second cousin, or that Syrian or Iranian just off the boat Airbus? The latter may more closely resemble you.

    Who are my fellow Americans? 75% of the population? 50%? 25%

    Almost everyone in Vermont looks like me. A shrinking minority vote like me.

    Murray, by the way, has four children, two white, and two half-Thai. So that's one more white child than Steve!

    Replies: @houston 1992, @3g4me, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    @155 Reg Caesar: Typical civic nationalist barflegarb. It IS ‘that easy,’ unless one is deliberately being obtuse. Will your mulatto or quadroon second cousin protect you from a mob of fellow mulattos and quadroons? And no serious White nationalist considers Syrians or Iranians the same as White Europeans – and you damn well know this. Citizen never said anything about ‘fellow Americans,’ precisely because paper citizenship is irrelevant in a racially-mixed country with birthright citizenship.

    Physicist Dave agrees with you because, like Murray, he has hapa children. He consciously chose to have a racially mixed family. He places his family first, but because he can’t fall back on White racial solidarity, he has turned to the spectre of Woke Whites as the cause of all his angst (although he stated he doesn’t particularly care if he offends some blacks).

    When there are racial riots in the street, Reg, which group will you go to for protection and for whom will you fight? Are you going to hang with the Mestizos and sub-Saharans? The Han and Koreans? Will they welcome you with open arms and open hearts?

    You’d better go ahead and count on it, because a large cohort of Whites know who has openly sided with them and who has not, and is keeping track.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @3g4me


    And no serious White nationalist considers Syrians or Iranians the same as White Europeans
     
    A lot of them here cry tears for Palestinians, and not just the Christian ones. What about Greeks? They've gone downhill since Pericles. What about Russians? Where is the line drawn?

    Will your mulatto or quadroon second cousin protect you from a mob of fellow mulattos and quadroons?
     
    He still lives in our home county. I'm pretty sure he'd support my right to defend myself from that mob with a loaded handgun, unlike something like 90% of Englishmen. What the hell is that about? I thought they were white, like my own English ancestors were. (Evidently Galton, Wells, and Shaw were right about dysgenics in their country.)

    Does Andy Ngô have a right to defend himself from attacks? Why should I defend a white Portlander who attacks Mr Ngô? Why should I support Mayor Wheeler over him, just because Wheeler is whiter? Ngô is a lot closer to the Portlanders I read about in Beverly Cleary's books decades ago, even with the debilitation of being queer. (A bizarrely white phenomenon, by the way. At least its celebration.)

    I wouldn't want Niger Innis to marry my daughter, but he's better than close to half of white folks on issues important to my family's survival.

    I imagine you preferred Newsom over Elder in that election.
    , @PhysicistDave
    @3g4me

    3g4me wrote about me:


    Physicist Dave agrees with you because, like Murray, he has hapa children. He consciously chose to have a racially mixed family. He places his family first, but because he can’t fall back on White racial solidarity, he has turned to the spectre of Woke Whites as the cause of all his angst (although he stated he doesn’t particularly care if he offends some blacks).
     
    You think I only became a "race traitor" when I met my wife?

    Nope, I am proud to say that I have been a race traitor all my life, seem to have been born that way.

    As I have said before, when I was a young kid growing up in St. Louis, we still had Jim Crow. I was against it. A proud race mixer from the beginning.

    3g4me also wrote to Reg:

    When there are racial riots in the street, Reg, which group will you go to for protection and for whom will you fight? Are you going to hang with the Mestizos and sub-Saharans? The Han and Koreans? Will they welcome you with open arms and open hearts?

    You’d better go ahead and count on it, because a large cohort of Whites know who has openly sided with them and who has not, and is keeping track.
     
    Oh, in the extremely unlikely event that you white nationalists succeed in inciting a race war, most of us Whites will be fighting against you.

    And we will cream you -- you do, after all, all seem to be a bunch of weenies.

    When I first saw the infamous clip of the weenies at Rich Spencer's little get-together shouting out "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!", the first thought that crossed my mind was: are any of these guys actually heterosexuals?

    I know it is verboten to talk about such things nowadays, but still it is a fact that the head of the SA, Ernst Röhm. was gay: as Wikipedia says, "Röhm acknowledged that the letters [confirming his homosexuality] were genuine, and as a result of the scandal, he became the first openly gay politician in history."

    Maybe some of you white nationalists are not gay, but you do all seem to be weenies.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @3g4me

    Dave is the quintessential boomer - as are Steve and Murray, btw. It's still 1965 in his mind. He's the brave defender of individualism, even though the amazing world to which he was born was carved out by men who very much saw themselves as a part of a race, a people, and who worked together to create a wonderful society. Indeed, Dave's ancestors brutally killed or kicked out other races to capture the land for that society.

    But Dave's a scientist, damn it! He doesn't have to concern himself with such things. He cares not who build the faculty lounge, just that it's stocked with good coffee.

    Dave's the equivalent of a trust fund kid. He despises what his ancestors did to achieve the wealth that he has enjoyed. But like most trust fund kids, Dave is blowing through the wealth. By sheer luck, he lived his life in a cozy interregnum, but it's coming to an end.

    The future will be what the past has always been: Tribal.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Reg Cæsar

  164. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Yep, Murray is basically a compliant house ------, but he's so full of himself that he doesn't notice.

    Btw, I don't live that far from Murray. His whole shtick about living in "rural" Maryland is BS. He lives very close to vineyards and cute towns. He's not playing cornhole with truck-driving buddies.

    In another odd coincidence, I didn't grow up that far from Murray. I know him. I've known people like him all my life. (Oddly, Steve, even though he's a SoCal guy, reminds me so much of Midwest people.)

    Murray is Midwest nice. They're a special breed. Let's just say that they love a pat on head from whoever is in charge more than any group on the planet. Murray would literally rather die than not be accepted into polite society.

    That Murray can't understand love of one's own people is a serious indictment against him. That Murray is fine with other groups having a love of their own people but chastising whites for the same thing is inexcusable.

    Same goes for Sailer.

    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?

    These are not serious men.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @IHTG, @Almost Missouri

    That’s good insight on the Midwest Nice crowd. There is something off about them.

    The emphasis on being seen as nice and well-behaved is strange. It’s not connected to actual moral character.

    Someone here said Steve and many HBD’ers long to “live as White people”, by which they meant without concern for White people as a group. It was dumbfounding. But now I think I understand it. They want a nice, settled area that other White men conquered and settled. In their dream it’s so remote it doesn’t require defending. So they get to sit around and play with data patterns, play golf, go antiquing or whatever pastime MidWesterners get up to. It’s the most decadent thing I can imagine. They imagine such an environment is a free good that falls from heaven.

    Even worse, they often condemn the very White male conquerers who created a country for them to immigrate to. They definitely don’t like the traits (fierce loyalty, moral clarity, willingness to fight, etc) that made it possible.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship


    That’s good insight on the Midwest Nice crowd. There is something off about them.

    The emphasis on being seen as nice and well-behaved is strange. It’s not connected to actual moral character.
     
    What have you got against good manners? Jared Taylor's are impeccable. Then again, he was educated among the Nips...

    They want a nice, settled area that other White men conquered and settled.
     
    And didn't just hand over to Negroes, as Andy Jackson stupidly did. Red to black in a New strike> York Orleans minute.


    ...concern for White people as a group.
     
    By that standard, the planters were the most treacherous white men ever to live. They had rather import sub-Saharan subhumans rather than supply white men a decent wage and working conditions. (But, strangely, those very subhuman became human at reapportionment time.)

    Try making this point anywhere south of the Ohio and see where it gets you.

    My brother moved to the Deep South where it is 50° warmer tonight (and 60° in the day-- in January-- that's sick), to a county that is barely ⅝ white and almost ⅓ black. Mine is over 95% white and not even ½% black. Wouldn't white solidarity (or "White solidarity" in your Negro orthography) show itself in a preference for white, and only white, neighbors? But, yeah, they won't sweep your floor for peanuts.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

  165. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    The non-ICU parts of the hospitals are busy with omicron patients, but the ICUs less so.

    Replies: @Marquis, @Chrisnonymous, @Brutusale

    I got COVID. I was isolated in a hotel. The Japanese government took some big tourist hotels now empty due to travel restrictions and made them into isolation centers. You go there and stay out your isolation period. They serve meals twice a day that you pick up at the elevator lobby. You monitor yourself and send the data to a nurse remotely. Guessing maybe 300-500 people in this place with one consulting doctor and a couple nurses.

    I think the vaccines were a good thing for older and at-risk people, but I didn’t get vaccinated. It’s been pretty uneventful for me.

    There’s at least one website that does hospital bed tracking in the USA. Data, not HA’s cherry-picked news articles that he keeps recycling even when they’re a half-year old.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Chrisnonymous

    "HA’s cherry-picked news articles that he keeps recycling..."

    You mean the ones that don't come from the Russian troll farms the covid truthers rely on to help disseminate their cherry picking? And as far as recycling, I never linked to that article before, but as I recall it was dated shortly after Mark G's own personal sob story that he keeps recycling about his failed bet that his bulletproof immune system would prevent COVID from putting him in a hospital bed, so the stories I linked to about the people trying to get a hold of one of those beds he needlessly occupied seemed pretty relevant. But for some strange reason, you didn't bother to gripe about that one.

    If you want the University of Minnesota's COVID-19 Hospitalization Tracking Project, it's linked here:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/944379919/new-data-reveal-which-hospitals-are-dangerously-full-is-yours

    I considered linking that article, but it was more about numbers, which truthers don't seem to handle all that well, so I went with the other one.

    Replies: @Mark G., @Chrisnonymous

  166. @PhysicistDave
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    The Last Real Calvinist wrote to angmoh:


    The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop.
     
    That is just not true historically.

    Christianity began in the multi-culti Roman Empire. The idea that all humans were equal regardless of ethnicity was "in the air": certainly the Stoics held to that view, as well as the Epicureans. And, indeed, it fits in nicely with the various "mystery religions."

    TLRC also wrote:

    We’re holding on to a cultural interregnum in which many non-Christians (like Murray, so far as I can tell) still cling to one of the most deeply-held and attractive features of Christian society, but in which there are no longer any solid foundations to uphold it. If there is no revival...
     
    There will not be a revival of Christianity for a very simple reason:

    Christianity has, for nearly two thousand years, made certain very clear historical claims: at the minimum, the Resurrection and the Vicarious Atonement, not to mention the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. One of the main selling points for Christianity had been that all this really happened, as opposed to the mystery religions, which were quite clearly simply mythical and allegorical.

    The only near-contemporaneous documents backing up those claims are in the New Testament.

    And the problem is that, if you read the New Testament with the eyes of modern science or modern historical scholarship, it clearly does not hold up.

    Paul makes clear that the early Church consisted of people who engaged in speaking in tongues, who interpreted the hidden meaning of those who spoke in tongues, and who took all that seriously.

    From the perspective not simply of a modern scientist or historical scholar but to any normal modern middle-class person, these people were nuts, not the sort of people you would want to have as next-door neighbors or even the school-bus driver for your children.

    And the Gospels, which came out of such people, are obviously historical fiction: there is no mountain from which you can see all the kingdom of the world (Mt. 4:8). The Romans did not (and could not) conduct a census by having people return to the town one of their ancestors had lived in nine centuries (!) earlier (Luke 2:1-4). And if you try to think through where Matthew and Luke got the virgin birth tale... well, did Mary tell them that she conceived out of wedlock but that it was not what it seemed -- it was really virginal conception? And they believed it?

    Christianity simply collapses if you apply any degree of modern critical analysis, even the sort of thinking ordinary middle-class people use when they are choosing a new car.

    For a long time, the educated elite knew this but were fairly discreet about it: as the quote attributed to Voltaire says, "There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night"

    But the truth is out there now.

    For better or worse, Christianity is dead and cannot be saved.

    Replies: @Stan, @Ian M.

    Meditate on the meaning of Jesus response to Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Stan

    Stan wrote to me:


    Meditate on the meaning of Jesus response to Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
     
    There is no reason to think Jesus said that... or any other specific phrase given in the Gospels.

    As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction.

    Theologians brush over this by saying things like "The authors of the Gospels were motivated by theological concerns, not historical ones."

    For sure.

    Another way of saying, very politely and obscurely in a way that may not inflame the fundamentalists, that the Gospels are fictional.

    Discussing what Jesus said in the Gospels is like discussing what Christopher Robin says in the Pooh books. The Pooh books are fiction: Christopher Robin Milne probably did not say most of what is related in those books.

    Biblical scholars have known this for centuries. Why haven't they just come out and bluntly said so?

    Because we mustn't disillusion the children about Santa.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox, @HA

  167. @Art Deco
    @kaganovitch

    He means the very existence of Kamala as VP speaks to the expectation that Blacks always have to be represented at the very apex of American politics.

    Not sure how she in particular speaks to that. Her ancestry is about 25% west African and 50% East Indian, she grew up in Toronto, her husband is Jewish, and she has no children.

    That aside, the mentality you're speaking of has been around for > 50 years, though it's much more prevalent than it used to be. A fairly stark example I can think of is the leftoid lawyer in Los Angeles who used to run the League of Ordinary Gentlemen / Ordinary Times site, yapping on and on about what a 'badass' Harriet Tubman was and how we ought to have her on the currency. That we've had a six digit population of combat veterans just as courageous as Harriet Tubman hardly occurred to him. That no one of note ever suggested we put Audie Murphy on the currency never occurred to him either. His opening premise was that we must have a dame / black on the currency and isn't she interesting. I don't think the tiresome Mr. Likko was inspired by Obama to think this way.

    Replies: @res, @kaganovitch

    Not sure how she in particular speaks to that.

    Are you honestly claiming that Kamala is not seen as a representative of blacks in the VP slot? Did you miss the whole production about Biden needing to pick a “black woman” as VP?

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Clyde
    @res


    Are you honestly claiming that Kamala is not seen as a representative of blacks in the VP slot? Did you miss the whole production about Biden needing to pick a “black woman” as VP?
     
    Her Jamaican father is very light skinned. You can find photos of him. His photos have him looking 25% African at best, on a cloudy day. This makes Kamala 12.5% African. Actually, her father is so octoroon-ish looking, that Kamala is 7-8% Africa derived.

    octoroon
    [ˌäktəˈro͞on]
    NOUN
    octaroon (noun)
    a person who is one-eighth black by descent.
     

    Replies: @bomag, @Jack D

  168. @Art Deco
    @kaganovitch

    He means the very existence of Kamala as VP speaks to the expectation that Blacks always have to be represented at the very apex of American politics.

    Not sure how she in particular speaks to that. Her ancestry is about 25% west African and 50% East Indian, she grew up in Toronto, her husband is Jewish, and she has no children.

    That aside, the mentality you're speaking of has been around for > 50 years, though it's much more prevalent than it used to be. A fairly stark example I can think of is the leftoid lawyer in Los Angeles who used to run the League of Ordinary Gentlemen / Ordinary Times site, yapping on and on about what a 'badass' Harriet Tubman was and how we ought to have her on the currency. That we've had a six digit population of combat veterans just as courageous as Harriet Tubman hardly occurred to him. That no one of note ever suggested we put Audie Murphy on the currency never occurred to him either. His opening premise was that we must have a dame / black on the currency and isn't she interesting. I don't think the tiresome Mr. Likko was inspired by Obama to think this way.

    Replies: @res, @kaganovitch

    Not sure how she in particular speaks to that. Her ancestry is about 25% west African and 50% East Indian, she grew up in Toronto, her husband is Jewish, and she has no children.

    You’re right about her ancestry, but such is the power of Blackness even when largely imaginary. Do you think Biden or what passes for his brain trust chose Harris for her Desi background? It was her Blackness – such as it is – that made her viable in their eyes. Unless you think it was the wisdom she imbibed from the ‘elders’ during those long ago Kwanzaas that did the trick?

    • Agree: Jack D
    • LOL: bomag
  169. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Calvin Hobbes


    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
     
    That quote from Charles Murray says a lot. It's that mentality of a person who only cares about his personal convenience in life, not any overriding loyalty to his people.

    On the plus side for Murray (as Almost Missouri points out), he has written some truly great quantitative sociology books.
     
    Here's the thing: who didn't know Blacks, on average, weren't as good at Algebra II? I think this was old news 500 years ago. So I don't see it as a breakthrough contribution. It's more like giving a detailed mathematical description of something everyone already knew.

    As for Steve, I don’t think he’d be more effective in fighting systemic anti-white racism if he came out as more explicitly white nationalist.
     
    I don't think he's "secretly" on the side of White people. He's not playing it on the down-low so as to influence the Establishment. He'd like less rancor in the country, that's all. More Nixonian slow surrender instead of confrontation and victory. Therefore, any actual pro-Whites need to realize his approach will get them to the same place the SPLC wants, just at a more leisurely, and (for him) more comfortable country club pace.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    … a more leisurely, and (for him) more comfortable country club pace.

    He’s gonna need a bigger flashlight.

  170. @Reg Cæsar
    @SafeNow


    Steve has a loose brain, extracting all sorts of great analogies and comparisons and related bits of information out of the recesses of his mind.
     
    This is very true. Mine is even looser, a kind of James Burke of commenting, finding connections between the most distant specimens. I'm not that good with the bricks, so it's more efficient to concentrate on the mortar.

    Grammar, on the other hand, is a constrained, rules-based mental state.

     

    Whether or not myself is bad grammar-- it might not be-- it is bad style. The -self is just bloat. It's redundant. Me already assumes -self. A non-native German-speaker here once pointed out that there is a lot of informal redundancy in that spoken language, e.g., durch die Wand durchdringen, approximately "penetrate through the wall".

    For all its slovenly nature, English can be more strictly logical than Continental languages, most of which are fine with double and quadruple negatives, which logically negate the odd-number ones.

    Perhaps Napoleon was wrong; England (along with her daughters) is a nation of lawyers, not shopkeepers.

    Replies: @SafeNow

    Yes, Reg, your brain, like Steve’s, is quite loose on connections. I still remember how you plucked “Just walk away, Renee, I won’t be following you back home” out of the ether. Being ancient with a decent memory, I recognized the song reference instantly, no Googling needed; although I never would have thought it up myself. Stay loose!

  171. @res
    @Art Deco


    Not sure how she in particular speaks to that.
     
    Are you honestly claiming that Kamala is not seen as a representative of blacks in the VP slot? Did you miss the whole production about Biden needing to pick a "black woman" as VP?

    Replies: @Clyde

    Are you honestly claiming that Kamala is not seen as a representative of blacks in the VP slot? Did you miss the whole production about Biden needing to pick a “black woman” as VP?

    Her Jamaican father is very light skinned. You can find photos of him. His photos have him looking 25% African at best, on a cloudy day. This makes Kamala 12.5% African. Actually, her father is so octoroon-ish looking, that Kamala is 7-8% Africa derived.

    octoroon
    [ˌäktəˈro͞on]
    NOUN
    octaroon (noun)
    a person who is one-eighth black by descent.

    • Replies: @bomag
    @Clyde

    Well, Elizabeth Warren taught us that 1/1024 is enough to count.

    , @Jack D
    @Clyde

    A younger Harris, Sr. can be seen here:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?7761-1/alternative-perspectives-international-economy

    starting at around 1:20:00

    As black people age they tend to become more pale. In his younger days, Harris looked to be about maybe 1/2 black. In Jamaica, your level of blackness is not 100% correlated with your level of stupidity, in part because being ambitious and studying hard is not consider to be "acting white".

    Kamala had two very intelligent parents but there has obviously been regression toward the mean. BTW, I know someone who is well acquainted with Harris, Sr. and I am informed that he does not have much nice to say about his daughter and her politics.

    One public exchange kind of sums it up:

    Asked during a 2019 radio interview whether she favoured legalizing marijuana, Kamala Harris laughingly replied: ““Half my family’s from Jamaica—are you kidding me?”

    Her father was not amused , writing in a newspaper for the Jamaican diaspora his parents would be spinning in their graves to see their proud heritage “being connected, in any way, jokingly or not, with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker, and in the pursuit of identity politics.”

    https://nationalpost.com/news/as-kamala-harris-shatters-barriers-why-we-still-hear-little-about-her-jamaican-american-father

    In other words, Donald's family were the kind of people with middle class values who encouraged their children to study hard and pursue higher education and professional attainment and not the kind of low lifes who sat around smoking ganja and they would be horrified to be associated with such riffraff. Their ambition was to move toward Western Civilization not to regress toward Negritude.

    It's true that Western Civilization is in some sense "white" but they had white blood too and did not see that it was an impediment. Harris, Sr. is proud that one of his ancestors was a prominent white man who built the local church. Naturally this man owned slaves but Harris is still proud that this civilized and accomplished man's blood runs thru his veins while Kamala is surely ashamed of it.

    Replies: @Clyde, @Art Deco

  172. @3g4me
    @Reg Cæsar

    @155 Reg Caesar: Typical civic nationalist barflegarb. It IS 'that easy,' unless one is deliberately being obtuse. Will your mulatto or quadroon second cousin protect you from a mob of fellow mulattos and quadroons? And no serious White nationalist considers Syrians or Iranians the same as White Europeans - and you damn well know this. Citizen never said anything about 'fellow Americans,' precisely because paper citizenship is irrelevant in a racially-mixed country with birthright citizenship.

    Physicist Dave agrees with you because, like Murray, he has hapa children. He consciously chose to have a racially mixed family. He places his family first, but because he can't fall back on White racial solidarity, he has turned to the spectre of Woke Whites as the cause of all his angst (although he stated he doesn't particularly care if he offends some blacks).

    When there are racial riots in the street, Reg, which group will you go to for protection and for whom will you fight? Are you going to hang with the Mestizos and sub-Saharans? The Han and Koreans? Will they welcome you with open arms and open hearts?

    You'd better go ahead and count on it, because a large cohort of Whites know who has openly sided with them and who has not, and is keeping track.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    And no serious White nationalist considers Syrians or Iranians the same as White Europeans

    A lot of them here cry tears for Palestinians, and not just the Christian ones. What about Greeks? They’ve gone downhill since Pericles. What about Russians? Where is the line drawn?

    Will your mulatto or quadroon second cousin protect you from a mob of fellow mulattos and quadroons?

    He still lives in our home county. I’m pretty sure he’d support my right to defend myself from that mob with a loaded handgun, unlike something like 90% of Englishmen. What the hell is that about? I thought they were white, like my own English ancestors were. (Evidently Galton, Wells, and Shaw were right about dysgenics in their country.)

    Does Andy Ngô have a right to defend himself from attacks? Why should I defend a white Portlander who attacks Mr Ngô? Why should I support Mayor Wheeler over him, just because Wheeler is whiter? Ngô is a lot closer to the Portlanders I read about in Beverly Cleary’s books decades ago, even with the debilitation of being queer. (A bizarrely white phenomenon, by the way. At least its celebration.)

    I wouldn’t want Niger Innis to marry my daughter, but he’s better than close to half of white folks on issues important to my family’s survival.

    I imagine you preferred Newsom over Elder in that election.

  173. @frankie p
    @Jack D

    "Blacks need to understand that even if racism is morally wrong, it is still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the black population."

    This is for you:

    Jews need to understand that even if antisemitism is morally wrong, it is (and always has been) still a rational response to the bad behavior of certain segments of the Jewish population.

    Replies: @Jack D

    In Jewish culture, there is something called a”schande far di goyim” – a disgrace in front of the non-Jews, someone who makes Jews look bad (e.g. Bernie Madoff). Needless to say, doing so does not gain you popularity in the Jewish community.

    AFAIK, there is no equivalent concept among blacks. No matter what depraved things a black person does, he is not shunned by other blacks.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that Jewish bad behavior doesn’t usually consist of cold blooded robbery and murder:

    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-homicides-20220124-dtv6dkwlije5jfzk7jq3zbllc4-story.html

    What are the chances that the men who killed these two innocent white people are black vs that they are Jewish? 1,000 to 1? 10,000 to 1?

    • Replies: @We
    @Jack D

    Really Jack - How does your "schande far di goyim" apply to these VERY high profile examples

    1. Roman Polanski - https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/culture/.premium-at-80-roman-s-not-going-home-1.5325525

    2. Samuel Sheinbein - https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/6/extradition-israel-maryland-youth

    3. Johnathan Pollard and Aviem Sella - https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-army-promotes-pollard-s-handler-convicted-in-espionage-affair-1.10171689

    , @David In TN
    @Jack D

    There are local news stories only on this crime. There "is no motive and no suspects."

    One story says the murder was caught on surveillance camera. Despite this no description of the suspect has been given, so far.

    Surprise, surprise.

  174. Both Steve and Charles Murray hazard theories about why the increased focus on / demands by blacks began in Obama’s second term, but neither of them exactly expressed what is my personal feeling.

    Put simply, I think that the election and especially reelection of Obama as president jarringly debunked the theory that America was “a racist country” in any systemic, and general sense. A black man had just been elected and reelected to the country’s highest office before a white woman, a Jew, an Asian, a Latino, a homosexual, a Muslim or an atheist. This simply put the lie to the theory that most Americans harbored anti-black bias, in comparison to other groups, that could significantly affect their political or other decisions. After all, if most Americans would support a black person for President over a white person, why would they not also support one for any other job?

    When Obama was first elected, there was always the chance that it was a fluke and that the racists would come out in force to prevent his reelection. Or that he would underperform in office, perhaps feeding a narrative that he was being undermined by racists in the government. But a competent first term and a resounding popular
    reelection put paid to any remaining possibility that racism was a factor preventing his election or performance.

    And yet, in society at large, the black disparities in success and crime remained as intractable as ever. What now could they be blamed on? In a very real sense, a Jew or an Asian could claim more plausible discrimination since one of their number had never been approved by the national referendum that is a presidential election.

    This, I think is what sparked such a furious reaction, a desperate lashing out to blame whites and a new type of invisible “systemic” racism for blacks’ problems. The reaction was so frantic because I believe blacks could sense many whites following the same train of thought laid out here, even if slowly and unconsciously – if a black was elected president, how bad could racism really be in the United States? What is the justification for continuing preferential policies for a group with enough political power to win the Presidency, one of only two ethnic groups in American history to have done so? It’s easy to understand their fear of this arrangement coming to an end and their furious attempts to forestall it with guilt and rhetoric.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Cimmerian

    Cimmerian wrote:


    Both Steve and Charles Murray hazard theories about why the increased focus on / demands by blacks began in Obama’s second term, but neither of them exactly expressed what is my personal feeling.
     
    Seems to me that you are assuming that this increased focus came from Black folks.

    As far as I can see, it came from Whites who are using Blacks as political pawns to gain power by playing to White guilt.

    The enemy is not Blacks. It is the ruling White elite -- the parasitic verbalist overclass.

    We are not in a race war. We are in a class war between the productive class and the parasite class.

    And some people here are playing into the hands of the parasites by pretending it is a race war.
    , @J.Ross
    @Cimmerian

    It's dumber than that. The "intractable disparities" were at a high point and Obama made everything worse.

  175. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    That's good insight on the Midwest Nice crowd. There is something off about them.

    The emphasis on being seen as nice and well-behaved is strange. It's not connected to actual moral character.

    Someone here said Steve and many HBD'ers long to "live as White people", by which they meant without concern for White people as a group. It was dumbfounding. But now I think I understand it. They want a nice, settled area that other White men conquered and settled. In their dream it's so remote it doesn't require defending. So they get to sit around and play with data patterns, play golf, go antiquing or whatever pastime MidWesterners get up to. It's the most decadent thing I can imagine. They imagine such an environment is a free good that falls from heaven.

    Even worse, they often condemn the very White male conquerers who created a country for them to immigrate to. They definitely don't like the traits (fierce loyalty, moral clarity, willingness to fight, etc) that made it possible.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    That’s good insight on the Midwest Nice crowd. There is something off about them.

    The emphasis on being seen as nice and well-behaved is strange. It’s not connected to actual moral character.

    What have you got against good manners? Jared Taylor’s are impeccable. Then again, he was educated among the Nips…

    They want a nice, settled area that other White men conquered and settled.

    And didn’t just hand over to Negroes, as Andy Jackson stupidly did. Red to black in a New strike> York Orleans minute.

    …concern for White people as a group.

    By that standard, the planters were the most treacherous white men ever to live. They had rather import sub-Saharan subhumans rather than supply white men a decent wage and working conditions. (But, strangely, those very subhuman became human at reapportionment time.)

    Try making this point anywhere south of the Ohio and see where it gets you.

    My brother moved to the Deep South where it is 50° warmer tonight (and 60° in the day– in January– that’s sick), to a county that is barely ⅝ white and almost ⅓ black. Mine is over 95% white and not even ½% black. Wouldn’t white solidarity (or “White solidarity” in your Negro orthography) show itself in a preference for white, and only white, neighbors? But, yeah, they won’t sweep your floor for peanuts.

    • Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Reg Cæsar

    Cool story, bro.

  176. @Clyde
    @res


    Are you honestly claiming that Kamala is not seen as a representative of blacks in the VP slot? Did you miss the whole production about Biden needing to pick a “black woman” as VP?
     
    Her Jamaican father is very light skinned. You can find photos of him. His photos have him looking 25% African at best, on a cloudy day. This makes Kamala 12.5% African. Actually, her father is so octoroon-ish looking, that Kamala is 7-8% Africa derived.

    octoroon
    [ˌäktəˈro͞on]
    NOUN
    octaroon (noun)
    a person who is one-eighth black by descent.
     

    Replies: @bomag, @Jack D

    Well, Elizabeth Warren taught us that 1/1024 is enough to count.

  177. @3g4me
    @PhysicistDave

    @143 Physicist Dave: "We need to start telling the truth, unapologetically and unremittingly, until they get tired and give up.

    Or even better, until they commit suicide and leave the world a better place."

    But but but . . . . Dave, surely you wouldn't judge a group based on race! You vehemently rejected all prior criticisms of your racially-mixed marriage and family, insisting that race didn't matter, only ideology did! That YOUR allies and friends and enemies weren't based on anything as baseless and irrelevant as race, but rather on who shared your magic principles!

    But suddenly everything's different. Now that anti-White policies have directly affected YOUR family and kept YOUR progeny from the education you feel is their birthright, suddenly you've changed your tune. Well goooollleee, whoodathunkit? Blood matters? One ought to prefer one's own (family, people, RACE) over others? Surely that's deplorable, rayciss thinking from a mere stoopid non-physicist like moi.

    That's all right, Dave. You're one of the "decent people" because you don't see race, only principles and perceived merit. Surely being one of the just is consolation enough for a wise man like you.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    3g4me wrote to me:

    But but but . . . . Dave, surely you wouldn’t judge a group based on race!

    No, I don’t. I judge people on the basis of lying.

    And most of these liars are Whites.

    3g4m3 also wrote to me:

    But suddenly everything’s different. Now that anti-White policies have directly affected YOUR family and kept YOUR progeny from the education you feel is their birthright, suddenly you’ve changed your tune.

    Suddenly??? No, I am talking about things that happened in the middle of the last decade.

    I have always held the view I am expressing here: it is wrong to systematically discriminate against people on the basis of race. And I have known and maintained that this sort of reverse discrimination, which happened to my own kids many years ago, is wrong for decades.

    3g4me also wrote:

    That’s all right, Dave. You’re one of the “decent people” because you don’t see race, only principles and perceived merit. Surely being one of the just is consolation enough for a wise man like you.

    What will really console me is when the Woke (predominantly White) Left realizes they have lost and all commit mass suicide.

  178. @Cimmerian
    Both Steve and Charles Murray hazard theories about why the increased focus on / demands by blacks began in Obama's second term, but neither of them exactly expressed what is my personal feeling.

    Put simply, I think that the election and especially reelection of Obama as president jarringly debunked the theory that America was "a racist country" in any systemic, and general sense. A black man had just been elected and reelected to the country's highest office before a white woman, a Jew, an Asian, a Latino, a homosexual, a Muslim or an atheist. This simply put the lie to the theory that most Americans harbored anti-black bias, in comparison to other groups, that could significantly affect their political or other decisions. After all, if most Americans would support a black person for President over a white person, why would they not also support one for any other job?

    When Obama was first elected, there was always the chance that it was a fluke and that the racists would come out in force to prevent his reelection. Or that he would underperform in office, perhaps feeding a narrative that he was being undermined by racists in the government. But a competent first term and a resounding popular
    reelection put paid to any remaining possibility that racism was a factor preventing his election or performance.

    And yet, in society at large, the black disparities in success and crime remained as intractable as ever. What now could they be blamed on? In a very real sense, a Jew or an Asian could claim more plausible discrimination since one of their number had never been approved by the national referendum that is a presidential election.

    This, I think is what sparked such a furious reaction, a desperate lashing out to blame whites and a new type of invisible "systemic" racism for blacks' problems. The reaction was so frantic because I believe blacks could sense many whites following the same train of thought laid out here, even if slowly and unconsciously - if a black was elected president, how bad could racism really be in the United States? What is the justification for continuing preferential policies for a group with enough political power to win the Presidency, one of only two ethnic groups in American history to have done so? It's easy to understand their fear of this arrangement coming to an end and their furious attempts to forestall it with guilt and rhetoric.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @J.Ross

    Cimmerian wrote:

    Both Steve and Charles Murray hazard theories about why the increased focus on / demands by blacks began in Obama’s second term, but neither of them exactly expressed what is my personal feeling.

    Seems to me that you are assuming that this increased focus came from Black folks.

    As far as I can see, it came from Whites who are using Blacks as political pawns to gain power by playing to White guilt.

    The enemy is not Blacks. It is the ruling White elite — the parasitic verbalist overclass.

    We are not in a race war. We are in a class war between the productive class and the parasite class.

    And some people here are playing into the hands of the parasites by pretending it is a race war.

  179. @Stan
    @PhysicistDave

    Meditate on the meaning of Jesus response to Pontius Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world."

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Stan wrote to me:

    Meditate on the meaning of Jesus response to Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

    There is no reason to think Jesus said that… or any other specific phrase given in the Gospels.

    As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction.

    Theologians brush over this by saying things like “The authors of the Gospels were motivated by theological concerns, not historical ones.”

    For sure.

    Another way of saying, very politely and obscurely in a way that may not inflame the fundamentalists, that the Gospels are fictional.

    Discussing what Jesus said in the Gospels is like discussing what Christopher Robin says in the Pooh books. The Pooh books are fiction: Christopher Robin Milne probably did not say most of what is related in those books.

    Biblical scholars have known this for centuries. Why haven’t they just come out and bluntly said so?

    Because we mustn’t disillusion the children about Santa.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    Regardless of whether God is real, Christianity is real.

    And you missed Stan's point. Regardless of whether Jesus did or did not personally say the words attributed to him, his disciples believed that there is a spiritual realm which is out of the reach of earthly rulers and this continues to resonate with people who are alive today.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Clyde, @Sam Malone

    , @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    >As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction.

    I think that's going too far, even if you dismiss many of the events in the Gospels-miracles-as impossible. It's certainly true that the Gospels retrospectively tried to construct history to address events yet to occur, such as the sack of Jerusalem, but Jesus lived less than half a century before that. People would have known people who knew him. More broadly speaking, Jesus (and Muhammad, and Mani) was not Moses or Arjuna or Aeneas. He lived in an era that isn't cut off to us from any non-religious sources. Ancient Roman historians who had no connection to Palestine or Judaism-Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius-all make allusions to early Christianity and the "Christ" in their accounts of history that go back to the late Julio-Claudian dynasty, only a few decades after the crucifixion. I find that along with the proliferation of religious texts (not all of them canonical) stretching back to the early 50s AD, well before the Flavian sack that led to Christianity becoming more of a full fledged separate religion, extremely hard to reconcile with the notion of a mythical Jesus.

    What is true is that the Gospels were texts written in the ancient thought-world, which means the assumptions about what the point of history was are totally different from today. You do have historical allusions and retrospective imagining of conversations that didn't happen: that was par for the course in the ancient world. But that's not the same thing as totally repurposing something outside its context centuries later a la Exodus or the Iliad, let alone making something up out of whole cloth.

    (I think the secular understanding of Jesus the Man is very banal, when you get right down to it. He was a 1st Century Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic. He doesn't really translate well outside that specific cultural context. Utilizing him from the lens of a different society centuries later is going to always be off the mark, whether it was the 2nd Century in Rome or America in 2022.)

    , @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    "As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction."

    Where is this conclusive evidence you speak of? I mean, I get it -- the very fact that people today cannot walk on water or rise up after three days and then float through walls and ascend up into heaven is some fairly solid evidence that whatever documents detail events like that are ipso facto historical fiction. But it was my understanding that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure" (as wikipedia puts it), even those who really believe some of his disciples made off with Jesus' corpse, thereby allowing the rest to get carried away with a narrative that eventually took on a life of its own (or something like that).

    But maybe you're talking about something beyond that that actually is conclusive, in which case I'd appreciate having a look. I'm pretty sure that Youtube video that made the rounds a few years back about Epictetus or Mithra or whomever isn't any more impressive to actual scholars than a document claiming that water was transformed into wine, if that's what you had in mind, but maybe you are thinking of something else.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Clyde

  180. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kef wrote to me:


    I know of a group of people who gather every thursday in Zürich to read Joyce.
     
    That sorta makes my point, you know: books chosen for reading groups tend to be books people think they should read. A reading group does not need to choose a book that people would read for fun anyway, say Andy Weir's latest (Project Hail Mary, which I heartily recommend to anyone who enjoys "hard" scifi).

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Ok, but in Zürich it works the other way round: Poeple join the Joyce reading group because they find it so iteresting to read Ulysses. And in the end they even get hooked.

    If this reading-experience would be just a conventional thing and not intrinsically motivating them (= moving them inside – their minds and hearts), this group would not have lasted for decades now.
    But as I said – they can’t count me in. I’d prefer to be in touch just lightly with Joyce’s Ulyses – not to mention Finnagas Wake.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote to me:


    Ok, but in Zürich it works the other way round: Poeple join the Joyce reading group because they find it so iteresting to read Ulysses. And in the end they even get hooked.

    If this reading-experience would be just a conventional thing and not intrinsically motivating them (= moving them inside – their minds and hearts), this group would not have lasted for decades now.
     
    Or maybe they are all just pretentious poseurs.

    A lot of them around nowadays, you know.

    I shared an office for a while with the fellow who invented TTL logic, Jim Buie. Jim told me that when he started work, most of the engineers were not college graduates but guys who had learned on the job.

    Back when people cared about learning about the real physical world rather than trying to impress people by pretending to be jaded Mandarins who could spout nonsense from obscure books.

    I do not think the West has much time left.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Jack D, @nebulafox

  181. @SafeNow
    @Alfa158


    with no distractions or work to occupy my waking hours, so I plowed through Gravity’s Rainbow with time left over. I should have brought War and Peace.
     
    I tried-out my trusty “book trailer” technique, which is to check-out the online quotes from these books. Goodreads or Brainy Quote. The Gravity’s Rainbow quotes are terrible, to me. War and Peace, mixed, only fair for the best ones, for me. By contrast, the quotes from Proust and Euripides are fantastic.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I tried-out my trusty “book trailer” technique, which is to check-out the online quotes from these books. Goodreads or Brainy Quote.

    That is a great way to go!

    I’m a lot into aphorisms and proverbs etc. – and novels are often like preperations or showcases for certain sentences: All happy families are alike... etc.

    That’s what makes th French moralsits so interesting. They sowmhwo detected the truth of this fact and specialised in one or jsut some-sentnces novels, and essais and philosophies even. i love Vauvenaurgues, Nicoals Chamfort (!), Jospeh Joubert (great littkle US-edition of his aphorisms put together by Paul Auster).
    Then there are JWv Goethe’s Maxims and Reflections…(he too read and loved th French Moralists, btw.).

    • Thanks: SafeNow
  182. @Anonymous
    @Dieter Kief


    * Ludwig Witgenstein shed quite a bit of light on the different kind of ways , in which we follow rules, not least with regard to the diffrences in rule following between language and – stricter systems like logic, and mathematics etc.
     
    What knowledge did he contribute specifically?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    His lifelong philosophical struggle was to make sense of the difference between the spheres of (cold) calculation, logic, mathematics, (the measuring sciences) and everyday life, the arts (!), our sensual experiences (which for him  include the impenetrable, the metaphysical (= God).
    As an architect, he somehow reached a middle ground between the two spheres

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

    The German wiki-page has better fotos.

    A very good way to get a sense of the way he wrote and thought are his Mixed Remarks (In German: Vermischte Bemerkungen). A short and nice little book. Best book onWittgenstein is Thomas Rentsch’s Heidegger und Wittgenstein – unfortunately not translated.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote:


    [Wittgenstein's] lifelong philosophical struggle was to make sense of the difference between the spheres of (cold) calculation, logic, mathematics, (the measuring sciences) and everyday life, the arts (!), our sensual experiences (which for him include the impenetrable, the metaphysical (= God).
     
    Karl Popper showed Wittgenstein up for the fool that he was.

    Some of the questions which philosophers have asked -- such as the nature of consciousness -- are real problems that cannot be resolved by Wittgensteinian language games.
  183. @Jack D
    @stillCARealist

    There is nothing wrong with Dieter's English translation. If you could listen to him in German, I'll bet you he sounds exactly the same. In fact, that is the problem. Different nationalities have different modes of thought so that it's hard for an English thinker to understand what a German thinker or a Chinese thinker is thinking. Even if the translation itself is perfect, the modes of thought are different. To an English thinker, German thought seems overly abstract and incomprehensible. To a German, English thought seems superficial and has childlike obviousness - the map is not the territory.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    If you could listen to him in German, I’ll bet you he sounds exactly the same.

    That was Old Palo Altans a-ha! – moment, when he discovered this. – And he could see it, because I did send him some of my German texts after we had become a little bit more known to each other.
    He even said it once pretty much with the same words as you do…

    (I miss the old man’s dry and well thought through (well most of the time, – as long as he could steer clear of Pope Francis and the like…the reform-Catholics: They were too much for him!) comments! – I so much (!) hope he is doing well! – Maybe in the Grand Chartreuse? – – – He mentioned once contemplating to go there. )

  184. @3g4me
    @Reg Cæsar

    @155 Reg Caesar: Typical civic nationalist barflegarb. It IS 'that easy,' unless one is deliberately being obtuse. Will your mulatto or quadroon second cousin protect you from a mob of fellow mulattos and quadroons? And no serious White nationalist considers Syrians or Iranians the same as White Europeans - and you damn well know this. Citizen never said anything about 'fellow Americans,' precisely because paper citizenship is irrelevant in a racially-mixed country with birthright citizenship.

    Physicist Dave agrees with you because, like Murray, he has hapa children. He consciously chose to have a racially mixed family. He places his family first, but because he can't fall back on White racial solidarity, he has turned to the spectre of Woke Whites as the cause of all his angst (although he stated he doesn't particularly care if he offends some blacks).

    When there are racial riots in the street, Reg, which group will you go to for protection and for whom will you fight? Are you going to hang with the Mestizos and sub-Saharans? The Han and Koreans? Will they welcome you with open arms and open hearts?

    You'd better go ahead and count on it, because a large cohort of Whites know who has openly sided with them and who has not, and is keeping track.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    3g4me wrote about me:

    Physicist Dave agrees with you because, like Murray, he has hapa children. He consciously chose to have a racially mixed family. He places his family first, but because he can’t fall back on White racial solidarity, he has turned to the spectre of Woke Whites as the cause of all his angst (although he stated he doesn’t particularly care if he offends some blacks).

    You think I only became a “race traitor” when I met my wife?

    Nope, I am proud to say that I have been a race traitor all my life, seem to have been born that way.

    As I have said before, when I was a young kid growing up in St. Louis, we still had Jim Crow. I was against it. A proud race mixer from the beginning.

    3g4me also wrote to Reg:

    When there are racial riots in the street, Reg, which group will you go to for protection and for whom will you fight? Are you going to hang with the Mestizos and sub-Saharans? The Han and Koreans? Will they welcome you with open arms and open hearts?

    You’d better go ahead and count on it, because a large cohort of Whites know who has openly sided with them and who has not, and is keeping track.

    Oh, in the extremely unlikely event that you white nationalists succeed in inciting a race war, most of us Whites will be fighting against you.

    And we will cream you — you do, after all, all seem to be a bunch of weenies.

    When I first saw the infamous clip of the weenies at Rich Spencer’s little get-together shouting out “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!”, the first thought that crossed my mind was: are any of these guys actually heterosexuals?

    I know it is verboten to talk about such things nowadays, but still it is a fact that the head of the SA, Ernst Röhm. was gay: as Wikipedia says, “Röhm acknowledged that the letters [confirming his homosexuality] were genuine, and as a result of the scandal, he became the first openly gay politician in history.”

    Maybe some of you white nationalists are not gay, but you do all seem to be weenies.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @PhysicistDave


    I know it is verboten to talk about such things nowadays, but still it is a fact that the head of the SA, Ernst Röhm. was gay:
     
    Like his boss. Who "penetrated" him in the end.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  185. @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave

    Ok, but in Zürich it works the other way round: Poeple join the Joyce reading group because they find it so iteresting to read Ulysses. And in the end they even get hooked.

    If this reading-experience would be just a conventional thing and not intrinsically motivating them (= moving them inside - their minds and hearts), this group would not have lasted for decades now.
    But as I said - they can't count me in. I'd prefer to be in touch just lightly with Joyce's Ulyses - not to mention Finnagas Wake.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Dieter Kief wrote to me:

    Ok, but in Zürich it works the other way round: Poeple join the Joyce reading group because they find it so iteresting to read Ulysses. And in the end they even get hooked.

    If this reading-experience would be just a conventional thing and not intrinsically motivating them (= moving them inside – their minds and hearts), this group would not have lasted for decades now.

    Or maybe they are all just pretentious poseurs.

    A lot of them around nowadays, you know.

    I shared an office for a while with the fellow who invented TTL logic, Jim Buie. Jim told me that when he started work, most of the engineers were not college graduates but guys who had learned on the job.

    Back when people cared about learning about the real physical world rather than trying to impress people by pretending to be jaded Mandarins who could spout nonsense from obscure books.

    I do not think the West has much time left.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave


    Or maybe they are all just pretentious poseurs.
     
    As I said - I don't want to praise his effortstoo high. But what Fritz Senn and his Ulysses-reading group-members are doing here is an honsetattempt. I know him a bit and the least thing you could say about him would be that he is a pretender.He is an utterly charming and unpretentious to the n-th degree old sport, Fritz Senn.

    Maybe what takes place here is a bit strange for you. - What is going on here is - literary enthusiasm. And that is far away from the status-world nowadays. Maybe as far away as it is to join a Franciscan or a Dominican order.
     
    (The people I know who are literary enthusiasts have a lot in common with people who - sing in the Bach-Choir in Konstanz for example, or play in the university's symphonic orchestra. As a matter of fact, there are people I know who take part in both - strange and commercially completely outdated and detached - practices: The ones in the literary and the ones in the musical - and / or the art world. 

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    You (and according to your telling Buie, although Buie had a degree in electrical engineering and I'm not sure that he could have come up with TTL logic without the theoretical grounding that he received in his higher education) represent a very American strain of thinking which is distrustful of intellectuals and of abstract thinking.

    America's great technical achievements often came from men like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison who possessed no higher education. (Tesla OTOH thought that Edison's lack of technical background led him to a wasteful trial and error method, whereas someone with a scientific background could have narrowed the field for him and saved him a lot of wasted effort on things that were never going to work if you did the math in advance. )

    But that was a simpler world. You are not going to develop quantum computing or fusion energy tinkering in your barn. And man does not live by bread alone. There is more to this world than what we can see and touch.

    Replies: @Clyde, @PhysicistDave

    , @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    >I shared an office for a while with the fellow who invented TTL logic, Jim Buie. Jim told me that when he started work, most of the engineers were not college graduates but guys who had learned on the job.

    Those guys who learned on the job wouldn't get the job today because employers have ensured that the costs of training are born either entirely by the individual or the public as a whole. MBALogic of the kind that has dominated the American psyche for 30 years (in tandem with HRLogic and BureaucratLogic, of course) doesn't care about the long-term negative effects this can have on your business, let alone society as a whole.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind

  186. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote to me:


    Ok, but in Zürich it works the other way round: Poeple join the Joyce reading group because they find it so iteresting to read Ulysses. And in the end they even get hooked.

    If this reading-experience would be just a conventional thing and not intrinsically motivating them (= moving them inside – their minds and hearts), this group would not have lasted for decades now.
     
    Or maybe they are all just pretentious poseurs.

    A lot of them around nowadays, you know.

    I shared an office for a while with the fellow who invented TTL logic, Jim Buie. Jim told me that when he started work, most of the engineers were not college graduates but guys who had learned on the job.

    Back when people cared about learning about the real physical world rather than trying to impress people by pretending to be jaded Mandarins who could spout nonsense from obscure books.

    I do not think the West has much time left.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Jack D, @nebulafox

    Or maybe they are all just pretentious poseurs.

    As I said – I don’t want to praise his effortstoo high. But what Fritz Senn and his Ulysses-reading group-members are doing here is an honsetattempt. I know him a bit and the least thing you could say about him would be that he is a pretender.He is an utterly charming and unpretentious to the n-th degree old sport, Fritz Senn.

    Maybe what takes place here is a bit strange for you. – What is going on here is – literary enthusiasm. And that is far away from the status-world nowadays. Maybe as far away as it is to join a Franciscan or a Dominican order.
     
    (The people I know who are literary enthusiasts have a lot in common with people who – sing in the Bach-Choir in Konstanz for example, or play in the university’s symphonic orchestra. As a matter of fact, there are people I know who take part in both – strange and commercially completely outdated and detached – practices: The ones in the literary and the ones in the musical – and / or the art world. 

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote to me:


    Maybe what takes place here is a bit strange for you. – What is going on here is – literary enthusiasm. And that is far away from the status-world nowadays. Maybe as far away as it is to join a Franciscan or a Dominican order.
     
    "Literary enthusiasm" -- either childish cult or perverse pomposity.

    And, yes, I do think that anyone who would "join a Franciscan or a Dominican order" is, at best, a pompous poseur. More likely, someone suffering from very serious genetic/psychological defects.

    Christianity is a pack of lies. Anyone in the 21st century so unable to see that fact that he would "join a Franciscan or a Dominican order," well, at least he will not be contributing to the human gene pool!

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Dieter Kief

  187. @Reg Cæsar
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship


    That’s good insight on the Midwest Nice crowd. There is something off about them.

    The emphasis on being seen as nice and well-behaved is strange. It’s not connected to actual moral character.
     
    What have you got against good manners? Jared Taylor's are impeccable. Then again, he was educated among the Nips...

    They want a nice, settled area that other White men conquered and settled.
     
    And didn't just hand over to Negroes, as Andy Jackson stupidly did. Red to black in a New strike> York Orleans minute.


    ...concern for White people as a group.
     
    By that standard, the planters were the most treacherous white men ever to live. They had rather import sub-Saharan subhumans rather than supply white men a decent wage and working conditions. (But, strangely, those very subhuman became human at reapportionment time.)

    Try making this point anywhere south of the Ohio and see where it gets you.

    My brother moved to the Deep South where it is 50° warmer tonight (and 60° in the day-- in January-- that's sick), to a county that is barely ⅝ white and almost ⅓ black. Mine is over 95% white and not even ½% black. Wouldn't white solidarity (or "White solidarity" in your Negro orthography) show itself in a preference for white, and only white, neighbors? But, yeah, they won't sweep your floor for peanuts.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Cool story, bro.

  188. @Dieter Kief
    @Anonymous

    His lifelong philosophical struggle was to make sense of the difference between the spheres of (cold) calculation, logic, mathematics, (the measuring sciences) and everyday life, the arts (!), our sensual experiences (which for him  include the impenetrable, the metaphysical (= God).
    As an architect, he somehow reached a middle ground between the two spheres

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

    The German wiki-page has better fotos.

    A very good way to get a sense of the way he wrote and thought are his Mixed Remarks (In German: Vermischte Bemerkungen). A short and nice little book. Best book onWittgenstein is Thomas Rentsch's Heidegger und Wittgenstein - unfortunately not translated.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Dieter Kief wrote:

    [Wittgenstein’s] lifelong philosophical struggle was to make sense of the difference between the spheres of (cold) calculation, logic, mathematics, (the measuring sciences) and everyday life, the arts (!), our sensual experiences (which for him include the impenetrable, the metaphysical (= God).

    Karl Popper showed Wittgenstein up for the fool that he was.

    Some of the questions which philosophers have asked — such as the nature of consciousness — are real problems that cannot be resolved by Wittgensteinian language games.

  189. @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave


    Or maybe they are all just pretentious poseurs.
     
    As I said - I don't want to praise his effortstoo high. But what Fritz Senn and his Ulysses-reading group-members are doing here is an honsetattempt. I know him a bit and the least thing you could say about him would be that he is a pretender.He is an utterly charming and unpretentious to the n-th degree old sport, Fritz Senn.

    Maybe what takes place here is a bit strange for you. - What is going on here is - literary enthusiasm. And that is far away from the status-world nowadays. Maybe as far away as it is to join a Franciscan or a Dominican order.
     
    (The people I know who are literary enthusiasts have a lot in common with people who - sing in the Bach-Choir in Konstanz for example, or play in the university's symphonic orchestra. As a matter of fact, there are people I know who take part in both - strange and commercially completely outdated and detached - practices: The ones in the literary and the ones in the musical - and / or the art world. 

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Dieter Kief wrote to me:

    Maybe what takes place here is a bit strange for you. – What is going on here is – literary enthusiasm. And that is far away from the status-world nowadays. Maybe as far away as it is to join a Franciscan or a Dominican order.

    “Literary enthusiasm” — either childish cult or perverse pomposity.

    And, yes, I do think that anyone who would “join a Franciscan or a Dominican order” is, at best, a pompous poseur. More likely, someone suffering from very serious genetic/psychological defects.

    Christianity is a pack of lies. Anyone in the 21st century so unable to see that fact that he would “join a Franciscan or a Dominican order,” well, at least he will not be contributing to the human gene pool!

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave

    As I know, you love classical music. So - you bascially say here: I like my artists (musicians/enthusisasts) and - - - loath the others.
    I don't care much for your animosities as long as I have the impression, that you do share a certain admiration for - at least one kind of non-materialist enthusisasm. - Feel free to disagree! - I do so too. I really do.

    , @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave


    Christianity is a pack of lies. Anyone in the 21st century so unable to see that fact that he would “join a Franciscan or a Dominican order,” well, at least he will not be contributing to the human gene pool!
     
    In the light of your remark -- a very ironic social fact of huge importance: The European gene pool was deeply shaped/modeled by Christans (=most of all by christian monks (the brains in the church****), bishops and priests) in two steps:

    1) Cousin marriage was said to be undesired / forbidden from early medieval times on by Christian leaders. The Christian church managed to install this as a by and large well respected social norm, that did mark a big difference between the Islamic and the Christian world.

    2) Priests had kids after Luther - and those kids were the Professors then at the growing university system. So much so, that universities were looked upon as the wordly arm of the protestant church (s. max Weber's scoiology classic: The Protestant Ehtic and the spirit of Capitalism) . In the late 19th century this model was a bit modified, because - not least in Germany - many a Jew rose to prominence as a scientist/ Professor at German universities especially - from 1870 ca. their numbers were in the double digits in quite a few disciplines (zero before).

    No 1) might well have been the single most important social eugenical factor in European history.

    Harvard Historian Jo Henrich (see his book The Secret of Our Success) put it this way in an interview he gave to Markus Schär of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

    "The branch of Christianity that grew into the Roman Catholic Church, beginning around the year 500, enforced what we call its "marriage and family program": Norms that made polygamy and cousin marriages taboo, requiring married people to have their own households independent of their families and introduced new inheritance rules against collective land ownership. In this way, the Catholic Church destroyed the complex kinship structures we see elsewhere in the world. Around the year 1000 there were no more clans in Western Europe, almost only nuclear families. This led to what historians call voluntary associations: cities, guilds, monasteries, universities. People made their decisions free from the ties of their complex families. This ultimately led to individuality as we know it in the West."

    PS I've answered your Wittgenstein remarks in my comment 192, but did not link properly.

    **** see Arno Borst -
    Computus - Or: The ordering of Time -  From Ancient Computing to the Modern Computer

    - About the origins of counting and calculations in the Middle Ages (mostly about the early scientific work of - (Dominican and Franziscan) monks)

    (available at amazon - highly recommended little book - 178 p.)

    Also by Arno Borst: Medieval Worlds: Barbarians, Heretics, and Artists in the Middle Ages
    Bigger - 288 p. - and broader in its appraoch - very insightful book as well.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  190. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Yep, Murray is basically a compliant house ------, but he's so full of himself that he doesn't notice.

    Btw, I don't live that far from Murray. His whole shtick about living in "rural" Maryland is BS. He lives very close to vineyards and cute towns. He's not playing cornhole with truck-driving buddies.

    In another odd coincidence, I didn't grow up that far from Murray. I know him. I've known people like him all my life. (Oddly, Steve, even though he's a SoCal guy, reminds me so much of Midwest people.)

    Murray is Midwest nice. They're a special breed. Let's just say that they love a pat on head from whoever is in charge more than any group on the planet. Murray would literally rather die than not be accepted into polite society.

    That Murray can't understand love of one's own people is a serious indictment against him. That Murray is fine with other groups having a love of their own people but chastising whites for the same thing is inexcusable.

    Same goes for Sailer.

    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?

    These are not serious men.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @IHTG, @Almost Missouri

    Who are your people?

    “Who are your people?” is one question. One might also phrase it as “What is your tribe?”

    But in a multi-ethnic environment, an equally important question is “Which tribal confederation is your tribe part of?”

  191. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s intention was to show that language works by being spoken = while being used, not (big not) by theorizing about it.

    For some reason Karl Popper did not get this simple but nonetheless basic fact of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Wittgenstein could quite easily be understood as a man who is very much interested in defending reason wherever it seems appropriate. What sets him apart from Popper is a) a deep understanding (and valuation!) of the fields, which can not be plowed (or would better not be plowed) with the tools of philosophy. And b) the insight, I’d hold, that life (and thus the proper use of language) can not (and better would not!) be formalized.
    Popper thought that these ideas would give room for non-rational nd or irrational (inter)actions. That was his great fear. One of the many great fears he had for mankind even though he claimed to be an optimist.
    Since you sound a bit like a pessimist, one could say that in this regard, you’re on the surface (at first sight) not really a Popperian, but on second sight (= closer inspection) you’re maybe even more one… A wide field (Theodor fontane).

    I always side with the Popperian folk when it comes to the defense of freedom of speech and the sciences. The passion for this noble goal I love to share with Sir Karl.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kef wrote to me:


    Ludwig Wittgenstein’s intention was to show that language works by being spoken = while being used, not (big not) by theorizing about it.
     
    You think that Sophocles or Protagoras did not already know that??

    DK also wrote:

    For some reason Karl Popper did not get this simple but nonetheless basic fact of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy.
     
    You apparently do not know of the big confrontation between Popper and Wittgenstein in 1946 at Cambridge to which I alluded.

    Wittgenstein had long maintained that there were no philosophical problems, only linguistic puzzles that would dissolve if we paid careful attention to the use of language.

    Popper showed up at the meeting of the Moral Science Club with a list of actual philosophical problems that could not be dissolved by merely playing language games.

    Wittgenstein did not take it well: by some accounts, he threatened Popper with a red-hot poker.

    Wittgenstein was obviously wrong: the problem of consciousness is a real problem, for example, that no one has disposed of with mere linguistic analysis (Popper later co-wrote a book with the Nobel laureate John Eccles on precisely that issue).

    In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein tried to pursue his own eccentric version of logical positivism, logical positivism being a reaction against (and, in fact, a strange variant of) nineteenth-century "absolute idealism."

    When he realized that the Tractatus had been a miserable failure, he spent the rest of his life playing silly language games.

    Wittgenstein was a pompous arrogant fool: by pointing out some patently obvious facts about language, he thought he could prove himself the superior of Aristotle, Locke, Descartes, et al.

    He wasn't.

    DK also wrote:

    Since you sound a bit like a pessimist, one could say that in this regard, you’re on the surface (at first sight) not really a Popperian, but on second sight (= closer inspection) you’re maybe even more one… A wide field (Theodor fontane).
     
    I disagree with Sir Karl on a whole slew of issues. If you want to tag me with some famous philosopher's name, I am a Lockean, with perhaps a side dish of David Hume, and just a dash of Ayn Rand (for seasoning).

    As to being a pessimist, I think that Western civilization is now being subjected to massive ongoing theft, continuous lies, and repression of the human spirit by a monstrously and openly evil ruling elite.

    I also think that elite is so incompetent that they will bring the whole evil regime crashing down in the next few decades.

    My deepest fear is that they may prove to be not quite as incompetent as I think and will figure out how to make the minimal changes required to keep the evil regime afloat: I would consider that the greatest tragedy in human history.

    So does that make me an optimist or a pessimist?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Bumpkin

  192. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote to me:


    Maybe what takes place here is a bit strange for you. – What is going on here is – literary enthusiasm. And that is far away from the status-world nowadays. Maybe as far away as it is to join a Franciscan or a Dominican order.
     
    "Literary enthusiasm" -- either childish cult or perverse pomposity.

    And, yes, I do think that anyone who would "join a Franciscan or a Dominican order" is, at best, a pompous poseur. More likely, someone suffering from very serious genetic/psychological defects.

    Christianity is a pack of lies. Anyone in the 21st century so unable to see that fact that he would "join a Franciscan or a Dominican order," well, at least he will not be contributing to the human gene pool!

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Dieter Kief

    As I know, you love classical music. So – you bascially say here: I like my artists (musicians/enthusisasts) and – – – loath the others.
    I don’t care much for your animosities as long as I have the impression, that you do share a certain admiration for – at least one kind of non-materialist enthusisasm. – Feel free to disagree! – I do so too. I really do.

  193. Neither Steve nor Murray mentioned the elephant in the room: the assertion that mental ability has different group means by race. They both note they just like data, honest debate, etc., and that they judge people as individuals. All good, but this would not be a problem if they adopted the standard assumption that races are equal in anything related to mental ability. Steve and Murray not mentioning it just highlights the taboo they have violated.

    If one presumes group differences are not genetic, and this fact has been indisputably proven, it’s no wonder people are angry and presume there must exist systemic discrimination.

    • Agree: Jack D
  194. @houston 1992
    @Art Deco

    One can easily find McCain humming bomb , bomb Iran to the old Beach Boys tune.....
    Upon being challenged, and alerted to the how quickly the YouTube video of his remarks reached 744K counts, McCain remained defiant and compared threatening Iran to calling an unruly teenager a jerk.

    see below link
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeThckstKNE

    McCain also spoke about a 100-year WOT.

    At least, some ppl I know voted for Obama because he seemed anti war during the campaign. And McCain seemed insane.

    Almost everyone I know acknowledges that the War Party is far from ethnically homogenous.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    One can easily find McCain humming bomb , bomb Iran to the old Beach Boys tune

    You’ve stolen several bases to get from there to “In 2008, McCain campaigned on a pledge to invade Iran for the sake of Israel. “.

  195. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Neither Sailer nor Murray can answer the simple but most important question anyone can answer: Who are your people?
     
    It's not always that easy. Who is closer to you, your mulatto or quadroon second cousin, or that Syrian or Iranian just off the boat Airbus? The latter may more closely resemble you.

    Who are my fellow Americans? 75% of the population? 50%? 25%

    Almost everyone in Vermont looks like me. A shrinking minority vote like me.

    Murray, by the way, has four children, two white, and two half-Thai. So that's one more white child than Steve!

    Replies: @houston 1992, @3g4me, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Actually, it is that easy – except when certain individuals (or a particularly famous group who really enjoy small hats) with a vested in interest in whites not seeing themselves as a people try to muddy the waters.

    Your argument is no different – and no less stupid and disingenuous – as the argument made by those who deny that race exists because where do you draw the line between a European and an Arab or that ethnicity doesn’t exist because where do you draw the line between a German and Frenchman or an Italian or that colors don’t exist because where do your draw the line between yellow and orange.

    These are idiotic arguments, and you know that, yet you use them. Why? I think we know the answer. You are purposely attempting to mislead whites who stray onto this comment board.

    But, hey, by all means fellow whites (wait, that’s your line), please join up with the colorblind civic nationalist crowd. I mean, look at how incredibly successful it’s been over the past fifty years in achieving its goals and improving the lives of whites.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Your argument is no different – and no less stupid and disingenuous – as the argument made by those who deny that race exists
     
    I don't deny that race exists. On the contrary, I recognize a lot more races than you do. Wogs begin at Calais. Hell, at Calais, Maine.

    a vested in interest in whites not seeing themselves as a people
     
    Whites are not a people. We are dozens of people. Who is keeping the wogs out of their country? The Hungarians. They are doing the opposite of "white solidarity"-- Magyar solidarity.

    Asia is kicking our 臀部. Do you see "yellow solidarity"?


    ...please join up with the colorblind civic nationalist crowd.
     
    We are members of ethnic communities. Of linguistic communities. Of religious faiths. And of political entities such as states. We "side" with each of these depending on the situation and the need. What is so hard to understand about that.

    You are purposely attempting to mislead whites who stray onto this comment board.
     
    The Crow calling the raven black!

    Like all the other "White solidarity" commenters here, you never seem to offer up specific steps for us to take.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Justvisiting, @Jenner Ickham Errican

  196. @PhysicistDave
    @Stan

    Stan wrote to me:


    Meditate on the meaning of Jesus response to Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
     
    There is no reason to think Jesus said that... or any other specific phrase given in the Gospels.

    As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction.

    Theologians brush over this by saying things like "The authors of the Gospels were motivated by theological concerns, not historical ones."

    For sure.

    Another way of saying, very politely and obscurely in a way that may not inflame the fundamentalists, that the Gospels are fictional.

    Discussing what Jesus said in the Gospels is like discussing what Christopher Robin says in the Pooh books. The Pooh books are fiction: Christopher Robin Milne probably did not say most of what is related in those books.

    Biblical scholars have known this for centuries. Why haven't they just come out and bluntly said so?

    Because we mustn't disillusion the children about Santa.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox, @HA

    Regardless of whether God is real, Christianity is real.

    And you missed Stan’s point. Regardless of whether Jesus did or did not personally say the words attributed to him, his disciples believed that there is a spiritual realm which is out of the reach of earthly rulers and this continues to resonate with people who are alive today.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Jack D


    Regardless of whether Jesus did or did not personally say the words attributed to him, his disciples believed that there is a spiritual realm which is out of the reach of earthly rulers
     
    This - deep down rather paradox - insight is indeed one of the bigger treasures of Christianity. It ranks there in the Top 5 quite easily.
    , @Clyde
    @Jack D

    Believers set up a force field. This is how you explain Mother Mary sightings in Portugal etc.

    https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

    , @Sam Malone
    @Jack D

    And Stan in turn deflected from Dave's point: a) that historically Christianity's importance to people ultimately sprang from the belief that its key events had actually happened and b) since with the lens of modern critique one can pretty clearly see that it was a human invention all along, it has for the last couple hundred years been resonating with ever fewer people.

    Nebula's response also deflects from Dave's point: yes, Christianity is currently thriving in lands whose masses for now largely do not apply modern critique in their thought, but if and when they catch up with the West, the same withering affect is likely to apply to their belief in Christianity.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  197. @3g4me
    @Reg Cæsar

    @155 Reg Caesar: Typical civic nationalist barflegarb. It IS 'that easy,' unless one is deliberately being obtuse. Will your mulatto or quadroon second cousin protect you from a mob of fellow mulattos and quadroons? And no serious White nationalist considers Syrians or Iranians the same as White Europeans - and you damn well know this. Citizen never said anything about 'fellow Americans,' precisely because paper citizenship is irrelevant in a racially-mixed country with birthright citizenship.

    Physicist Dave agrees with you because, like Murray, he has hapa children. He consciously chose to have a racially mixed family. He places his family first, but because he can't fall back on White racial solidarity, he has turned to the spectre of Woke Whites as the cause of all his angst (although he stated he doesn't particularly care if he offends some blacks).

    When there are racial riots in the street, Reg, which group will you go to for protection and for whom will you fight? Are you going to hang with the Mestizos and sub-Saharans? The Han and Koreans? Will they welcome you with open arms and open hearts?

    You'd better go ahead and count on it, because a large cohort of Whites know who has openly sided with them and who has not, and is keeping track.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Dave is the quintessential boomer – as are Steve and Murray, btw. It’s still 1965 in his mind. He’s the brave defender of individualism, even though the amazing world to which he was born was carved out by men who very much saw themselves as a part of a race, a people, and who worked together to create a wonderful society. Indeed, Dave’s ancestors brutally killed or kicked out other races to capture the land for that society.

    But Dave’s a scientist, damn it! He doesn’t have to concern himself with such things. He cares not who build the faculty lounge, just that it’s stocked with good coffee.

    Dave’s the equivalent of a trust fund kid. He despises what his ancestors did to achieve the wealth that he has enjoyed. But like most trust fund kids, Dave is blowing through the wealth. By sheer luck, he lived his life in a cozy interregnum, but it’s coming to an end.

    The future will be what the past has always been: Tribal.

    • Thanks: 3g4me
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    >The future will be what the past has always been: Tribal.

    Not if we refuse to stoop to that level. It's possible: thinking "it isn't possible here" is a great way to get there. Human nature has a dark, cruel streak that can come out if the circumstances aren't right. You'd be surprised what "ordinary" people can be capable of in certain situations. The amount of purely evil people out there is relatively few (they do exist), but the amount of people who can do evil under the wrong circumstances: different story.

    But it's hardly inevitable. That nightmare is not inevitable. It'll take more than platitudes to get this country back on the right path. But it's there.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Indeed, Dave’s ancestors brutally killed or kicked out other races to capture the land for that society.
     
    Yeah, right...


    https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/1860_slave_distribution.png?quality=75&strip=all&w=1600&h=900&crop=1


    Maybe in the colder places:


    https://www.census.gov/history/img/statab1890.jpg

    Replies: @Jack D

  198. @Burnett
    @Mark G.

    Do you have any links that provide more detail or support? A lot of this stuff about the mainstream overlooking the value of early treatment protocols and widely available medications rings true. But when citing to data on specific areas and findings from specific peer reviewed studies, it would help to include links to the actual studies, or similar underlying support.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Do you have any links that provide more detail or support? A lot of this stuff about the mainstream overlooking the value of early treatment protocols and widely available medications rings true.

    Burnett, the new Brazilian Ivermectin study showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin is here:

    https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/new-scientific-study-on-the-efficacy-of-ivermectin-in-covid-19-positive-patients/

    People should read both sides of this issue. Unfortunately, politicians have intimidated the media by demanding they censor one side as “misinformation”. Anyone who understands science knows you need to have an open discussion on any scientific issue.

    LewRockwell.com has lots of information on vaccines and alternative treatments as does childrenshealthdefense.org. On Twitter you can find Vinay Prasad, Peter McCullough, Pierre Kory, Simone Gold, Steve Kirsch and Martin Kulldorf. Substack has Robert Malone, Pierre Kory, FLCCC Alliance, Peter McCullough, Eugyppius, Alex Berenson, El Gato Malo, Toby Rogers, Steve Kirsch and Vinay Prasad. Books which cover alternative Covid treatments are The Truth about Covid-19 by Joseph Mercola, The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pandemic Blunder by Joel Hirschhorn, Do Not Consent by Simone Gold and Overcoming the Covid Darkness by Tyson and Fareed.

    • Replies: @Rob
    @Mark G.

    In open scientific discussions, when one is caught being wrong repeatedly about the same issue, it is customary in scientific culture to stop saying that wrong thing. When one persists in repeating it, one is no longer playing by “science” rules.

    As an example, when every study cited in this blog’s comments section as showing, say, omicron being more infectious for vaccinated people than unvaccinated people, but when anyone bothers to check the paper, the paper does not say what the anti-vaxer/truther/just-asking-questions-er claimed, and in actuality says the opposite...

    As to third world studies? Yeah, there are reasons why they are third world. Typically, they are not third worlders because they adhere scrupulously to scientific methods, rigor, and honesty.

    So, let’s have a recap. You did not get vaccinated, caught covid (which kind?) were hospitalized (ICU?) for how long, and are upset the doctors did not scrupulously adhere to the protocol you made up? And you persist with the anti-vaxer stuff?

    I have read that the anti-vaxers who fill the hospitals these days are not the most pleasant patients. Perhaps they are externalizing the anger they feel at themselves for not taking basic precautions to avoid severe illness from covid? I have heard the patients are so unpleasant that nurses are quitting. I don’t blame the nurses. If hospitals had wanted to ensure proper staffing levels during pandemics, they could have hired nurses on down on long-term contracts instead of “right to work”-style spot labor. If the hospital is going to fire people when it's convenient/profitable for management, then they can’t really complain when the power balance shifts toward labor.

    I’m not wishing anyone ill, and I hope you don’t have an6 lingering/long covid symptoms, but that’s kinda a lol. I hope you are ok now. Ok and encouraging everyone you know to get vaccinated, right?

    Replies: @Mark G.

  199. @Clyde
    @res


    Are you honestly claiming that Kamala is not seen as a representative of blacks in the VP slot? Did you miss the whole production about Biden needing to pick a “black woman” as VP?
     
    Her Jamaican father is very light skinned. You can find photos of him. His photos have him looking 25% African at best, on a cloudy day. This makes Kamala 12.5% African. Actually, her father is so octoroon-ish looking, that Kamala is 7-8% Africa derived.

    octoroon
    [ˌäktəˈro͞on]
    NOUN
    octaroon (noun)
    a person who is one-eighth black by descent.
     

    Replies: @bomag, @Jack D

    A younger Harris, Sr. can be seen here:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?7761-1/alternative-perspectives-international-economy

    starting at around 1:20:00

    As black people age they tend to become more pale. In his younger days, Harris looked to be about maybe 1/2 black. In Jamaica, your level of blackness is not 100% correlated with your level of stupidity, in part because being ambitious and studying hard is not consider to be “acting white”.

    Kamala had two very intelligent parents but there has obviously been regression toward the mean. BTW, I know someone who is well acquainted with Harris, Sr. and I am informed that he does not have much nice to say about his daughter and her politics.

    One public exchange kind of sums it up:

    Asked during a 2019 radio interview whether she favoured legalizing marijuana, Kamala Harris laughingly replied: ““Half my family’s from Jamaica—are you kidding me?”

    Her father was not amused , writing in a newspaper for the Jamaican diaspora his parents would be spinning in their graves to see their proud heritage “being connected, in any way, jokingly or not, with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker, and in the pursuit of identity politics.”

    https://nationalpost.com/news/as-kamala-harris-shatters-barriers-why-we-still-hear-little-about-her-jamaican-american-father

    In other words, Donald’s family were the kind of people with middle class values who encouraged their children to study hard and pursue higher education and professional attainment and not the kind of low lifes who sat around smoking ganja and they would be horrified to be associated with such riffraff. Their ambition was to move toward Western Civilization not to regress toward Negritude.

    It’s true that Western Civilization is in some sense “white” but they had white blood too and did not see that it was an impediment. Harris, Sr. is proud that one of his ancestors was a prominent white man who built the local church. Naturally this man owned slaves but Harris is still proud that this civilized and accomplished man’s blood runs thru his veins while Kamala is surely ashamed of it.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Jack D


    A younger Harris, Sr. can be seen here:
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?7761-1/alternative-perspectives-international-economy
    starting at around 1:20:00
     
    Thanks! This/your video is more representative of Kamala's father and how white or black he is. So I am raising Kamala's African content to 25%. Far higher than I ever thought.
    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    The other daughter is the one with the brains. She and her husband, alas, are very much part of the nomenklatura of which the Democratic Party is one component.

    I doubt KH experiences shame apart from elemental embarrassment at the body's untidy physicalities.

  200. @Art Deco
    @Patrick McNally

    In 2008, McCain campaigned on a pledge to invade Iran for the sake of Israel.

    When did he advocate that.


    Obama got elected in response to this,

    You're projecting. Almost no one cast a ballot on this basis.



    and his next 8 years were largely standing down Netanyahu’s push for a war in Iran. Obama played the white/black racial card as a way of keeping Jewish voters close to him.

    Non sequitur.


    Many Jews who would have exploded if a white Republican had fought with Netanyahu the way Obama did were willing to go soft with Obama as long as he played the white/black racial card.


    In your imagination only.




    Inventive daisy chain to blame Israel for everything.

    Replies: @houston 1992, @Jack D

    Houston is obviously (greatly) overstating his case but I don’t think it is unfair to say that Obama’s blackness (indeed the non-whiteness of any NAM politician) combined with his Leftism gave him cover to be slightly less friendly to Israel than a white right wing politician .

    If a white politician says anything bad about Israel he can be accused of being anti-Semitic but every “knows” that blacks are incapable of racism because they are themselves oppressed minorities – racism can only come from a place of privilege (and who is less privileged than POTUS?).

    In the US, a non-white can express solidarity with the Palestinians as fellow oppressed 3rd world people without being called “anti-Semitic”. In the UK, Leftist white politicians have some space to do the same but in the US the dynamics of the Democrat Left are such that Ilhan Omar can say stuff that a white male Dem. congressman could not.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Jesse Jackson was sliced to pieces for years.

  201. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote to me:


    Ok, but in Zürich it works the other way round: Poeple join the Joyce reading group because they find it so iteresting to read Ulysses. And in the end they even get hooked.

    If this reading-experience would be just a conventional thing and not intrinsically motivating them (= moving them inside – their minds and hearts), this group would not have lasted for decades now.
     
    Or maybe they are all just pretentious poseurs.

    A lot of them around nowadays, you know.

    I shared an office for a while with the fellow who invented TTL logic, Jim Buie. Jim told me that when he started work, most of the engineers were not college graduates but guys who had learned on the job.

    Back when people cared about learning about the real physical world rather than trying to impress people by pretending to be jaded Mandarins who could spout nonsense from obscure books.

    I do not think the West has much time left.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Jack D, @nebulafox

    You (and according to your telling Buie, although Buie had a degree in electrical engineering and I’m not sure that he could have come up with TTL logic without the theoretical grounding that he received in his higher education) represent a very American strain of thinking which is distrustful of intellectuals and of abstract thinking.

    America’s great technical achievements often came from men like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison who possessed no higher education. (Tesla OTOH thought that Edison’s lack of technical background led him to a wasteful trial and error method, whereas someone with a scientific background could have narrowed the field for him and saved him a lot of wasted effort on things that were never going to work if you did the math in advance. )

    But that was a simpler world. You are not going to develop quantum computing or fusion energy tinkering in your barn. And man does not live by bread alone. There is more to this world than what we can see and touch.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Jack D

    Get that book about Henry Ford's rubber plantations in Brazil/ https://www.amazon.com/Fordlandia-Henry-Fords-Forgotten-Jungle/dp/0312429622/ref=sr_1_1?crid=321PFB406E7VV&keywords=henry+ford%27s+rubber+plantation&qid=1643161979&s=books&sprefix=henry+ford%27s+rubber+plantation%2Cstripbooks%2C68&sr=1-1

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Jack D

    Jack D wrote to me:


    But that was a simpler world. You are not going to develop quantum computing or fusion energy tinkering in your barn. And man does not live by bread alone. There is more to this world than what we can see and touch.
     
    No, you have it exactly backwards: those are the lies spread by the government-university complex.

    Look: I am co-inventor on close to a dozen patents. Not a single one of those patents rests on anything I learned in any class I took in college or in getting my PhD.

    And it is incredibly easier to teach yourself material in math, physics, and engineering today than it was when I earned those patents, thanks to resources such as EdX.

    Talk to a random undergrad today and ask him what fraction of the students attend most of their classes. Or how much time most of them spend studying vs. partying.

    The universities today are very, very expensive con games that waste several years of our young people's lives, not to mention their parents' (and taxpayers') money.

    The universities themselves have basically admitted as much by continuing to charge full tuition for "online learning" during the lockdown: yes, there truly is no longer a real need for brick-and-mortar colleges.

    (So why did I spend all those years in college myself? Partly initial naive innocence, but mainly because I needed the pieces of paper, given the realities of the world we live in today -- Griggs v. Duke Power and all that.)

    Replies: @Clyde

  202. This podcast significantly lowers my opinion of Charles Murray, who already deserves skepticism for working in a predominantly Jewish (zionist, imperialist) ngo.

    How can Charles Murray decry white people while he works for Jewish supremacist terrorists who are actively genociding the Palestinian people and demonizing innocent whites?

  203. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    Regardless of whether God is real, Christianity is real.

    And you missed Stan's point. Regardless of whether Jesus did or did not personally say the words attributed to him, his disciples believed that there is a spiritual realm which is out of the reach of earthly rulers and this continues to resonate with people who are alive today.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Clyde, @Sam Malone

    Regardless of whether Jesus did or did not personally say the words attributed to him, his disciples believed that there is a spiritual realm which is out of the reach of earthly rulers

    This – deep down rather paradox – insight is indeed one of the bigger treasures of Christianity. It ranks there in the Top 5 quite easily.

  204. @Jack D
    @Clyde

    A younger Harris, Sr. can be seen here:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?7761-1/alternative-perspectives-international-economy

    starting at around 1:20:00

    As black people age they tend to become more pale. In his younger days, Harris looked to be about maybe 1/2 black. In Jamaica, your level of blackness is not 100% correlated with your level of stupidity, in part because being ambitious and studying hard is not consider to be "acting white".

    Kamala had two very intelligent parents but there has obviously been regression toward the mean. BTW, I know someone who is well acquainted with Harris, Sr. and I am informed that he does not have much nice to say about his daughter and her politics.

    One public exchange kind of sums it up:

    Asked during a 2019 radio interview whether she favoured legalizing marijuana, Kamala Harris laughingly replied: ““Half my family’s from Jamaica—are you kidding me?”

    Her father was not amused , writing in a newspaper for the Jamaican diaspora his parents would be spinning in their graves to see their proud heritage “being connected, in any way, jokingly or not, with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker, and in the pursuit of identity politics.”

    https://nationalpost.com/news/as-kamala-harris-shatters-barriers-why-we-still-hear-little-about-her-jamaican-american-father

    In other words, Donald's family were the kind of people with middle class values who encouraged their children to study hard and pursue higher education and professional attainment and not the kind of low lifes who sat around smoking ganja and they would be horrified to be associated with such riffraff. Their ambition was to move toward Western Civilization not to regress toward Negritude.

    It's true that Western Civilization is in some sense "white" but they had white blood too and did not see that it was an impediment. Harris, Sr. is proud that one of his ancestors was a prominent white man who built the local church. Naturally this man owned slaves but Harris is still proud that this civilized and accomplished man's blood runs thru his veins while Kamala is surely ashamed of it.

    Replies: @Clyde, @Art Deco

    A younger Harris, Sr. can be seen here:
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?7761-1/alternative-perspectives-international-economy
    starting at around 1:20:00

    Thanks! This/your video is more representative of Kamala’s father and how white or black he is. So I am raising Kamala’s African content to 25%. Far higher than I ever thought.

  205. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    Regardless of whether God is real, Christianity is real.

    And you missed Stan's point. Regardless of whether Jesus did or did not personally say the words attributed to him, his disciples believed that there is a spiritual realm which is out of the reach of earthly rulers and this continues to resonate with people who are alive today.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Clyde, @Sam Malone

    Believers set up a force field. This is how you explain Mother Mary sightings in Portugal etc.

    https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

  206. @J.Ross
    Powerline is consistently one of the best news blogs out there; I was under the impression they were too respectable for the guests but am delighted to be corrected.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    They turned a lot of people off 20 ish years ago with their lockstep support of Bush’s warmongering.

  207. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote to me:


    Ok, but in Zürich it works the other way round: Poeple join the Joyce reading group because they find it so iteresting to read Ulysses. And in the end they even get hooked.

    If this reading-experience would be just a conventional thing and not intrinsically motivating them (= moving them inside – their minds and hearts), this group would not have lasted for decades now.
     
    Or maybe they are all just pretentious poseurs.

    A lot of them around nowadays, you know.

    I shared an office for a while with the fellow who invented TTL logic, Jim Buie. Jim told me that when he started work, most of the engineers were not college graduates but guys who had learned on the job.

    Back when people cared about learning about the real physical world rather than trying to impress people by pretending to be jaded Mandarins who could spout nonsense from obscure books.

    I do not think the West has much time left.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Jack D, @nebulafox

    >I shared an office for a while with the fellow who invented TTL logic, Jim Buie. Jim told me that when he started work, most of the engineers were not college graduates but guys who had learned on the job.

    Those guys who learned on the job wouldn’t get the job today because employers have ensured that the costs of training are born either entirely by the individual or the public as a whole. MBALogic of the kind that has dominated the American psyche for 30 years (in tandem with HRLogic and BureaucratLogic, of course) doesn’t care about the long-term negative effects this can have on your business, let alone society as a whole.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    @nebulafox

    There is also the effect of credentialism.

    Hiring "smart, uneducated" people runs up against the realities of what is permissible in hiring.

  208. @Chrisnonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    I got COVID. I was isolated in a hotel. The Japanese government took some big tourist hotels now empty due to travel restrictions and made them into isolation centers. You go there and stay out your isolation period. They serve meals twice a day that you pick up at the elevator lobby. You monitor yourself and send the data to a nurse remotely. Guessing maybe 300-500 people in this place with one consulting doctor and a couple nurses.

    I think the vaccines were a good thing for older and at-risk people, but I didn't get vaccinated. It's been pretty uneventful for me.

    There's at least one website that does hospital bed tracking in the USA. Data, not HA's cherry-picked news articles that he keeps recycling even when they're a half-year old.

    Replies: @HA

    “HA’s cherry-picked news articles that he keeps recycling…”

    You mean the ones that don’t come from the Russian troll farms the covid truthers rely on to help disseminate their cherry picking? And as far as recycling, I never linked to that article before, but as I recall it was dated shortly after Mark G’s own personal sob story that he keeps recycling about his failed bet that his bulletproof immune system would prevent COVID from putting him in a hospital bed, so the stories I linked to about the people trying to get a hold of one of those beds he needlessly occupied seemed pretty relevant. But for some strange reason, you didn’t bother to gripe about that one.

    If you want the University of Minnesota’s COVID-19 Hospitalization Tracking Project, it’s linked here:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/944379919/new-data-reveal-which-hospitals-are-dangerously-full-is-yours

    I considered linking that article, but it was more about numbers, which truthers don’t seem to handle all that well, so I went with the other one.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @HA

    You keep recycling the same straw man. I shouldn't have been faced with relying on my immune system or getting a vaccine as my only alternatives. I should have been able to receive early treatment from a doctor without him being threatened with having his medical license taken away or having him arrested and dragged off to prison if he continued to try to practice medicine without a license.

    I object to this use of force to prevent voluntary transactions between consenting adults. This was done by the government to benefit Big Pharma by eliminating an alternative to their vaccines. You refuse to acknowledge any of this because you are psychologically unable to accept you are on the side of evil and what was done to me and others like me was morally wrong. I fully expect you to continue with your evasiveness, obfuscation, condescension, straw man arguments, insults and verbal abuse.

    Replies: @HA

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @HA

    Here's the exchange:

    Mark G: Vaccines aren't preventing people from getting Omicron this winter.
    HA: YOU'RE CLOGGING UP HOSPITALS BEDS!
    Anonymous: ICUs are not full.
    HA: OH YEAH? CHECK OUT THIS ARTICLE FROM LAST SUMMER!

    I don't see Mark G writing anything about himself.

    You did the same shit about Sweden earlier in the pandemic, posting outdated doom porn articles after the situation on the ground had already changed.

    Replies: @HA

  209. @Jack D
    @frankie p

    In Jewish culture, there is something called a"schande far di goyim" - a disgrace in front of the non-Jews, someone who makes Jews look bad (e.g. Bernie Madoff). Needless to say, doing so does not gain you popularity in the Jewish community.

    AFAIK, there is no equivalent concept among blacks. No matter what depraved things a black person does, he is not shunned by other blacks.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that Jewish bad behavior doesn't usually consist of cold blooded robbery and murder:

    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-homicides-20220124-dtv6dkwlije5jfzk7jq3zbllc4-story.html

    What are the chances that the men who killed these two innocent white people are black vs that they are Jewish? 1,000 to 1? 10,000 to 1?

    Replies: @We, @David In TN

  210. @PhysicistDave
    @Stan

    Stan wrote to me:


    Meditate on the meaning of Jesus response to Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
     
    There is no reason to think Jesus said that... or any other specific phrase given in the Gospels.

    As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction.

    Theologians brush over this by saying things like "The authors of the Gospels were motivated by theological concerns, not historical ones."

    For sure.

    Another way of saying, very politely and obscurely in a way that may not inflame the fundamentalists, that the Gospels are fictional.

    Discussing what Jesus said in the Gospels is like discussing what Christopher Robin says in the Pooh books. The Pooh books are fiction: Christopher Robin Milne probably did not say most of what is related in those books.

    Biblical scholars have known this for centuries. Why haven't they just come out and bluntly said so?

    Because we mustn't disillusion the children about Santa.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox, @HA

    >As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction.

    I think that’s going too far, even if you dismiss many of the events in the Gospels-miracles-as impossible. It’s certainly true that the Gospels retrospectively tried to construct history to address events yet to occur, such as the sack of Jerusalem, but Jesus lived less than half a century before that. People would have known people who knew him. More broadly speaking, Jesus (and Muhammad, and Mani) was not Moses or Arjuna or Aeneas. He lived in an era that isn’t cut off to us from any non-religious sources. Ancient Roman historians who had no connection to Palestine or Judaism-Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius-all make allusions to early Christianity and the “Christ” in their accounts of history that go back to the late Julio-Claudian dynasty, only a few decades after the crucifixion. I find that along with the proliferation of religious texts (not all of them canonical) stretching back to the early 50s AD, well before the Flavian sack that led to Christianity becoming more of a full fledged separate religion, extremely hard to reconcile with the notion of a mythical Jesus.

    What is true is that the Gospels were texts written in the ancient thought-world, which means the assumptions about what the point of history was are totally different from today. You do have historical allusions and retrospective imagining of conversations that didn’t happen: that was par for the course in the ancient world. But that’s not the same thing as totally repurposing something outside its context centuries later a la Exodus or the Iliad, let alone making something up out of whole cloth.

    (I think the secular understanding of Jesus the Man is very banal, when you get right down to it. He was a 1st Century Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic. He doesn’t really translate well outside that specific cultural context. Utilizing him from the lens of a different society centuries later is going to always be off the mark, whether it was the 2nd Century in Rome or America in 2022.)

  211. @HA
    @Mark G.

    "With little societal benefit of reduced transmission, the only reason to get vaccinated is the individual benefit of reduced deaths."

    No, there is also the fact that since the vaxxed are less likely to go to the hospital (I can see why you yourself have trouble remembering that) and have fewer days in which they’re transmitting, so that they are less likely to clog the ICU's and less likely to transmit the disease.


    …vaccinated people clear the virus faster, with lower levels of virus overall, and have less time with very high levels of virus present.

    Therefore, vaccinated people are, on average, likely to be less contagious.
     

    Not sure why any of this is relevant to a thread about Steve talking with Charles Murray, but I suspect you and your fellow truthers' desperate need to keep bringing up COVID in unrelated threads is somehow connected to your misgivings about having foolishly wound up in a hospital with COVID -- apparently complaining all the while that the treatment you got there wasn't tailored to your specific needs and your own nonexistent medical expertise -- and all because you foolishly refused a vaccine that could have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.

    In any case, if you're going to keep trying to derail every thread, be aware that it gives those who recognize what you're doing the opportunity of pointing all that out. And hey, if you ever decide to pass on derailing yet another thread, just know for the record that that would be a-OK with me.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Sam Malone

    He was out-front in acknowledging that his comment was off topic, but it does touch on one of the big issues of the day, and I don’t recall this person attempting to “derail” other threads, so it’s somewhat churlish of you to repeatedly harass him on that point.

    I have to say that while you clearly know a lot about these medical matters and your contributions here have been quite welcome, a vituperative and emotional element has become prominent in your comments which is really off-putting to people like myself who are triple vaxxed but against the mandates and open to rational questioning of the vaccines. You’ve no doubt grown exasperated by all the irrational criticism of the vaccines, but you do a disservice to yourself and your viewpoint when you let it show so clearly.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Sam Malone

    "You’ve no doubt grown exasperated by all the irrational criticism of the vaccines, but you do a disservice to yourself and your viewpoint when you let it show so clearly."

    I spew my vitriol selectively, and rarely without provocation. And hypothetically speaking, if you or Mark G. or anyone else is going to whine about how the hospital care you received -- at a time when health care workers were frazzled by a pandemic you already admitted to us that you didn't bother to take basic precautions against and thereby could have easily ducked -- wasn't administered to your precise specifications, and that your instructions to doctors on what they needed to do to customize your treatment to your expectations were rudely ignored, despite the numerous Google searches you executed that clearly gave you more expertise on such matters than their flimsy medical degrees and hundreds of hours working with other COVID patients did, then don't expect the kid glove treatment for me. And, in the case of Mark G that's pretty much exactly what we're talking about. The same goes for the people who want to tell me that mask wearing is a worse infringement of civil liberties than forced military conscription and the IRS, or those who once spoke on behalf of the just-a-flu bros but now want to tell me they were never a member of the club. In short, the people I have no patience for ought to know pretty well by now why that is.

    COVID, one way or another, will eventually dwindle away like so many other respiratory viruses that have come before. But THAT kind of bratty entitlement is a problem that will continue to plague this country for many years to come. When I see more people take issue with that than with how my responses to them may ruffle anyone's feathers, then I'll take your advice closer to heart, which is not to say I doubt your good intentions in offering it, so no offense taken.

  212. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @angmoh


    Murray makes a point that every mainstream person says they agree with: “IQ doesn’t = human worth” – but in reality modern western society is literally set up so that IQ does in fact = worth to a decent extent and it’s laughably naïve to go around saying the opposite. It is also laughable to pretend there is such a thing as objective reality in how social structures should be arranged.

     

    Murry is a nice Iowa ur-boomer who cannot grok the post-Christian west. His worldview is suffused with the fading rosy glow still emitted by the bonfire on which Christendom's immense store of cultural capital has been unceremoniously tossed.

    The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop. In orthodox Christian anthropology, all people are made in the image of God; all are sinners who fall short of God's glory; all are capable (if not chosen, but that's another post) of redemption and of becoming sons and daughters of God.

    St Paul deals crisply with the question of human diversity with his analogy of the body: not all parts are the same -- an eye cannot be an ear, and so on -- but all parts are of equal worth, all parts contribute functions that are essential to the health and function of the body, and all parts are worthy of honor and respect.

    But this vision quickly breaks down out when the Christian belief that upholds and empowers it is lost. The possessors of some function rise to the top and are quickly identified as being of greater worth than their inferiors. In the past martial prowess typically defined the elite. Now it's intelligence.

    We're holding on to a cultural interregnum in which many non-Christians (like Murray, so far as I can tell) still cling to one of the most deeply-held and attractive features of Christian society, but in which there are no longer any solid foundations to uphold it. If there is no revival, its vestiges will be swept away, and we will return to a tribal social structure in which 'worth' is more stratified, and in which some harsh hiearachy will simply be accepted as 'the way things are'. We're seeing it already in the pullulating contempt woke white people pour out upon their deplorable cousins.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @nebulafox

    >The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop.

    As I’ve mentioned before, it might seem strange to modern people, but people building hospitals in the 250s AD in Carthage during the Cyprian plague was a huge, bizarre deal. That’s not how the sick were usually dealt with before then.

    The funny thing is, those who are busy pushing their new religion on the West betray fundamentally Christian impulses underneath. They can’t get rid of that imprint, no matter how vehemently they reject the religion. The moral impulses, the fundamental assumptions: they betray not just the Christian world-view, but the DNA of the West as well, if twisted. They just throw out the stuff about grace and sin for all in favor of a Hindu-esque caste system, in which your moral worth is conferred on ancestral behavior: which, IMO, is a really, really bad thing if your goal is to have a society of people working to improve themselves and the world around them.

    As for the future of Christianity, contra Dave, I think the faith is not going anywhere… it’s just not going to be the religion of the West, of “whites” like it has been since the High Middle Ages, which is what I suspect a lot of people here on Unz are truly bemoaning, instead of the death of the religion per se. But Africa? Latin America? Certain parts of East and Southeast Asia? (China is the fastest growing Christian country on the planet, and the Chinese have thousands of years of experience of assimilating faiths and subordinating them to the state.) Different story.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @nebulafox

    I should add: "Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe" was the result of historical contingencies. There was nothing inevitable about Christianity being wiped out in the Islamic World or further abroad (Nestorianism in Tang China-picture attached below). Europe being the bastion of Christianity was the result of historical events that are as far removed from us as the life of Jesus in the Augustan age in the Eastern Mediterranean was to someone living 1000 years ago. Or going forward: look at Christianity in Japan in the 1500s during "early" globalization, and why they died out-it was the decision of one specific man, Tokugawa Ieyasu, and what he made of the world rather than the notion that Christianity was always bound to Europe. Historical contingencies again.

    Through all the permutations, twists and turns, human nature-the good and the bad-lives eternal. I guess what scares me about these people is that many of them seem fundamentally hostile to the very nature of being human, in a way that not even previous totalitarians were.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Restoration_of_T%27ang_dynasty_Nestorian_image_of_Jesus_Christ.jpg

    https://cdn1.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/images/methode/2018/03/23/c90722b6-2821-11e8-b567-adb1113855b0_1280x720_150145.JPG

  213. @The Alarmist
    BTW, Steve, when are you going to cover militarised dolphins, or do you plan to leave that Phil Girardi?

    Replies: @Brutusale

  214. @nebulafox
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    >The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop.

    As I've mentioned before, it might seem strange to modern people, but people building hospitals in the 250s AD in Carthage during the Cyprian plague was a huge, bizarre deal. That's not how the sick were usually dealt with before then.

    The funny thing is, those who are busy pushing their new religion on the West betray fundamentally Christian impulses underneath. They can't get rid of that imprint, no matter how vehemently they reject the religion. The moral impulses, the fundamental assumptions: they betray not just the Christian world-view, but the DNA of the West as well, if twisted. They just throw out the stuff about grace and sin for all in favor of a Hindu-esque caste system, in which your moral worth is conferred on ancestral behavior: which, IMO, is a really, really bad thing if your goal is to have a society of people working to improve themselves and the world around them.

    As for the future of Christianity, contra Dave, I think the faith is not going anywhere... it's just not going to be the religion of the West, of "whites" like it has been since the High Middle Ages, which is what I suspect a lot of people here on Unz are truly bemoaning, instead of the death of the religion per se. But Africa? Latin America? Certain parts of East and Southeast Asia? (China is the fastest growing Christian country on the planet, and the Chinese have thousands of years of experience of assimilating faiths and subordinating them to the state.) Different story.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I should add: “Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe” was the result of historical contingencies. There was nothing inevitable about Christianity being wiped out in the Islamic World or further abroad (Nestorianism in Tang China-picture attached below). Europe being the bastion of Christianity was the result of historical events that are as far removed from us as the life of Jesus in the Augustan age in the Eastern Mediterranean was to someone living 1000 years ago. Or going forward: look at Christianity in Japan in the 1500s during “early” globalization, and why they died out-it was the decision of one specific man, Tokugawa Ieyasu, and what he made of the world rather than the notion that Christianity was always bound to Europe. Historical contingencies again.

    Through all the permutations, twists and turns, human nature-the good and the bad-lives eternal. I guess what scares me about these people is that many of them seem fundamentally hostile to the very nature of being human, in a way that not even previous totalitarians were.

  215. @Jack D
    @Clyde

    A younger Harris, Sr. can be seen here:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?7761-1/alternative-perspectives-international-economy

    starting at around 1:20:00

    As black people age they tend to become more pale. In his younger days, Harris looked to be about maybe 1/2 black. In Jamaica, your level of blackness is not 100% correlated with your level of stupidity, in part because being ambitious and studying hard is not consider to be "acting white".

    Kamala had two very intelligent parents but there has obviously been regression toward the mean. BTW, I know someone who is well acquainted with Harris, Sr. and I am informed that he does not have much nice to say about his daughter and her politics.

    One public exchange kind of sums it up:

    Asked during a 2019 radio interview whether she favoured legalizing marijuana, Kamala Harris laughingly replied: ““Half my family’s from Jamaica—are you kidding me?”

    Her father was not amused , writing in a newspaper for the Jamaican diaspora his parents would be spinning in their graves to see their proud heritage “being connected, in any way, jokingly or not, with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker, and in the pursuit of identity politics.”

    https://nationalpost.com/news/as-kamala-harris-shatters-barriers-why-we-still-hear-little-about-her-jamaican-american-father

    In other words, Donald's family were the kind of people with middle class values who encouraged their children to study hard and pursue higher education and professional attainment and not the kind of low lifes who sat around smoking ganja and they would be horrified to be associated with such riffraff. Their ambition was to move toward Western Civilization not to regress toward Negritude.

    It's true that Western Civilization is in some sense "white" but they had white blood too and did not see that it was an impediment. Harris, Sr. is proud that one of his ancestors was a prominent white man who built the local church. Naturally this man owned slaves but Harris is still proud that this civilized and accomplished man's blood runs thru his veins while Kamala is surely ashamed of it.

    Replies: @Clyde, @Art Deco

    The other daughter is the one with the brains. She and her husband, alas, are very much part of the nomenklatura of which the Democratic Party is one component.

    I doubt KH experiences shame apart from elemental embarrassment at the body’s untidy physicalities.

  216. @Jack D
    @frankie p

    In Jewish culture, there is something called a"schande far di goyim" - a disgrace in front of the non-Jews, someone who makes Jews look bad (e.g. Bernie Madoff). Needless to say, doing so does not gain you popularity in the Jewish community.

    AFAIK, there is no equivalent concept among blacks. No matter what depraved things a black person does, he is not shunned by other blacks.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that Jewish bad behavior doesn't usually consist of cold blooded robbery and murder:

    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-homicides-20220124-dtv6dkwlije5jfzk7jq3zbllc4-story.html

    What are the chances that the men who killed these two innocent white people are black vs that they are Jewish? 1,000 to 1? 10,000 to 1?

    Replies: @We, @David In TN

    There are local news stories only on this crime. There “is no motive and no suspects.”

    One story says the murder was caught on surveillance camera. Despite this no description of the suspect has been given, so far.

    Surprise, surprise.

  217. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Houston is obviously (greatly) overstating his case but I don't think it is unfair to say that Obama's blackness (indeed the non-whiteness of any NAM politician) combined with his Leftism gave him cover to be slightly less friendly to Israel than a white right wing politician .

    If a white politician says anything bad about Israel he can be accused of being anti-Semitic but every "knows" that blacks are incapable of racism because they are themselves oppressed minorities - racism can only come from a place of privilege (and who is less privileged than POTUS?).

    In the US, a non-white can express solidarity with the Palestinians as fellow oppressed 3rd world people without being called "anti-Semitic". In the UK, Leftist white politicians have some space to do the same but in the US the dynamics of the Democrat Left are such that Ilhan Omar can say stuff that a white male Dem. congressman could not.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Jesse Jackson was sliced to pieces for years.

  218. @PhysicistDave
    @Stan

    Stan wrote to me:


    Meditate on the meaning of Jesus response to Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
     
    There is no reason to think Jesus said that... or any other specific phrase given in the Gospels.

    As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction.

    Theologians brush over this by saying things like "The authors of the Gospels were motivated by theological concerns, not historical ones."

    For sure.

    Another way of saying, very politely and obscurely in a way that may not inflame the fundamentalists, that the Gospels are fictional.

    Discussing what Jesus said in the Gospels is like discussing what Christopher Robin says in the Pooh books. The Pooh books are fiction: Christopher Robin Milne probably did not say most of what is related in those books.

    Biblical scholars have known this for centuries. Why haven't they just come out and bluntly said so?

    Because we mustn't disillusion the children about Santa.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox, @HA

    “As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction.”

    Where is this conclusive evidence you speak of? I mean, I get it — the very fact that people today cannot walk on water or rise up after three days and then float through walls and ascend up into heaven is some fairly solid evidence that whatever documents detail events like that are ipso facto historical fiction. But it was my understanding that “Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure” (as wikipedia puts it), even those who really believe some of his disciples made off with Jesus’ corpse, thereby allowing the rest to get carried away with a narrative that eventually took on a life of its own (or something like that).

    But maybe you’re talking about something beyond that that actually is conclusive, in which case I’d appreciate having a look. I’m pretty sure that Youtube video that made the rounds a few years back about Epictetus or Mithra or whomever isn’t any more impressive to actual scholars than a document claiming that water was transformed into wine, if that’s what you had in mind, but maybe you are thinking of something else.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @HA

    HA asked me:


    Where is this conclusive evidence you speak of?
     
    Look at my earlier post where I discussed the obvious fabrication by Mt. of the mountain from which all kingdoms could be viewed. Or the fact that Mt. and Luke could not have had a good basis for believing in the Virgin Birth. Or Luke's bizarre fantasy about the census.

    There are many other examples: e.g., Mt.' s confusion in using a "proof text" about Jesus riding two animals coming into Jerusalem or Mt.'s bizarre claim that old-timers rose from the graves and walked around Jerusalem after Jesus died (odd that Josephus did not mention that, eh?).

    The authors of the Gospels just freely made stuff up, nonsensical stuff.

    Everyone acknowledges that the ancient Christians had a habit of doing this: check out the Gospel of Peter or the charming Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the very different Gospel of Thomas).

    I made no claim about whether or not Jesus existed. But if he did, the Gospels make up an awful lot of stuff about him.

    Jesus is to the Gospels as President Lincoln is to that bizarre movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

    Historical fiction always has a grain of historical truth or it would not be historical fiction. The Gospels do allude to some actual historical figures -- Herod, Augustus, Pilate -- though they get the facts about those figures hilariously wrong. And maybe Jesus was historical too.

    But the Gospels are still a pack of lies.

    HA also wrote:

    But it was my understanding that “Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure” (as wikipedia puts it)
     
    One more case where you cannot trust wikipedia: that is no longer true.

    Rich Carrier had a list of serious, accredited scholars who now have doubts about the historicity of Jesus. As Carrier summarizes:

    That makes now nine fully qualified experts on the record, two of them sitting professors, three retired professors, and four independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record (just like Davies, who feared admitting his doubt publicly)...

    We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point...

    Which makes nineteen relevantly qualified experts now who concur mythicism is at least plausible.
     
    Again, I myself do not know whether or not Jesus existed.

    But I do know that the Gospels are just as surely fiction as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Indeed more so: the Gospels flagrantly disagree with what we know from history.

    Replies: @HA, @Ian M.

    , @Clyde
    @HA

    We need a clown button for you. But you should never be dropped or censored. I like your long winded epistles to nobody. So as they say...keep on keeping on. You BE you..

  219. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    The non-ICU parts of the hospitals are busy with omicron patients, but the ICUs less so.

    Replies: @Marquis, @Chrisnonymous, @Brutusale

    My girlfriend’s ED has been full of asymptomatic people who tested positive on a home test and immediately hightailed it to the hospital.

    Massachusetts has 2,500 ICU beds. According to the Boston Globe, there are currently 433 patients in ICU beds.

  220. @HA
    @Chrisnonymous

    "HA’s cherry-picked news articles that he keeps recycling..."

    You mean the ones that don't come from the Russian troll farms the covid truthers rely on to help disseminate their cherry picking? And as far as recycling, I never linked to that article before, but as I recall it was dated shortly after Mark G's own personal sob story that he keeps recycling about his failed bet that his bulletproof immune system would prevent COVID from putting him in a hospital bed, so the stories I linked to about the people trying to get a hold of one of those beds he needlessly occupied seemed pretty relevant. But for some strange reason, you didn't bother to gripe about that one.

    If you want the University of Minnesota's COVID-19 Hospitalization Tracking Project, it's linked here:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/944379919/new-data-reveal-which-hospitals-are-dangerously-full-is-yours

    I considered linking that article, but it was more about numbers, which truthers don't seem to handle all that well, so I went with the other one.

    Replies: @Mark G., @Chrisnonymous

    You keep recycling the same straw man. I shouldn’t have been faced with relying on my immune system or getting a vaccine as my only alternatives. I should have been able to receive early treatment from a doctor without him being threatened with having his medical license taken away or having him arrested and dragged off to prison if he continued to try to practice medicine without a license.

    I object to this use of force to prevent voluntary transactions between consenting adults. This was done by the government to benefit Big Pharma by eliminating an alternative to their vaccines. You refuse to acknowledge any of this because you are psychologically unable to accept you are on the side of evil and what was done to me and others like me was morally wrong. I fully expect you to continue with your evasiveness, obfuscation, condescension, straw man arguments, insults and verbal abuse.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @HA
    @Mark G.

    "I shouldn’t have been faced with relying on my immune system or getting a vaccine as my only alternatives."

    Sorry you weren't given the boutique treatment you feel you deserved. Maybe you should have picked a better time to wind up in the hospital than when the beds were crammed with so many other people who similarly disregarded basic health precautions -- perhaps you then would have found the doctors to be a bit more upbeat and willing to bounce an idea for a new course of treatment. Barring that, you could have also gotten your weight down, taken Vitamin D, ivermectin, fish tank cleaner, or whatever else you felt would have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.

    But whatever you did or didn't do evidently wasn't enough. As I see it you're the one who dropped the ball and now you want to deflect from that by complaining about what everyone else was supposed to do for you. I'm not buying it. If you want to be treated like an adult, show me you can act like an adult. At the very least acknowledge your own responsibility for what happened to you instead of repeatedly trying to portray yourself as the victim of an uncaring system.

    I realize, given all the other people around here who similarly think the world revolves around them, that you'll have plenty of people high-fiving you for your willingness to buck the system, or whatever, but as I've explained, that doesn't impress me. I'm glad you at least made it out of the hospital -- not everyone did -- but given your poor decision-making skills, your insistence that you should have been able to make even more decisions for yourself than those you were given is simply comical.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  221. i prefer the conversation of two produce guys at my supermarket.

    they’re not as low IQ as chuck and nancy…boy steve.

  222. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    Regardless of whether God is real, Christianity is real.

    And you missed Stan's point. Regardless of whether Jesus did or did not personally say the words attributed to him, his disciples believed that there is a spiritual realm which is out of the reach of earthly rulers and this continues to resonate with people who are alive today.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Clyde, @Sam Malone

    And Stan in turn deflected from Dave’s point: a) that historically Christianity’s importance to people ultimately sprang from the belief that its key events had actually happened and b) since with the lens of modern critique one can pretty clearly see that it was a human invention all along, it has for the last couple hundred years been resonating with ever fewer people.

    Nebula’s response also deflects from Dave’s point: yes, Christianity is currently thriving in lands whose masses for now largely do not apply modern critique in their thought, but if and when they catch up with the West, the same withering affect is likely to apply to their belief in Christianity.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Sam Malone

    You consider South Korea or Singapore/Malaysia (for the ethnic Chinese, the other two intertwine their native religions into racial identity far more than East Asians tend to), both of which have well entrenched Christian minorities that show no signs of flagging in strength, mentally non-modern?

    >a) that historically Christianity’s importance to people ultimately sprang from the belief that its key events had actually happened and b) since with the lens of modern critique one can pretty clearly see that it was a human invention all along, it has for the last couple hundred years been resonating with ever fewer people.

    I know I'm a weirdo, but looking at the messy, "human" memories of authentic recollection behind all the neat, pat miracle stories has made me more inclined to believe in the divine, not less. YMMV.

    Replies: @Sam Malone

  223. @Reg Cæsar
    @J.Ross


    Powerline is consistently one of the best news blogs out there; I was under the impression they were too respectable for the guests but am delighted to be corrected.
     
    Minnesota Nice!

    John Hinderaker is now president of the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis, a classic example of the nice-neocon variety. Yes, they exist-- Charles Murray, another one, has spoken there. I saw him there on Ben Franklin's birthday. He was starting to look like Ben!

    It helps that they, like the Manhattan Institute, and the Mackinac Center and the Badger and McIver Institutes in neighboring states, concentrate on domestic issues, which was the core of the original neoconservatism.

    Replies: @Ralph L

    domestic issues, which was [sic] the core of the original neoconservatism.

    The original Neo-cons were anti-Communist leftists who switched parties when the rest of the left abandoned the Cold War during and after Vietnam. They were always pretty wet on domestic issues.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Ralph L

    The original Neo-cons were anti-Communist leftists who switched parties when the rest of the left abandoned the Cold War during and after Vietnam. They were always pretty wet on domestic issues.

    Sidney Hook fits that description. The circle around Irving Kristol was primarily interested in social policy. Some remained Democrats (Pat Moynihan, Ben Wattenberg, Daniel Bell) and some switched parties (Kristol, Murray). Richard John Neuhaus, Joseph Epstein, Midge & Naomi Decter, and Hilton Kramer were primarily interested in cultural issues (from quite different angles). Those primarily interested in foreign relations were Elliot Abrams, Evron & Jeane Kirkpatrick, Wm. Kristol, Mark Falcoff, Richard Perle, Fred Ikle, Norman Podhoretz, Penn Kemble, Carl Gershman. Kemble and Gershman had long histories as associates of Max Schachtman; they had only a reluctant and temporary association with the Republican Party. The rest of the foreign policy crew had no history of association with unconventional politics, or, in Podhoretz case, only a very brief association. Seymour Martin Lipset, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, &c were enrolled in a Trotskyist discussion circle at City College of New York ca. 1939; none were foreign policy mavens later in life.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  224. @Sam Malone
    @Jack D

    And Stan in turn deflected from Dave's point: a) that historically Christianity's importance to people ultimately sprang from the belief that its key events had actually happened and b) since with the lens of modern critique one can pretty clearly see that it was a human invention all along, it has for the last couple hundred years been resonating with ever fewer people.

    Nebula's response also deflects from Dave's point: yes, Christianity is currently thriving in lands whose masses for now largely do not apply modern critique in their thought, but if and when they catch up with the West, the same withering affect is likely to apply to their belief in Christianity.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    You consider South Korea or Singapore/Malaysia (for the ethnic Chinese, the other two intertwine their native religions into racial identity far more than East Asians tend to), both of which have well entrenched Christian minorities that show no signs of flagging in strength, mentally non-modern?

    >a) that historically Christianity’s importance to people ultimately sprang from the belief that its key events had actually happened and b) since with the lens of modern critique one can pretty clearly see that it was a human invention all along, it has for the last couple hundred years been resonating with ever fewer people.

    I know I’m a weirdo, but looking at the messy, “human” memories of authentic recollection behind all the neat, pat miracle stories has made me more inclined to believe in the divine, not less. YMMV.

    • Replies: @Sam Malone
    @nebulafox

    Okay, good point on the many South Korean and ethnic Chinese believers in first world places like Singapore, etc. The future's unwritten, so maybe Christianity will indeed continue to thrive in modern places like those. But then of course we could haggle over the numbers and the definition of 'thrive', and whether 5 or 10% of a modern society still believing in Christianity invalidates Dave's original observation and point.

    And as to the other, yes, everyone's mileage varies.

    But it's undeniable that there's been a wholesale collapse in the West over the last two hundred years or so in actual, genuine belief in God and adherence to Christian norms among the most educated. As we all know this was followed by a gradual process of widespread secularization in the 20th century as the public's access to education increased and they slowly came to the same realization much of the elite had before them: that the New Testament is merely the imperfect and contradictory work of men, and that therefore on the balance of probabilities its contents are mythical and not historical - perhaps of great use for moral instruction, but not the record of a divine intervention 2,000 years ago that it was always purported to be.

    Our process of secularization no doubt has had several interwoven factors encouraging it, but it does seem to ultimately be driven by the reason Dave first elaborated - the realization that the New Testament's truth claims don't in fact hold up the cold light of day. After that, the rest was probably hard to avoid - the most intelligent men start thinking hard about how much sense any of this God really stuff makes.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @nebulafox

  225. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @3g4me

    Dave is the quintessential boomer - as are Steve and Murray, btw. It's still 1965 in his mind. He's the brave defender of individualism, even though the amazing world to which he was born was carved out by men who very much saw themselves as a part of a race, a people, and who worked together to create a wonderful society. Indeed, Dave's ancestors brutally killed or kicked out other races to capture the land for that society.

    But Dave's a scientist, damn it! He doesn't have to concern himself with such things. He cares not who build the faculty lounge, just that it's stocked with good coffee.

    Dave's the equivalent of a trust fund kid. He despises what his ancestors did to achieve the wealth that he has enjoyed. But like most trust fund kids, Dave is blowing through the wealth. By sheer luck, he lived his life in a cozy interregnum, but it's coming to an end.

    The future will be what the past has always been: Tribal.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Reg Cæsar

    >The future will be what the past has always been: Tribal.

    Not if we refuse to stoop to that level. It’s possible: thinking “it isn’t possible here” is a great way to get there. Human nature has a dark, cruel streak that can come out if the circumstances aren’t right. You’d be surprised what “ordinary” people can be capable of in certain situations. The amount of purely evil people out there is relatively few (they do exist), but the amount of people who can do evil under the wrong circumstances: different story.

    But it’s hardly inevitable. That nightmare is not inevitable. It’ll take more than platitudes to get this country back on the right path. But it’s there.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @nebulafox

    You talk as though love of tribe is a bad thing.

    CivNats, what are you going to do.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @nebulafox


    Not if we refuse to stoop to that level
     
    You mean acting like compassionate social creatures is now "stooping"?

    There is nothing backward about recognizing homo sapiens is a social animal. Indeed, it's psychopathic to think we are isolated individuals with no relationship, no loyalty, to each other.

    Sociopaths are quite happy maximizing their personal self-interest without regard to racial or ethnic loyalty. They are the backward ones.

    And to anticipate, no, you can't be loyal to the "family of man". That crap was always a shysters trick justify selling out your own people.

  226. Well I have listened to half of the file so far. (Other things to do, you know.) Steve and Charles both of course do well. Steve includes many of his themes and phrases that we readers of his know well. I’m looking forward to the rest.

    My favorite thing about this is Steve’s Midwestern accent. I don’t get to hear one very often. Charles may be from the Midwest, but Steve sounds more like it. Could that be a clue?

  227. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    I guess it depends what you mean by "systemic racism". If it means "institutional racism" then no, as you and the others have pointed out, there is a thumb on the scale all right, but the thumb is clearly on the black side of the balance, not just in government but in private universities and large businesses and so on, all over the place.

    However, it is well documented that, for example, landlords will prefer black tenants - if you send in equally qualified blacks and whites, the landlord will take the white tenant. If you are trying to hail a cab in NY and you are a young black male, forget about getting picked up. And so on. If you are a middle class person with black skin, you will be tarred with the same brush that is tarring your ghetto brothers. BUT, these are just natural human reactions - if you are a Sikh cab driver and not some goodwhite lady who has been trained not to be "racist", your common sense dictates not to pick up young black males - your life may depend up on it. Losing your life, like that white grad student who worked in the furniture store in LA, is a high price to pay for being "not racist".

    Denying that "systemic racism" exists is not the way to go. At best this feels like gaslighting to black people who live the reality of being black in America, who hear the car door locks click as they walk down the street. I see the same thing here when people deny that anti-Semitism exists in America or that it ever existed or that it only consisted of being excluded from certain country clubs. Oddly enough, the people who deny its existence are the ones who are the most anti-Semitic themselves - go figure. Just because certain blacks get certain benefits such as college admission preference or that there are black entertainers and athletes who are beloved by their white fans and make millions of $ doesn't negate the existence of racism for other blacks.

    HOWEVER (and this is a big however) , just because systemic racism exists it does not follow that we have to turn our whole society upside down and institute an unfair system of mandatory racial preferences - two wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, especially if the "medicine" is bad medicine and the diagnosis is wrong. And the nature of bad social doctoring is that when one dose of the "cure" doesn't work, instead of changing meds, you just double up on the dosage.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Waylon Sisko, @Art Deco, @Dieter Kief, @Muggles, @houston 1992, @PhysicistDave, @Sam Malone

    Denying that “systemic racism” exists is not the way to go.

    Nice try, except that your own examples – such as the landlord preferring non-black tenants, or the Sikh cab driver choosing not to pick up young black males – clearly demonstrate that the prejudice which exists in America today against blacks is the opposite of systemic as that term is meant to be understood by most people.

    Far from being coordinated across individuals or groups, or promulgated or tacitly encouraged at the institutional level, this discrimination is entirely the result of billions upon billions of individual decisions made by hundreds of millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds based on personal judgment and reasonable self-interest in the privacy of one’s thoughts.

    What’s more, these numberless individual decisions are almost always made not due to animus against blacks as blacks, but by an awareness, whether inchoate or data-driven, that blacks are particularly prone to criminal/slovenly behavior and that, by and large, good things don’t come from interacting with them.

    Giving in and agreeing to the charge that “systemic racism” exists today against blacks not only is untrue (and a slur on the Americans of all types who justifiably will continue to mostly avoid blacks until their societal behavior improves), but it also opens the door to all the radical demands of the left for the deconstruction of what’s left of the country as we know it.

    • Agree: Twinkie, Dieter Kief
  228. @Sam Malone
    @HA

    He was out-front in acknowledging that his comment was off topic, but it does touch on one of the big issues of the day, and I don't recall this person attempting to "derail" other threads, so it's somewhat churlish of you to repeatedly harass him on that point.

    I have to say that while you clearly know a lot about these medical matters and your contributions here have been quite welcome, a vituperative and emotional element has become prominent in your comments which is really off-putting to people like myself who are triple vaxxed but against the mandates and open to rational questioning of the vaccines. You've no doubt grown exasperated by all the irrational criticism of the vaccines, but you do a disservice to yourself and your viewpoint when you let it show so clearly.

    Replies: @HA

    “You’ve no doubt grown exasperated by all the irrational criticism of the vaccines, but you do a disservice to yourself and your viewpoint when you let it show so clearly.”

    I spew my vitriol selectively, and rarely without provocation. And hypothetically speaking, if you or Mark G. or anyone else is going to whine about how the hospital care you received — at a time when health care workers were frazzled by a pandemic you already admitted to us that you didn’t bother to take basic precautions against and thereby could have easily ducked — wasn’t administered to your precise specifications, and that your instructions to doctors on what they needed to do to customize your treatment to your expectations were rudely ignored, despite the numerous Google searches you executed that clearly gave you more expertise on such matters than their flimsy medical degrees and hundreds of hours working with other COVID patients did, then don’t expect the kid glove treatment for me. And, in the case of Mark G that’s pretty much exactly what we’re talking about. The same goes for the people who want to tell me that mask wearing is a worse infringement of civil liberties than forced military conscription and the IRS, or those who once spoke on behalf of the just-a-flu bros but now want to tell me they were never a member of the club. In short, the people I have no patience for ought to know pretty well by now why that is.

    COVID, one way or another, will eventually dwindle away like so many other respiratory viruses that have come before. But THAT kind of bratty entitlement is a problem that will continue to plague this country for many years to come. When I see more people take issue with that than with how my responses to them may ruffle anyone’s feathers, then I’ll take your advice closer to heart, which is not to say I doubt your good intentions in offering it, so no offense taken.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  229. @Mark G.
    @HA

    You keep recycling the same straw man. I shouldn't have been faced with relying on my immune system or getting a vaccine as my only alternatives. I should have been able to receive early treatment from a doctor without him being threatened with having his medical license taken away or having him arrested and dragged off to prison if he continued to try to practice medicine without a license.

    I object to this use of force to prevent voluntary transactions between consenting adults. This was done by the government to benefit Big Pharma by eliminating an alternative to their vaccines. You refuse to acknowledge any of this because you are psychologically unable to accept you are on the side of evil and what was done to me and others like me was morally wrong. I fully expect you to continue with your evasiveness, obfuscation, condescension, straw man arguments, insults and verbal abuse.

    Replies: @HA

    “I shouldn’t have been faced with relying on my immune system or getting a vaccine as my only alternatives.”

    Sorry you weren’t given the boutique treatment you feel you deserved. Maybe you should have picked a better time to wind up in the hospital than when the beds were crammed with so many other people who similarly disregarded basic health precautions — perhaps you then would have found the doctors to be a bit more upbeat and willing to bounce an idea for a new course of treatment. Barring that, you could have also gotten your weight down, taken Vitamin D, ivermectin, fish tank cleaner, or whatever else you felt would have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.

    But whatever you did or didn’t do evidently wasn’t enough. As I see it you’re the one who dropped the ball and now you want to deflect from that by complaining about what everyone else was supposed to do for you. I’m not buying it. If you want to be treated like an adult, show me you can act like an adult. At the very least acknowledge your own responsibility for what happened to you instead of repeatedly trying to portray yourself as the victim of an uncaring system.

    I realize, given all the other people around here who similarly think the world revolves around them, that you’ll have plenty of people high-fiving you for your willingness to buck the system, or whatever, but as I’ve explained, that doesn’t impress me. I’m glad you at least made it out of the hospital — not everyone did — but given your poor decision-making skills, your insistence that you should have been able to make even more decisions for yourself than those you were given is simply comical.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @HA


    Barring that, you could have also gotten your weight down, taken Vitamin D, ivermectin, fish tank cleaner, or whatever else you felt would have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.
     
    You are pretending here that doctors weren't threatened with the loss of their medical licenses if they set up early treatment programs involving off label use of drugs so many of them were reluctant to offer early treatment options, thereby making it difficult for patients to access those treatments. If these treatments don't work, then vaccine proponents should have been eager to have them implemented and then shown to fail. You and I both know they were blocked, not because they don't work, but because they do.

    I notice that the parts of my comments you can't answer you either stick your head in the sand and ignore them or distort them and then attack a strawman version of them. Are you really so delusional that you think your arguments are going to sway anyone who is undecided on this issue? Unfortunately, I think you are.

    Unlike some anti-vaxxers, I believe in freedom of choice. The vaccines should not be banned and those who want to use them can. The legal immunity given to Big Pharma for negative side effects of their vaccines needs to be eliminated, though. Since I believe in freedom of choice, it should be up to insurance companies to decide whether they cover early treatments or require vaccinations in order to receive coverage. Since I believe in freedom of choice, it should be up to privately owned companies whether they will require vaccinations as a condition of employment. I would only be against the use of force by the government to mandate vaccines or block treatments. This seems a sensible position to me, at least more sensible than forcing everyone down to five year olds to get vaccinated for a disease where you could reduce hospitalizations merely by allowing people easy access to early treatment programs.

    Replies: @HA

  230. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Reg Cæsar

    Actually, it is that easy - except when certain individuals (or a particularly famous group who really enjoy small hats) with a vested in interest in whites not seeing themselves as a people try to muddy the waters.

    Your argument is no different - and no less stupid and disingenuous - as the argument made by those who deny that race exists because where do you draw the line between a European and an Arab or that ethnicity doesn't exist because where do you draw the line between a German and Frenchman or an Italian or that colors don't exist because where do your draw the line between yellow and orange.

    These are idiotic arguments, and you know that, yet you use them. Why? I think we know the answer. You are purposely attempting to mislead whites who stray onto this comment board.

    But, hey, by all means fellow whites (wait, that's your line), please join up with the colorblind civic nationalist crowd. I mean, look at how incredibly successful it's been over the past fifty years in achieving its goals and improving the lives of whites.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Your argument is no different – and no less stupid and disingenuous – as the argument made by those who deny that race exists

    I don’t deny that race exists. On the contrary, I recognize a lot more races than you do. Wogs begin at Calais. Hell, at Calais, Maine.

    a vested in interest in whites not seeing themselves as a people

    Whites are not a people. We are dozens of people. Who is keeping the wogs out of their country? The Hungarians. They are doing the opposite of “white solidarity”– Magyar solidarity.

    Asia is kicking our 臀部. Do you see “yellow solidarity”?

    …please join up with the colorblind civic nationalist crowd.

    We are members of ethnic communities. Of linguistic communities. Of religious faiths. And of political entities such as states. We “side” with each of these depending on the situation and the need. What is so hard to understand about that.

    You are purposely attempting to mislead whites who stray onto this comment board.

    The Crow calling the raven black!

    Like all the other “White solidarity” commenters here, you never seem to offer up specific steps for us to take.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Reg Cæsar

    I agree 100% that "whites" are an incredibly diverse group and not for one minute do I believe in or advocate for a pan-white community. I'd love to many different white ethnicities rise up, join together and push back.

    But for now, I use white generically because that's how the world views us. And if the world is attacking us as a group, we need to fight back as a group.

    But, of course, you know all of this. And yet, again, you seek to muddy the waters. Typical. Your debate style gives you away.

    , @Justvisiting
    @Reg Cæsar

    "Do you see “yellow solidarity"

    Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc do not have "yellow solidarity".

    What they do have is solidarity with their own countryman (and therefore hostility towards outsiders).

    In the case of China it may well be what drives them to become the world's leading economic and military power in future decades.

    Diversity is weakness.

    Racial solidarity is strength.

    "you never seem to offer up specific steps for us to take."

    While this was not addressed to me, many folks here have been very clear on basic steps to take.

    These include an end to affirmative action, an end to illegal (and probably legal) immigration, control of de facto speech utilities (Big Tech) banning them from censoring or de-platforming pro-white political speech for starters.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Reg Cæsar


    I don’t deny that race exists. On the contrary, I recognize a lot more races than you do.
     
    Droll, but you know CoaSC is using the modern meaning of race, not using an archaic meaning of the word like you are.

    Whites are not a people.
     
    LOL. Of course Whites are a people. They’re visually identifiable as such, distinct from non-Whites. There may be borderline ‘mixed’ cases, and ethnic, cultural, and political diversity among Whites (as with other races), but that doesn’t mean Whites aren’t a people.

    You even boasted of your own non-specific “white solidarity” in a recent comment:


    [My county] is over 95% white and not even ½% black. Wouldn’t white solidarity (or “White solidarity” in your Negro orthography) show itself in a preference for white, and only white, neighbors?
     
    Are the Whites in your county all Catholic like you, vote like you do, and are all your preferred ethnicity(-ies), —or as you would glibly call them, race(s)? Who’s in or out, according to Reg?—Micks? Frogs? Krauts? Do tell! :)
  231. @PhysicistDave
    @3g4me

    3g4me wrote about me:


    Physicist Dave agrees with you because, like Murray, he has hapa children. He consciously chose to have a racially mixed family. He places his family first, but because he can’t fall back on White racial solidarity, he has turned to the spectre of Woke Whites as the cause of all his angst (although he stated he doesn’t particularly care if he offends some blacks).
     
    You think I only became a "race traitor" when I met my wife?

    Nope, I am proud to say that I have been a race traitor all my life, seem to have been born that way.

    As I have said before, when I was a young kid growing up in St. Louis, we still had Jim Crow. I was against it. A proud race mixer from the beginning.

    3g4me also wrote to Reg:

    When there are racial riots in the street, Reg, which group will you go to for protection and for whom will you fight? Are you going to hang with the Mestizos and sub-Saharans? The Han and Koreans? Will they welcome you with open arms and open hearts?

    You’d better go ahead and count on it, because a large cohort of Whites know who has openly sided with them and who has not, and is keeping track.
     
    Oh, in the extremely unlikely event that you white nationalists succeed in inciting a race war, most of us Whites will be fighting against you.

    And we will cream you -- you do, after all, all seem to be a bunch of weenies.

    When I first saw the infamous clip of the weenies at Rich Spencer's little get-together shouting out "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!", the first thought that crossed my mind was: are any of these guys actually heterosexuals?

    I know it is verboten to talk about such things nowadays, but still it is a fact that the head of the SA, Ernst Röhm. was gay: as Wikipedia says, "Röhm acknowledged that the letters [confirming his homosexuality] were genuine, and as a result of the scandal, he became the first openly gay politician in history."

    Maybe some of you white nationalists are not gay, but you do all seem to be weenies.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I know it is verboten to talk about such things nowadays, but still it is a fact that the head of the SA, Ernst Röhm. was gay:

    Like his boss. Who “penetrated” him in the end.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Reg Cæsar

    To be fair, Rohm was the most manly major Nazi leader. He was a pederast, like the majority of macho homosexual types.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  232. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @3g4me

    Dave is the quintessential boomer - as are Steve and Murray, btw. It's still 1965 in his mind. He's the brave defender of individualism, even though the amazing world to which he was born was carved out by men who very much saw themselves as a part of a race, a people, and who worked together to create a wonderful society. Indeed, Dave's ancestors brutally killed or kicked out other races to capture the land for that society.

    But Dave's a scientist, damn it! He doesn't have to concern himself with such things. He cares not who build the faculty lounge, just that it's stocked with good coffee.

    Dave's the equivalent of a trust fund kid. He despises what his ancestors did to achieve the wealth that he has enjoyed. But like most trust fund kids, Dave is blowing through the wealth. By sheer luck, he lived his life in a cozy interregnum, but it's coming to an end.

    The future will be what the past has always been: Tribal.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Reg Cæsar

    Indeed, Dave’s ancestors brutally killed or kicked out other races to capture the land for that society.

    Yeah, right…

    Maybe in the colder places:

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar

    It's irrelevant to what you are talking about but I find it hilarious that all of South Florida, which today contains some of the most valuable real estate on earth, was then shown on the map as an Empty Quarter. If you had a time machine you could probably go back and buy the whole thing for 5 cents an acre and whoever you bought it from would think that they were cheating you.

  233. @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kief wrote to me:


    Maybe what takes place here is a bit strange for you. – What is going on here is – literary enthusiasm. And that is far away from the status-world nowadays. Maybe as far away as it is to join a Franciscan or a Dominican order.
     
    "Literary enthusiasm" -- either childish cult or perverse pomposity.

    And, yes, I do think that anyone who would "join a Franciscan or a Dominican order" is, at best, a pompous poseur. More likely, someone suffering from very serious genetic/psychological defects.

    Christianity is a pack of lies. Anyone in the 21st century so unable to see that fact that he would "join a Franciscan or a Dominican order," well, at least he will not be contributing to the human gene pool!

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Dieter Kief

    Christianity is a pack of lies. Anyone in the 21st century so unable to see that fact that he would “join a Franciscan or a Dominican order,” well, at least he will not be contributing to the human gene pool!

    In the light of your remark — a very ironic social fact of huge importance: The European gene pool was deeply shaped/modeled by Christans (=most of all by christian monks (the brains in the church****), bishops and priests) in two steps:

    1) Cousin marriage was said to be undesired / forbidden from early medieval times on by Christian leaders. The Christian church managed to install this as a by and large well respected social norm, that did mark a big difference between the Islamic and the Christian world.

    2) Priests had kids after Luther – and those kids were the Professors then at the growing university system. So much so, that universities were looked upon as the wordly arm of the protestant church (s. max Weber’s scoiology classic: The Protestant Ehtic and the spirit of Capitalism) . In the late 19th century this model was a bit modified, because – not least in Germany – many a Jew rose to prominence as a scientist/ Professor at German universities especially – from 1870 ca. their numbers were in the double digits in quite a few disciplines (zero before).

    No 1) might well have been the single most important social eugenical factor in European history.

    Harvard Historian Jo Henrich (see his book The Secret of Our Success) put it this way in an interview he gave to Markus Schär of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

    “The branch of Christianity that grew into the Roman Catholic Church, beginning around the year 500, enforced what we call its “marriage and family program”: Norms that made polygamy and cousin marriages taboo, requiring married people to have their own households independent of their families and introduced new inheritance rules against collective land ownership. In this way, the Catholic Church destroyed the complex kinship structures we see elsewhere in the world. Around the year 1000 there were no more clans in Western Europe, almost only nuclear families. This led to what historians call voluntary associations: cities, guilds, monasteries, universities. People made their decisions free from the ties of their complex families. This ultimately led to individuality as we know it in the West.”

    PS I’ve answered your Wittgenstein remarks in my comment 192, but did not link properly.

    **** see Arno Borst –
    Computus – Or: The ordering of Time –  From Ancient Computing to the Modern Computer

    – About the origins of counting and calculations in the Middle Ages (mostly about the early scientific work of – (Dominican and Franziscan) monks)

    (available at amazon – highly recommended little book – 178 p.)

    Also by Arno Borst: Medieval Worlds: Barbarians, Heretics, and Artists in the Middle Ages
    Bigger – 288 p. – and broader in its appraoch – very insightful book as well.

    • Thanks: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter Kef wrote to me:


    In the light of your remark — a very ironic social fact of huge importance: The European gene pool was deeply shaped/modeled by Christans (=most of all by christian monks (the brains in the church****), bishops and priests) in two steps:
     
    But of course by taking some of the brighter males in society and insisting that they be celibate, the Catholic Church was engaged in highly dysgenic behavior!

    DK also wrote:


    those kids were the Professors then at the growing university system. So much so, that universities were looked upon as the wordly [sic -- was that an intentional pun?] arm of the protestant church (s. max Weber’s scoiology classic: The Protestant Ehtic and the spirit of Capitalism) .
     
    The universities have not been positive additions to society throughout most of their history.

    The Renaissance largely occurred outside the universities. Einstein did his seminal work when he was a clerk at the Swiss patent office. Darwin was a country gentleman. Faraday was basically unschooled. Not to mention Locke or Hume.

    Yes, in some areas for a period in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the universities (sometimes) contributed to the advancement of human knowledge.

    But on the whole, and especially today, "Écrasez l'infâme!"

    The government-education complex is the single largest threat to Western civilization today -- and I know the universities from the inside.

  234. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Indeed, Dave’s ancestors brutally killed or kicked out other races to capture the land for that society.
     
    Yeah, right...


    https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/1860_slave_distribution.png?quality=75&strip=all&w=1600&h=900&crop=1


    Maybe in the colder places:


    https://www.census.gov/history/img/statab1890.jpg

    Replies: @Jack D

    It’s irrelevant to what you are talking about but I find it hilarious that all of South Florida, which today contains some of the most valuable real estate on earth, was then shown on the map as an Empty Quarter. If you had a time machine you could probably go back and buy the whole thing for 5 cents an acre and whoever you bought it from would think that they were cheating you.

  235. Tre! Yes. It seemed possible that a military action would be a quick-and-easy solution. George Tenet’s ‘Curveball’ source, “slam-dunk” assurances, Rumsfeld’s first contemporary use of “drain the swamp”, Bush’s assurance that he could tell Putin’s honesty by ‘looking him in the eye’, blah blah blah. And just like that, the U.S. forgot eight years on Clinton corruption.

    Am also recalling Harry Reid’s ‘black eye’ showing up in a Las Vegas ER and New Year’s Day, and a sociopathic ‘Cluster B’ type tricking Powerline and Limbaugh into a platform for an intentional lie about the cause of Reid’s injury.

    P.S. – really enjoyed Murray and Sailer and Hayward, especially Sailer’s remarks about critics asking him “why do you know this?” Wrong question! Looking forward to Part 2!

  236. @Reg Cæsar
    @PhysicistDave


    I know it is verboten to talk about such things nowadays, but still it is a fact that the head of the SA, Ernst Röhm. was gay:
     
    Like his boss. Who "penetrated" him in the end.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    To be fair, Rohm was the most manly major Nazi leader. He was a pederast, like the majority of macho homosexual types.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Anonymous

    He was astreet fighting man too in the Weimar period - when street fighting actually meant open combat.

  237. @HA
    @Mark G.

    "I shouldn’t have been faced with relying on my immune system or getting a vaccine as my only alternatives."

    Sorry you weren't given the boutique treatment you feel you deserved. Maybe you should have picked a better time to wind up in the hospital than when the beds were crammed with so many other people who similarly disregarded basic health precautions -- perhaps you then would have found the doctors to be a bit more upbeat and willing to bounce an idea for a new course of treatment. Barring that, you could have also gotten your weight down, taken Vitamin D, ivermectin, fish tank cleaner, or whatever else you felt would have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.

    But whatever you did or didn't do evidently wasn't enough. As I see it you're the one who dropped the ball and now you want to deflect from that by complaining about what everyone else was supposed to do for you. I'm not buying it. If you want to be treated like an adult, show me you can act like an adult. At the very least acknowledge your own responsibility for what happened to you instead of repeatedly trying to portray yourself as the victim of an uncaring system.

    I realize, given all the other people around here who similarly think the world revolves around them, that you'll have plenty of people high-fiving you for your willingness to buck the system, or whatever, but as I've explained, that doesn't impress me. I'm glad you at least made it out of the hospital -- not everyone did -- but given your poor decision-making skills, your insistence that you should have been able to make even more decisions for yourself than those you were given is simply comical.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Barring that, you could have also gotten your weight down, taken Vitamin D, ivermectin, fish tank cleaner, or whatever else you felt would have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.

    You are pretending here that doctors weren’t threatened with the loss of their medical licenses if they set up early treatment programs involving off label use of drugs so many of them were reluctant to offer early treatment options, thereby making it difficult for patients to access those treatments. If these treatments don’t work, then vaccine proponents should have been eager to have them implemented and then shown to fail. You and I both know they were blocked, not because they don’t work, but because they do.

    I notice that the parts of my comments you can’t answer you either stick your head in the sand and ignore them or distort them and then attack a strawman version of them. Are you really so delusional that you think your arguments are going to sway anyone who is undecided on this issue? Unfortunately, I think you are.

    Unlike some anti-vaxxers, I believe in freedom of choice. The vaccines should not be banned and those who want to use them can. The legal immunity given to Big Pharma for negative side effects of their vaccines needs to be eliminated, though. Since I believe in freedom of choice, it should be up to insurance companies to decide whether they cover early treatments or require vaccinations in order to receive coverage. Since I believe in freedom of choice, it should be up to privately owned companies whether they will require vaccinations as a condition of employment. I would only be against the use of force by the government to mandate vaccines or block treatments. This seems a sensible position to me, at least more sensible than forcing everyone down to five year olds to get vaccinated for a disease where you could reduce hospitalizations merely by allowing people easy access to early treatment programs.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Mark G.

    "You are pretending here that doctors weren’t threatened with the loss of their medical licenses if they set up early treatment programs involving off label use of drugs so many of them were reluctant to offer early treatment options, thereby making it difficult for patients to access those treatments. If these treatments don’t work, then vaccine proponents should have been eager to have them implemented and then shown to fail."

    Are you crazy? Consider the following alternate assertion: "If Thalidomide doesn't work, then those in the FDA who refused to approve it for US patients (which is what happened, by the way, and which is why there were no Thalidomide babies in the US) should have been eager to have them dispensed and then shown to produce grossly deformed babies."

    Do you see anything wrong with your "eager to have everything implemented" approach?

    You evidently live in some bizarro world where on the one hand, the FDA is required to be flexible enough to let any Google-search medical "expert" pick whatever treatment suits him without violating any medication protocols whatsoever (to the extent that some patients have sued hospitals for "failing" to administer ivermectin and HCQ), and on the other hand, the FDA is vehemently blasted for approving -- even on an emergency basis -- a supposedly untested dangerous gene-altering vaccine (a claim that anti-vaxxers are still parotting even after a couple of billion jabs). Try to appreciate that dilemma, and you'll understand exactly why all that needless and idiotic politicization resulted in the very scenario you decry. It's the me,me,me crowd who insisted on having it both ways, even though they couldn't be bothered to do even the simplest things that are asked of them.

    This is a new disease -- that's why they call it "pandemic", by the way -- and there are only so many trials and so many billions of dollars to spread around. A whole lot of effort was spent -- not just on vaccines, but also on Vitamin D and even ivermectin -- and the vaccines by far did the best. I mean, it was no contest. But even if had turned out differently, the general rule is that FIRST we demand that the treatments be tested in trials following rigorous protocols and monitored by IRB's, and only THEN do they get approved. Your approach of being "eager to see what happens" is more suited for twisted ten-year-old boys who put two different bugs in a jar hoping that they'll fight it out.

    Maybe someday, given enough time and enough respite from having to treat so many COVID cases one after the other, health experts will get a chance to test out the treatments you approve of, and they will be added to the menu of options. I'm hoping that happens for you one day, but if you want that, be smart enough to take a vaccine so as to delay having to go to the hospital until such a time when it is no longer swamped and when the treatment options that managed to pass through the approval wringers are not limited. And if you can't be bothered to do that, stop complaining about how the medical establishment you didn't bother listening to in the first place isn't being responsive enough. The hypocrisy is way too thick.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  238. @nebulafox
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    >The future will be what the past has always been: Tribal.

    Not if we refuse to stoop to that level. It's possible: thinking "it isn't possible here" is a great way to get there. Human nature has a dark, cruel streak that can come out if the circumstances aren't right. You'd be surprised what "ordinary" people can be capable of in certain situations. The amount of purely evil people out there is relatively few (they do exist), but the amount of people who can do evil under the wrong circumstances: different story.

    But it's hardly inevitable. That nightmare is not inevitable. It'll take more than platitudes to get this country back on the right path. But it's there.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    You talk as though love of tribe is a bad thing.

    CivNats, what are you going to do.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    >CivNats, what are you going to do.

    Offer a way forward for the damned normal people of this country and get the USA back on top of the world again, where the baths are hot, the liquor tastes good, and life is sweet.

    What else?

  239. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Your argument is no different – and no less stupid and disingenuous – as the argument made by those who deny that race exists
     
    I don't deny that race exists. On the contrary, I recognize a lot more races than you do. Wogs begin at Calais. Hell, at Calais, Maine.

    a vested in interest in whites not seeing themselves as a people
     
    Whites are not a people. We are dozens of people. Who is keeping the wogs out of their country? The Hungarians. They are doing the opposite of "white solidarity"-- Magyar solidarity.

    Asia is kicking our 臀部. Do you see "yellow solidarity"?


    ...please join up with the colorblind civic nationalist crowd.
     
    We are members of ethnic communities. Of linguistic communities. Of religious faiths. And of political entities such as states. We "side" with each of these depending on the situation and the need. What is so hard to understand about that.

    You are purposely attempting to mislead whites who stray onto this comment board.
     
    The Crow calling the raven black!

    Like all the other "White solidarity" commenters here, you never seem to offer up specific steps for us to take.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Justvisiting, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I agree 100% that “whites” are an incredibly diverse group and not for one minute do I believe in or advocate for a pan-white community. I’d love to many different white ethnicities rise up, join together and push back.

    But for now, I use white generically because that’s how the world views us. And if the world is attacking us as a group, we need to fight back as a group.

    But, of course, you know all of this. And yet, again, you seek to muddy the waters. Typical. Your debate style gives you away.

  240. @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    "As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction."

    Where is this conclusive evidence you speak of? I mean, I get it -- the very fact that people today cannot walk on water or rise up after three days and then float through walls and ascend up into heaven is some fairly solid evidence that whatever documents detail events like that are ipso facto historical fiction. But it was my understanding that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure" (as wikipedia puts it), even those who really believe some of his disciples made off with Jesus' corpse, thereby allowing the rest to get carried away with a narrative that eventually took on a life of its own (or something like that).

    But maybe you're talking about something beyond that that actually is conclusive, in which case I'd appreciate having a look. I'm pretty sure that Youtube video that made the rounds a few years back about Epictetus or Mithra or whomever isn't any more impressive to actual scholars than a document claiming that water was transformed into wine, if that's what you had in mind, but maybe you are thinking of something else.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Clyde

    HA asked me:

    Where is this conclusive evidence you speak of?

    Look at my earlier post where I discussed the obvious fabrication by Mt. of the mountain from which all kingdoms could be viewed. Or the fact that Mt. and Luke could not have had a good basis for believing in the Virgin Birth. Or Luke’s bizarre fantasy about the census.

    There are many other examples: e.g., Mt.’ s confusion in using a “proof text” about Jesus riding two animals coming into Jerusalem or Mt.’s bizarre claim that old-timers rose from the graves and walked around Jerusalem after Jesus died (odd that Josephus did not mention that, eh?).

    The authors of the Gospels just freely made stuff up, nonsensical stuff.

    Everyone acknowledges that the ancient Christians had a habit of doing this: check out the Gospel of Peter or the charming Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the very different Gospel of Thomas).

    I made no claim about whether or not Jesus existed. But if he did, the Gospels make up an awful lot of stuff about him.

    Jesus is to the Gospels as President Lincoln is to that bizarre movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

    Historical fiction always has a grain of historical truth or it would not be historical fiction. The Gospels do allude to some actual historical figures — Herod, Augustus, Pilate — though they get the facts about those figures hilariously wrong. And maybe Jesus was historical too.

    But the Gospels are still a pack of lies.

    HA also wrote:

    But it was my understanding that “Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure” (as wikipedia puts it)

    One more case where you cannot trust wikipedia: that is no longer true.

    Rich Carrier had a list of serious, accredited scholars who now have doubts about the historicity of Jesus. As Carrier summarizes:

    That makes now nine fully qualified experts on the record, two of them sitting professors, three retired professors, and four independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record (just like Davies, who feared admitting his doubt publicly)…

    We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point…

    Which makes nineteen relevantly qualified experts now who concur mythicism is at least plausible.

    Again, I myself do not know whether or not Jesus existed.

    But I do know that the Gospels are just as surely fiction as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Indeed more so: the Gospels flagrantly disagree with what we know from history.

    • Replies: @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    Look at my earlier post where I discussed the obvious fabrication by Mt. of the mountain from which all kingdoms could be viewed. Or the fact that Mt. and Luke could not have had a good basis for believing in the Virgin Birth. Or Luke’s bizarre fantasy about the census.

    All of that would have been (apart from the one about the census, maybe) similarly picked apart by many or most of the early Christians. Note that Wikipedia, for all your ridicule, actually agrees with you: "There is, of course, no mountain from where 'all the kingdoms of the world' can be seen. One explanation for this is that the word taketh does not necessarily refer to a physical transportation, it could mean that Satan merely took Jesus in a vision. John Calvin supported this view, and the Geneva Bible made this interpretation explicit."

    In other words, you're not the first person to note that a ragtag bunch of oral stories that were for decades thought to be not worth writing down in the first place (given that Jesus was expected to come real soon, to the extent that even holding on to their possessions seemed pointless) contains all the features of any such oral tradition: some word or phrase got interpreted differently, or meant something else over the decades, and so forth. So what? Because, even if the Bible were as historically accurate about censuses and vantage points as you like, would it prove anything to you more than the fact that some guy possibly managed to survive a botched crucifixion? I submit that it wouldn't. It might be a more fascinating tale if the details were fleshed out in the way you like, but you would still say, "Big deal -- a failed execution is still no proof that Jesus is the 'Son of God' (whatever that even means)".

    I've actually talked to a number of Christians. What they seem to agree on is the notion that regardless of whatever details the Gospels left out or garbled, the part about Jesus rising from the dead is more or less accurate because they (or those close them) claim they have experienced Jesus' influence in their own lives -- similar in some ways that Saul of Damascus did. THAT personal testimony is what motivates them, more so than what someone wrote about him 2000 years ago, even if that earlier account forms the spine of the story they discuss when they gather. Your Aspergery objections about whether all the kingdoms of the earth can be seen from any vantage point somehow miss that point in the way that Asperger cases often do. I'm not knocking your viewpoint, but I submit that if you could be similarly convinced that Jesus is an active presence in your life, it would become less important, even though it would still be the case that any oral traditions told about Jesus' life two millennia ago and not written down for decades might contain similar telephone tag craziness.

    As for Carrier, he evidently thinks Bart Ehrman's book(s) are trash -- something, as I suspect you know, most Christians would roundly agree with since the man is a fallen away evangelical-trashing agnostic (which I suspect is why he always keeps getting those NPR gigs). He also, evidently, dislikes another similar book by Freke & Gandy that "argues that orthodox Christianity was not the predecessor to Gnosticism, but a later outgrowth that rewrote history in order to make literal Christianity appear to predate the Gnostics." In other words, he'd get a round of applause from the pews for that opinion as well. But if this is your main argument that Jesus was mythical, it's an indication of a pretty weak case or you'd have listed a better one. If you want to trash Wikipedia, give me something more convincing or give me something specific instead of some endless tirade including matters as picayune as Carrier's bruised ego about Ehrman impugning his credentials. (Though I'm kind of getting a sense of why you are into him.)

    In any case, my point remains. These "gotchas" that delight people like you have been known about for centuries, and somehow haven't managed to derail Christianity yet. I used to find these games you people play with the minority of Christians who regard themselves as Biblical literalists more persuasive, but I've since learned that absurdity is a constant in human affairs, be it by way of virgin birth, or Banach-Tarski, or Russell's barber paradox. I now realize that if anyone wants to unseat Christianity, they'll need to provide something more meaningful, and so far, the Christianity-replacers from Marx to Nietzsche to Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Foucault have done a spit-awful job of that. Will any of their efforts outlast the Amish? Will any of the various believers in the church of eternal progress, your sect included, who nowadays seem more interested in excommunicating one another as trans-this clobbers feminist-that (exactly in the manner of Christians in the Emo Philips' God joke) than in actually making babies, survive the Christians they claim are no longer relevant?

    I have my doubts, and I'm not alone, and THAT is the kind of disbelief you might want to take more note of.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    , @Ian M.
    @PhysicistDave

    Richard Carrier??

    Ah, you got me: I didn't realize initially you were doing a parody of a modern-day twelve-year-old atheist.

  241. @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    >I shared an office for a while with the fellow who invented TTL logic, Jim Buie. Jim told me that when he started work, most of the engineers were not college graduates but guys who had learned on the job.

    Those guys who learned on the job wouldn't get the job today because employers have ensured that the costs of training are born either entirely by the individual or the public as a whole. MBALogic of the kind that has dominated the American psyche for 30 years (in tandem with HRLogic and BureaucratLogic, of course) doesn't care about the long-term negative effects this can have on your business, let alone society as a whole.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    There is also the effect of credentialism.

    Hiring “smart, uneducated” people runs up against the realities of what is permissible in hiring.

  242. @Verymuchalive
    @Almost Missouri


    Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
     
    The Ziocon AEI is Murray's last toehold in "academia". To paraphrase Upton Sinclair:
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his academic status depends on his not understanding it.” Academic cancellation deeply frightens the man.

    Maestro Steve does not fear cancellation, as he never had a position, academic or otherwise, from which he could be cancelled. The journey from TAC to UR was the result of a schism in the former, not cancellation. I suppose Rice University could rescind his MBA, but it wouldn't bother him. Long may he continue to be frank and fearless !

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    Steve got his MBA from UCLA, his bachelor’s degree is from Rice.

    • Thanks: Verymuchalive
  243. @nebulafox
    @Sam Malone

    You consider South Korea or Singapore/Malaysia (for the ethnic Chinese, the other two intertwine their native religions into racial identity far more than East Asians tend to), both of which have well entrenched Christian minorities that show no signs of flagging in strength, mentally non-modern?

    >a) that historically Christianity’s importance to people ultimately sprang from the belief that its key events had actually happened and b) since with the lens of modern critique one can pretty clearly see that it was a human invention all along, it has for the last couple hundred years been resonating with ever fewer people.

    I know I'm a weirdo, but looking at the messy, "human" memories of authentic recollection behind all the neat, pat miracle stories has made me more inclined to believe in the divine, not less. YMMV.

    Replies: @Sam Malone

    Okay, good point on the many South Korean and ethnic Chinese believers in first world places like Singapore, etc. The future’s unwritten, so maybe Christianity will indeed continue to thrive in modern places like those. But then of course we could haggle over the numbers and the definition of ‘thrive’, and whether 5 or 10% of a modern society still believing in Christianity invalidates Dave’s original observation and point.

    And as to the other, yes, everyone’s mileage varies.

    But it’s undeniable that there’s been a wholesale collapse in the West over the last two hundred years or so in actual, genuine belief in God and adherence to Christian norms among the most educated. As we all know this was followed by a gradual process of widespread secularization in the 20th century as the public’s access to education increased and they slowly came to the same realization much of the elite had before them: that the New Testament is merely the imperfect and contradictory work of men, and that therefore on the balance of probabilities its contents are mythical and not historical – perhaps of great use for moral instruction, but not the record of a divine intervention 2,000 years ago that it was always purported to be.

    Our process of secularization no doubt has had several interwoven factors encouraging it, but it does seem to ultimately be driven by the reason Dave first elaborated – the realization that the New Testament’s truth claims don’t in fact hold up the cold light of day. After that, the rest was probably hard to avoid – the most intelligent men start thinking hard about how much sense any of this God really stuff makes.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Sam Malone

    " rest was probably hard to avoid – the most intelligent men start thinking hard about how much sense any of this God really stuff makes"

    How does that fit with the most intelligent group on the planet - Ashkenazi Jews - containing a pretty large and growing (in the UK at least) Orthodox population who are extremely into the God stuff?

    Replies: @Sam Malone

    , @nebulafox
    @Sam Malone

    It's more like 20-30%, and especially in Southeast Asia, it's growing. Christianity is popular among the Chinese in part because it accepts them despite being racial outsiders: in Malaysia and Thailand in particular, the indigenous faith, Sunni Islam and Theravada Buddhism respectively, is heavily intertwined with communal identity, with being "Malay" or "Thai". Christianity doesn't require them to give up their racial identity. A little stereotypical pop psychology would also probably indicate that it doesn't hurt that the Protestant bourgeois emphasis on work ethic, education, and moral honing (respect for parents, delaying gratification, etc) meshes well with traditional Confucian values in those areas, too, making the transition "neater" than it might be in other areas of the world.

    >But it’s undeniable that there’s been a wholesale collapse in the West over the last two hundred years or so in actual, genuine belief in God and adherence to Christian norms among the most educated.

    Correct. But the vast majority of human beings are intuitive creatures, including the vast majority of intelligent people. We're inherently disposed to believe in wider forces beyond our control-and of course, who is to say they are wrong? I think it's far healthier for us to give credit to that and live it, not just for moral instruction, but because this is was being human *is*. I mean, look at your modal Millennial atheist in 21st Century America. Their psychology isn't removed from what the overwhelming majority of human beings have always been, and it shows.

    BTW, my POV on this might be colored from having extensive personal experience with an Islamic culture. Christianity has been open about the fact that the Gospels were written by men, and thus are imperfect and open to mistranslation, for at least several centuries. Jesus is the divine intercession to humanity, not the Bible itself, and most Christians familiar with the basic history of their own faith can tell you that they were written around 70 AD. In contrast, in Islam, the book itself is the divine intercession, not a man, and believing Muslims-including highly educated ones-still believe that it is the perfect work of God. (And Islam currently is at the theological stage where Christianity was roughly 400, 500 years ago: mass literacy and printed Qu'rans are a relatively new thing in the Islamic World, and the impact is interesting to compare to Gutenberg's press in Europe.)

    >Our process of secularization no doubt has had several interwoven factors encouraging it, but it does seem to ultimately be driven by the reason Dave first elaborated – the realization that the New Testament’s truth claims don’t in fact hold up the cold light of day.

    I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong: this is the origin of Nietzsche's famous statement on the death of God in a nutshell. "We've killed him..." But I'm leery of this attitude because it tends to lead moderns to dismiss people in the past as idiots. Once you adjust for the level of understanding about the universe around us-and this is the big change-they acted pretty normally. Part of my attitude stems from diving into the history of religion in other parts of the world, too: one interesting thing I've learned recently was that the correlation of divine success with military victory, for example, was hardly unique to the European and Islamic worlds.

    I think what we've done is strip away the level of causality that human beings have had for most of our time on this planet. And I think the real diverging point here was the 19th Century, not the 18th. You've always had religious skeptics and freethinkers, going back to ancient times, even if you rarely came across had "atheists" in the sense that we'd think about it. Even in ancient or medieval times, you had people occupying the whole spectrum from attending Mass or sacrificing to the gods every day to those who rarely or never did. The 19th Century was when the scientific tools at our disposal really changed our understanding of the universe.

    Replies: @Sam Malone, @Dieter Kief, @PhysicistDave

  244. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Your argument is no different – and no less stupid and disingenuous – as the argument made by those who deny that race exists
     
    I don't deny that race exists. On the contrary, I recognize a lot more races than you do. Wogs begin at Calais. Hell, at Calais, Maine.

    a vested in interest in whites not seeing themselves as a people
     
    Whites are not a people. We are dozens of people. Who is keeping the wogs out of their country? The Hungarians. They are doing the opposite of "white solidarity"-- Magyar solidarity.

    Asia is kicking our 臀部. Do you see "yellow solidarity"?


    ...please join up with the colorblind civic nationalist crowd.
     
    We are members of ethnic communities. Of linguistic communities. Of religious faiths. And of political entities such as states. We "side" with each of these depending on the situation and the need. What is so hard to understand about that.

    You are purposely attempting to mislead whites who stray onto this comment board.
     
    The Crow calling the raven black!

    Like all the other "White solidarity" commenters here, you never seem to offer up specific steps for us to take.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Justvisiting, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    “Do you see “yellow solidarity”

    Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc do not have “yellow solidarity”.

    What they do have is solidarity with their own countryman (and therefore hostility towards outsiders).

    In the case of China it may well be what drives them to become the world’s leading economic and military power in future decades.

    Diversity is weakness.

    Racial solidarity is strength.

    “you never seem to offer up specific steps for us to take.”

    While this was not addressed to me, many folks here have been very clear on basic steps to take.

    These include an end to affirmative action, an end to illegal (and probably legal) immigration, control of de facto speech utilities (Big Tech) banning them from censoring or de-platforming pro-white political speech for starters.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Justvisiting


    Diversity is weakness.

    Racial solidarity is strength.
     
    So how do I get my fellow Anglo-Saxons to think this way? And why do the feeble attempts at trying piss off so many Micks?

    Replies: @Justvisiting

  245. @PhysicistDave
    @HA

    HA asked me:


    Where is this conclusive evidence you speak of?
     
    Look at my earlier post where I discussed the obvious fabrication by Mt. of the mountain from which all kingdoms could be viewed. Or the fact that Mt. and Luke could not have had a good basis for believing in the Virgin Birth. Or Luke's bizarre fantasy about the census.

    There are many other examples: e.g., Mt.' s confusion in using a "proof text" about Jesus riding two animals coming into Jerusalem or Mt.'s bizarre claim that old-timers rose from the graves and walked around Jerusalem after Jesus died (odd that Josephus did not mention that, eh?).

    The authors of the Gospels just freely made stuff up, nonsensical stuff.

    Everyone acknowledges that the ancient Christians had a habit of doing this: check out the Gospel of Peter or the charming Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the very different Gospel of Thomas).

    I made no claim about whether or not Jesus existed. But if he did, the Gospels make up an awful lot of stuff about him.

    Jesus is to the Gospels as President Lincoln is to that bizarre movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

    Historical fiction always has a grain of historical truth or it would not be historical fiction. The Gospels do allude to some actual historical figures -- Herod, Augustus, Pilate -- though they get the facts about those figures hilariously wrong. And maybe Jesus was historical too.

    But the Gospels are still a pack of lies.

    HA also wrote:

    But it was my understanding that “Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure” (as wikipedia puts it)
     
    One more case where you cannot trust wikipedia: that is no longer true.

    Rich Carrier had a list of serious, accredited scholars who now have doubts about the historicity of Jesus. As Carrier summarizes:

    That makes now nine fully qualified experts on the record, two of them sitting professors, three retired professors, and four independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record (just like Davies, who feared admitting his doubt publicly)...

    We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point...

    Which makes nineteen relevantly qualified experts now who concur mythicism is at least plausible.
     
    Again, I myself do not know whether or not Jesus existed.

    But I do know that the Gospels are just as surely fiction as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Indeed more so: the Gospels flagrantly disagree with what we know from history.

    Replies: @HA, @Ian M.

    Look at my earlier post where I discussed the obvious fabrication by Mt. of the mountain from which all kingdoms could be viewed. Or the fact that Mt. and Luke could not have had a good basis for believing in the Virgin Birth. Or Luke’s bizarre fantasy about the census.

    All of that would have been (apart from the one about the census, maybe) similarly picked apart by many or most of the early Christians. Note that Wikipedia, for all your ridicule, actually agrees with you: “There is, of course, no mountain from where ‘all the kingdoms of the world’ can be seen. One explanation for this is that the word taketh does not necessarily refer to a physical transportation, it could mean that Satan merely took Jesus in a vision. John Calvin supported this view, and the Geneva Bible made this interpretation explicit.”

    In other words, you’re not the first person to note that a ragtag bunch of oral stories that were for decades thought to be not worth writing down in the first place (given that Jesus was expected to come real soon, to the extent that even holding on to their possessions seemed pointless) contains all the features of any such oral tradition: some word or phrase got interpreted differently, or meant something else over the decades, and so forth. So what? Because, even if the Bible were as historically accurate about censuses and vantage points as you like, would it prove anything to you more than the fact that some guy possibly managed to survive a botched crucifixion? I submit that it wouldn’t. It might be a more fascinating tale if the details were fleshed out in the way you like, but you would still say, “Big deal — a failed execution is still no proof that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’ (whatever that even means)”.

    I’ve actually talked to a number of Christians. What they seem to agree on is the notion that regardless of whatever details the Gospels left out or garbled, the part about Jesus rising from the dead is more or less accurate because they (or those close them) claim they have experienced Jesus’ influence in their own lives — similar in some ways that Saul of Damascus did. THAT personal testimony is what motivates them, more so than what someone wrote about him 2000 years ago, even if that earlier account forms the spine of the story they discuss when they gather. Your Aspergery objections about whether all the kingdoms of the earth can be seen from any vantage point somehow miss that point in the way that Asperger cases often do. I’m not knocking your viewpoint, but I submit that if you could be similarly convinced that Jesus is an active presence in your life, it would become less important, even though it would still be the case that any oral traditions told about Jesus’ life two millennia ago and not written down for decades might contain similar telephone tag craziness.

    As for Carrier, he evidently thinks Bart Ehrman’s book(s) are trash — something, as I suspect you know, most Christians would roundly agree with since the man is a fallen away evangelical-trashing agnostic (which I suspect is why he always keeps getting those NPR gigs). He also, evidently, dislikes another similar book by Freke & Gandy that “argues that orthodox Christianity was not the predecessor to Gnosticism, but a later outgrowth that rewrote history in order to make literal Christianity appear to predate the Gnostics.” In other words, he’d get a round of applause from the pews for that opinion as well. But if this is your main argument that Jesus was mythical, it’s an indication of a pretty weak case or you’d have listed a better one. If you want to trash Wikipedia, give me something more convincing or give me something specific instead of some endless tirade including matters as picayune as Carrier’s bruised ego about Ehrman impugning his credentials. (Though I’m kind of getting a sense of why you are into him.)

    In any case, my point remains. These “gotchas” that delight people like you have been known about for centuries, and somehow haven’t managed to derail Christianity yet. I used to find these games you people play with the minority of Christians who regard themselves as Biblical literalists more persuasive, but I’ve since learned that absurdity is a constant in human affairs, be it by way of virgin birth, or Banach-Tarski, or Russell’s barber paradox. I now realize that if anyone wants to unseat Christianity, they’ll need to provide something more meaningful, and so far, the Christianity-replacers from Marx to Nietzsche to Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Foucault have done a spit-awful job of that. Will any of their efforts outlast the Amish? Will any of the various believers in the church of eternal progress, your sect included, who nowadays seem more interested in excommunicating one another as trans-this clobbers feminist-that (exactly in the manner of Christians in the Emo Philips’ God joke) than in actually making babies, survive the Christians they claim are no longer relevant?

    I have my doubts, and I’m not alone, and THAT is the kind of disbelief you might want to take more note of.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @HA

    HA wrote to me:


    But if this is your main argument that Jesus was mythical, it’s an indication of a pretty weak case or you’d have listed a better one.
     
    Why on earth would you write that???

    I made very clear that I do not know whether or not Jesus lived, but merely that the Gospels themselves are fictional, which you seem to concede, just as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is fictional, even though Lincoln himself was indeed a real person.

    HA also wrote:

    In any case, my point remains. These “gotchas” that delight people like you have been known about for centuries, and somehow haven’t managed to derail Christianity yet.
     
    But of course you are wrong. Christianity is close to dead in a number of European countries and it is declining in the USA.

    While it is true, as I have emphasized, that scholars have known for centuries that the Gospels are nonsense, everyone was supposed to maintain a discreet silence around the ordinary people in the pews.

    That is (at last!) changing and the lies are dissipating.

    HA also wrote:

    I’ve actually talked to a number of Christians. What they seem to agree on is the notion that regardless of whatever details the Gospels left out or garbled, the part about Jesus rising from the dead is more or less accurate because they (or those close them) claim they have experienced Jesus’ influence in their own lives — similar in some ways that Saul of Damascus did. THAT personal testimony is what motivates them, more so than what someone wrote about him 2000 years ago, even if that earlier account forms the spine of the story they discuss when they gather.
     
    Yes, indeed.

    And Hindus have inner experiences of Vishnu or Shiva and so on for lots of different religions.

    But it is the Gospels that give Christians the initial impetus and idea for their Jesus nonsense.

    Discredit that and it all slowly fades away, just as has happened in much of Europe and is starting to happen here.

    George Carlin said he worships Joe Pesci, who is, after all, much more real than Jesus Christ!

    In a thousand years, there may still be a dew demented people who worship Jesus. Perhaps there will be more who worship Pesci.

    Replies: @HA

    , @PhysicistDave
    @HA

    HA asked me:


    In other words, you’re not the first person to note that a ragtag bunch of oral stories that were for decades thought to be not worth writing down in the first place (given that Jesus was expected to come real soon, to the extent that even holding on to their possessions seemed pointless) contains all the features of any such oral tradition: some word or phrase got interpreted differently, or meant something else over the decades, and so forth. So what?
     
    Look: it is true that serious scholars going back for the better part of two thousand years, at least back to Origen, have known that the Gospels were not true.

    No, I am not the first one to notice this.

    But most ordinary people sitting in the pews do not notice it.

    I know -- I have known hundreds of such ordinary people.

    It is time to stop lying to them.

    During the last few decades, I have become close enough friends with several members of the clergy that they confided in me that they encouraged members of their congregations to believe in things that they themselves knew not to be true.

    That is despicable.

    That several members of the clergy would share this with me suggests, statistically, that it is very, very widespread: after all, I do not know all that many clergymen who would confide in me in this way.

    Jack Good's classic The Dishonest Church suggests it is indeed very widespread: Good was a UCC minister and of course knew many, many more members of the clergy than I have.

    Similarly, check out the second edition of Dan Dennett's Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind.

    You allude to some airy-fairy Christians you have known who do not care that the Gospels are make-believe and who are willing to base their faith solely on their imaginary friend Jesus.

    Fine. But let's start telling everyone the truth about the Gospels.

    HA also wrote:

    I’ve since learned that absurdity is a constant in human affairs, be it by way of virgin birth, or Banach-Tarski, or Russell’s barber paradox.
     
    Are you high? Seriously.

    Banach-Tarski is a real result in math. The virgin birth is not real -- it did not happen. (Where would Jesus have gotten his Y chromosome? How likely is it that working-class Palestinians would have swallowed such an absurd justification for an illegitimate birth?)

    You are now just resorting to silliness.

    HA also wrote to me:

    Will any of the various believers in the church of eternal progress, your sect included, who nowadays seem more interested in excommunicating one another as trans-this clobbers feminist-that...
     
    Are you so new here that you are unaware that I am one of the harshest critics of Leftist pieties on this site?

    I hate lies.

    I hate lies that pretend that a guy in a dress is a woman. I hate the lies of the global-warming hysterics. I hate the lies of the Russian-collusion hoax.

    And I also hate the lies by which people who know better encourage the ordinary people in the pews to believe that the Gospels are anything other than make-believe.

    It is time to expose the lying.

    All of it.

    Replies: @HA

  246. @scrivener3
    @angmoh

    IQ = human worth in modern western society? That is laughable.

    My father worked in a chemical factory running a machine that put labels on bottles and similar stuff. He was never fired for failure to work, never got drunk and beat people up, was never arrested, he was very honest (his co-workers had him hold and payout the cash for the various sports pools and paycheck lotteries they liked to participate in), he raised a family and devoted time to them, he went to church when my mother made him, he helped family with labor (never loans) he dedicated time to the moral education of his children. He didn't feel sorry for himself when his health declined.

    I think he had a great deal of human worth. Higher IQ people can make more money in a free society because they can give more value to their fellow man but no one thinks the richest people are the best people in modern western society. When you have a free society people are able to live according to their lights and can ignore brainier people.

    Replies: @angmoh, @very old statistician

    True and I agree IQ isn’t all that matters. But it is IQ still highly correlated with income and wellbeing so our western system does in fact reward it as a trait, moreso than many other things.

    The other big correlate with success is conscientiousness, which your father appears to have had in spades. You could make a similar argument for many ‘WEIRD‘ traits. They are also subject to ethnic differences.

    The point I was making isn’t that IQ is the be all and end all. It was that reality places values on behaviours implicitly, and statements like Murray’s are weasel words if your plan of action is to do nothing about it.

  247. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    You (and according to your telling Buie, although Buie had a degree in electrical engineering and I'm not sure that he could have come up with TTL logic without the theoretical grounding that he received in his higher education) represent a very American strain of thinking which is distrustful of intellectuals and of abstract thinking.

    America's great technical achievements often came from men like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison who possessed no higher education. (Tesla OTOH thought that Edison's lack of technical background led him to a wasteful trial and error method, whereas someone with a scientific background could have narrowed the field for him and saved him a lot of wasted effort on things that were never going to work if you did the math in advance. )

    But that was a simpler world. You are not going to develop quantum computing or fusion energy tinkering in your barn. And man does not live by bread alone. There is more to this world than what we can see and touch.

    Replies: @Clyde, @PhysicistDave

  248. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    You (and according to your telling Buie, although Buie had a degree in electrical engineering and I'm not sure that he could have come up with TTL logic without the theoretical grounding that he received in his higher education) represent a very American strain of thinking which is distrustful of intellectuals and of abstract thinking.

    America's great technical achievements often came from men like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison who possessed no higher education. (Tesla OTOH thought that Edison's lack of technical background led him to a wasteful trial and error method, whereas someone with a scientific background could have narrowed the field for him and saved him a lot of wasted effort on things that were never going to work if you did the math in advance. )

    But that was a simpler world. You are not going to develop quantum computing or fusion energy tinkering in your barn. And man does not live by bread alone. There is more to this world than what we can see and touch.

    Replies: @Clyde, @PhysicistDave

    Jack D wrote to me:

    But that was a simpler world. You are not going to develop quantum computing or fusion energy tinkering in your barn. And man does not live by bread alone. There is more to this world than what we can see and touch.

    No, you have it exactly backwards: those are the lies spread by the government-university complex.

    Look: I am co-inventor on close to a dozen patents. Not a single one of those patents rests on anything I learned in any class I took in college or in getting my PhD.

    And it is incredibly easier to teach yourself material in math, physics, and engineering today than it was when I earned those patents, thanks to resources such as EdX.

    Talk to a random undergrad today and ask him what fraction of the students attend most of their classes. Or how much time most of them spend studying vs. partying.

    The universities today are very, very expensive con games that waste several years of our young people’s lives, not to mention their parents’ (and taxpayers’) money.

    The universities themselves have basically admitted as much by continuing to charge full tuition for “online learning” during the lockdown: yes, there truly is no longer a real need for brick-and-mortar colleges.

    (So why did I spend all those years in college myself? Partly initial naive innocence, but mainly because I needed the pieces of paper, given the realities of the world we live in today — Griggs v. Duke Power and all that.)

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @PhysicistDave

    Thanks, Dave. I like all your posts here and learn from them. =---- I am a techno peasant but a smart techno peasant

  249. @Professional Slav
    @angmoh


    Just because mainstream westerners have collectively decided that technological progress and modern-era European social mores are a good thing doesn’t make that less true. HBD-aware people simply take those first principles to their logical conclusions
     
    It's not just mainstream westerners collectively deciding this, it's the entire world. Hence mass migration is only happening one way.
    You're making a culturally relativist argument that doesn't mirror reality.

    Replies: @angmoh

    I’m not really making a culturally relativist argument. I’m pointing out the existence of revealed preferences, in other societies the equilibrium lands in a different spot. As an example: I’d prefer to be a billionaire, but my preferred behaviours aren’t compatible with that goal. My revealed preference is not to be a billionaire.

  250. @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    "As I pointed out, there is conclusive evidence that the Gospels are historical fiction."

    Where is this conclusive evidence you speak of? I mean, I get it -- the very fact that people today cannot walk on water or rise up after three days and then float through walls and ascend up into heaven is some fairly solid evidence that whatever documents detail events like that are ipso facto historical fiction. But it was my understanding that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure" (as wikipedia puts it), even those who really believe some of his disciples made off with Jesus' corpse, thereby allowing the rest to get carried away with a narrative that eventually took on a life of its own (or something like that).

    But maybe you're talking about something beyond that that actually is conclusive, in which case I'd appreciate having a look. I'm pretty sure that Youtube video that made the rounds a few years back about Epictetus or Mithra or whomever isn't any more impressive to actual scholars than a document claiming that water was transformed into wine, if that's what you had in mind, but maybe you are thinking of something else.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Clyde

    We need a clown button for you. But you should never be dropped or censored. I like your long winded epistles to nobody. So as they say…keep on keeping on. You BE you..

  251. @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    Look at my earlier post where I discussed the obvious fabrication by Mt. of the mountain from which all kingdoms could be viewed. Or the fact that Mt. and Luke could not have had a good basis for believing in the Virgin Birth. Or Luke’s bizarre fantasy about the census.

    All of that would have been (apart from the one about the census, maybe) similarly picked apart by many or most of the early Christians. Note that Wikipedia, for all your ridicule, actually agrees with you: "There is, of course, no mountain from where 'all the kingdoms of the world' can be seen. One explanation for this is that the word taketh does not necessarily refer to a physical transportation, it could mean that Satan merely took Jesus in a vision. John Calvin supported this view, and the Geneva Bible made this interpretation explicit."

    In other words, you're not the first person to note that a ragtag bunch of oral stories that were for decades thought to be not worth writing down in the first place (given that Jesus was expected to come real soon, to the extent that even holding on to their possessions seemed pointless) contains all the features of any such oral tradition: some word or phrase got interpreted differently, or meant something else over the decades, and so forth. So what? Because, even if the Bible were as historically accurate about censuses and vantage points as you like, would it prove anything to you more than the fact that some guy possibly managed to survive a botched crucifixion? I submit that it wouldn't. It might be a more fascinating tale if the details were fleshed out in the way you like, but you would still say, "Big deal -- a failed execution is still no proof that Jesus is the 'Son of God' (whatever that even means)".

    I've actually talked to a number of Christians. What they seem to agree on is the notion that regardless of whatever details the Gospels left out or garbled, the part about Jesus rising from the dead is more or less accurate because they (or those close them) claim they have experienced Jesus' influence in their own lives -- similar in some ways that Saul of Damascus did. THAT personal testimony is what motivates them, more so than what someone wrote about him 2000 years ago, even if that earlier account forms the spine of the story they discuss when they gather. Your Aspergery objections about whether all the kingdoms of the earth can be seen from any vantage point somehow miss that point in the way that Asperger cases often do. I'm not knocking your viewpoint, but I submit that if you could be similarly convinced that Jesus is an active presence in your life, it would become less important, even though it would still be the case that any oral traditions told about Jesus' life two millennia ago and not written down for decades might contain similar telephone tag craziness.

    As for Carrier, he evidently thinks Bart Ehrman's book(s) are trash -- something, as I suspect you know, most Christians would roundly agree with since the man is a fallen away evangelical-trashing agnostic (which I suspect is why he always keeps getting those NPR gigs). He also, evidently, dislikes another similar book by Freke & Gandy that "argues that orthodox Christianity was not the predecessor to Gnosticism, but a later outgrowth that rewrote history in order to make literal Christianity appear to predate the Gnostics." In other words, he'd get a round of applause from the pews for that opinion as well. But if this is your main argument that Jesus was mythical, it's an indication of a pretty weak case or you'd have listed a better one. If you want to trash Wikipedia, give me something more convincing or give me something specific instead of some endless tirade including matters as picayune as Carrier's bruised ego about Ehrman impugning his credentials. (Though I'm kind of getting a sense of why you are into him.)

    In any case, my point remains. These "gotchas" that delight people like you have been known about for centuries, and somehow haven't managed to derail Christianity yet. I used to find these games you people play with the minority of Christians who regard themselves as Biblical literalists more persuasive, but I've since learned that absurdity is a constant in human affairs, be it by way of virgin birth, or Banach-Tarski, or Russell's barber paradox. I now realize that if anyone wants to unseat Christianity, they'll need to provide something more meaningful, and so far, the Christianity-replacers from Marx to Nietzsche to Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Foucault have done a spit-awful job of that. Will any of their efforts outlast the Amish? Will any of the various believers in the church of eternal progress, your sect included, who nowadays seem more interested in excommunicating one another as trans-this clobbers feminist-that (exactly in the manner of Christians in the Emo Philips' God joke) than in actually making babies, survive the Christians they claim are no longer relevant?

    I have my doubts, and I'm not alone, and THAT is the kind of disbelief you might want to take more note of.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    HA wrote to me:

    But if this is your main argument that Jesus was mythical, it’s an indication of a pretty weak case or you’d have listed a better one.

    Why on earth would you write that???

    I made very clear that I do not know whether or not Jesus lived, but merely that the Gospels themselves are fictional, which you seem to concede, just as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is fictional, even though Lincoln himself was indeed a real person.

    HA also wrote:

    In any case, my point remains. These “gotchas” that delight people like you have been known about for centuries, and somehow haven’t managed to derail Christianity yet.

    But of course you are wrong. Christianity is close to dead in a number of European countries and it is declining in the USA.

    While it is true, as I have emphasized, that scholars have known for centuries that the Gospels are nonsense, everyone was supposed to maintain a discreet silence around the ordinary people in the pews.

    That is (at last!) changing and the lies are dissipating.

    HA also wrote:

    I’ve actually talked to a number of Christians. What they seem to agree on is the notion that regardless of whatever details the Gospels left out or garbled, the part about Jesus rising from the dead is more or less accurate because they (or those close them) claim they have experienced Jesus’ influence in their own lives — similar in some ways that Saul of Damascus did. THAT personal testimony is what motivates them, more so than what someone wrote about him 2000 years ago, even if that earlier account forms the spine of the story they discuss when they gather.

    Yes, indeed.

    And Hindus have inner experiences of Vishnu or Shiva and so on for lots of different religions.

    But it is the Gospels that give Christians the initial impetus and idea for their Jesus nonsense.

    Discredit that and it all slowly fades away, just as has happened in much of Europe and is starting to happen here.

    George Carlin said he worships Joe Pesci, who is, after all, much more real than Jesus Christ!

    In a thousand years, there may still be a dew demented people who worship Jesus. Perhaps there will be more who worship Pesci.

    • Replies: @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    "I made very clear that I do not know whether or not Jesus lived, but merely that the Gospels themselves are fictional, which you seem to concede, just as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is fictional,"

    Uh, no. Trying to equate whatever got garbled in those decades until the Jesus stories got written down with an Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer script that was never intended to be anything other than fiction is simply bizarre. Asperger level bizarre, I'd go so far to say, which means trying to point out how pointless that is is a fool's errand even I won't try.

    "Christianity is close to dead in a number of European countries..."

    You know what else is close to dead in a number of European countries? EUROPEANS, that's who -- disproportionately those who trumpet the death of Christianity. What does that tell you? We'll see what survives once the ashes settle, but I'm not as certain as you are that the post-Christians will win that one.

    "But it is the Gospels that give Christians the initial impetus and idea for their Jesus nonsense."

    No, it's indisputable that the Gospel accounts were written decades after the years which they span. And well before that commitment to parchment, there was a community of people who cared enough to pass those Jesus stories around and THEY are the ones who decided which of them would go into the gospel. That is the initial impetus (though that same community would claim that it was actually Jesus and his followers from which that impetus stemmed.) For some bizarre reason, you people -- and at this point, having read your lame literature for years, I feel free to call you that because you've become a church unto yourselves -- keep tilting your lances at sola-scriptura literalists, and you believe that their demise will be the end of Christianity itself but in America at least, that has long been a minority sect. Pretending that they're the heart and soul of Christianity doesn't make much sense, except as a kind of rah-rah cheer amongst yourselves or as some common bogeyman you rally against in an effort to feel better about yourselves.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  252. @PhysicistDave
    @Jack D

    Jack D wrote to me:


    But that was a simpler world. You are not going to develop quantum computing or fusion energy tinkering in your barn. And man does not live by bread alone. There is more to this world than what we can see and touch.
     
    No, you have it exactly backwards: those are the lies spread by the government-university complex.

    Look: I am co-inventor on close to a dozen patents. Not a single one of those patents rests on anything I learned in any class I took in college or in getting my PhD.

    And it is incredibly easier to teach yourself material in math, physics, and engineering today than it was when I earned those patents, thanks to resources such as EdX.

    Talk to a random undergrad today and ask him what fraction of the students attend most of their classes. Or how much time most of them spend studying vs. partying.

    The universities today are very, very expensive con games that waste several years of our young people's lives, not to mention their parents' (and taxpayers') money.

    The universities themselves have basically admitted as much by continuing to charge full tuition for "online learning" during the lockdown: yes, there truly is no longer a real need for brick-and-mortar colleges.

    (So why did I spend all those years in college myself? Partly initial naive innocence, but mainly because I needed the pieces of paper, given the realities of the world we live in today -- Griggs v. Duke Power and all that.)

    Replies: @Clyde

    Thanks, Dave. I like all your posts here and learn from them. =—- I am a techno peasant but a smart techno peasant

    • Agree: Sean
    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  253. @HA
    @Chrisnonymous

    "HA’s cherry-picked news articles that he keeps recycling..."

    You mean the ones that don't come from the Russian troll farms the covid truthers rely on to help disseminate their cherry picking? And as far as recycling, I never linked to that article before, but as I recall it was dated shortly after Mark G's own personal sob story that he keeps recycling about his failed bet that his bulletproof immune system would prevent COVID from putting him in a hospital bed, so the stories I linked to about the people trying to get a hold of one of those beds he needlessly occupied seemed pretty relevant. But for some strange reason, you didn't bother to gripe about that one.

    If you want the University of Minnesota's COVID-19 Hospitalization Tracking Project, it's linked here:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/944379919/new-data-reveal-which-hospitals-are-dangerously-full-is-yours

    I considered linking that article, but it was more about numbers, which truthers don't seem to handle all that well, so I went with the other one.

    Replies: @Mark G., @Chrisnonymous

    Here’s the exchange:

    Mark G: Vaccines aren’t preventing people from getting Omicron this winter.
    HA: YOU’RE CLOGGING UP HOSPITALS BEDS!
    Anonymous: ICUs are not full.
    HA: OH YEAH? CHECK OUT THIS ARTICLE FROM LAST SUMMER!

    I don’t see Mark G writing anything about himself.

    You did the same shit about Sweden earlier in the pandemic, posting outdated doom porn articles after the situation on the ground had already changed.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Chrisnonymous

    "I don’t see Mark G writing anything about himself."

    It's not my fault if you're not paying attention. Given that he is now out of the hospital, it's the people like him who are clogging those beds up, not him per se. If that actually has to be explained to you, then it says a lot for your posting in general.

    And I haven't written about Sweden for a while (though I do frequently note its very high vaccination rates, just to tweak the noses of the just-a-flu bros), but given your selective memory and attention span, I don't really care to know what specifically you're referring to. I will say that the damage that their approach caused was most pronounced in the early months, as far as all those dead in their nursing homes go, but given that all those people were still dead the following summer, I don't feel the need to apologize for bringing them up -- death is annoyingly persistent in that way. Again, so sorry that has to be explained to you.

  254. @Mark G.
    @HA


    Barring that, you could have also gotten your weight down, taken Vitamin D, ivermectin, fish tank cleaner, or whatever else you felt would have kept you out of the hospital in the first place.
     
    You are pretending here that doctors weren't threatened with the loss of their medical licenses if they set up early treatment programs involving off label use of drugs so many of them were reluctant to offer early treatment options, thereby making it difficult for patients to access those treatments. If these treatments don't work, then vaccine proponents should have been eager to have them implemented and then shown to fail. You and I both know they were blocked, not because they don't work, but because they do.

    I notice that the parts of my comments you can't answer you either stick your head in the sand and ignore them or distort them and then attack a strawman version of them. Are you really so delusional that you think your arguments are going to sway anyone who is undecided on this issue? Unfortunately, I think you are.

    Unlike some anti-vaxxers, I believe in freedom of choice. The vaccines should not be banned and those who want to use them can. The legal immunity given to Big Pharma for negative side effects of their vaccines needs to be eliminated, though. Since I believe in freedom of choice, it should be up to insurance companies to decide whether they cover early treatments or require vaccinations in order to receive coverage. Since I believe in freedom of choice, it should be up to privately owned companies whether they will require vaccinations as a condition of employment. I would only be against the use of force by the government to mandate vaccines or block treatments. This seems a sensible position to me, at least more sensible than forcing everyone down to five year olds to get vaccinated for a disease where you could reduce hospitalizations merely by allowing people easy access to early treatment programs.

    Replies: @HA

    “You are pretending here that doctors weren’t threatened with the loss of their medical licenses if they set up early treatment programs involving off label use of drugs so many of them were reluctant to offer early treatment options, thereby making it difficult for patients to access those treatments. If these treatments don’t work, then vaccine proponents should have been eager to have them implemented and then shown to fail.”

    Are you crazy? Consider the following alternate assertion: “If Thalidomide doesn’t work, then those in the FDA who refused to approve it for US patients (which is what happened, by the way, and which is why there were no Thalidomide babies in the US) should have been eager to have them dispensed and then shown to produce grossly deformed babies.”

    Do you see anything wrong with your “eager to have everything implemented” approach?

    You evidently live in some bizarro world where on the one hand, the FDA is required to be flexible enough to let any Google-search medical “expert” pick whatever treatment suits him without violating any medication protocols whatsoever (to the extent that some patients have sued hospitals for “failing” to administer ivermectin and HCQ), and on the other hand, the FDA is vehemently blasted for approving — even on an emergency basis — a supposedly untested dangerous gene-altering vaccine (a claim that anti-vaxxers are still parotting even after a couple of billion jabs). Try to appreciate that dilemma, and you’ll understand exactly why all that needless and idiotic politicization resulted in the very scenario you decry. It’s the me,me,me crowd who insisted on having it both ways, even though they couldn’t be bothered to do even the simplest things that are asked of them.

    This is a new disease — that’s why they call it “pandemic”, by the way — and there are only so many trials and so many billions of dollars to spread around. A whole lot of effort was spent — not just on vaccines, but also on Vitamin D and even ivermectin — and the vaccines by far did the best. I mean, it was no contest. But even if had turned out differently, the general rule is that FIRST we demand that the treatments be tested in trials following rigorous protocols and monitored by IRB’s, and only THEN do they get approved. Your approach of being “eager to see what happens” is more suited for twisted ten-year-old boys who put two different bugs in a jar hoping that they’ll fight it out.

    Maybe someday, given enough time and enough respite from having to treat so many COVID cases one after the other, health experts will get a chance to test out the treatments you approve of, and they will be added to the menu of options. I’m hoping that happens for you one day, but if you want that, be smart enough to take a vaccine so as to delay having to go to the hospital until such a time when it is no longer swamped and when the treatment options that managed to pass through the approval wringers are not limited. And if you can’t be bothered to do that, stop complaining about how the medical establishment you didn’t bother listening to in the first place isn’t being responsive enough. The hypocrisy is way too thick.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @HA

    Well, at least I got you to admit these treatments are being blocked by the government. You are pretending that the concept of "regulatory capture" does not exist and that is not what is going on here. The big federal health agencies are under control of Big Pharma. The corrupt medical system now puts profits over patients and doctors are now drug pushers for Big Pharma. This is why Oxycontin was approved and widely prescribed. It was only after half a million deaths and an outcry from the public that attempts were made to change that situation.

    It's ludicrous for you to compare Thalidomide with HCQ and Ivermectin. Both those drugs have a long safety record. In some countries they are available over the counter like aspirin is here. HCQ was given an emergency use authorization, then lost it due to a flawed Lancet study that later had to be retracted.

    https://www.hoover.org/research/lancets-covid-fiasco#:~:text=On%20June%204%2C%202020%2C%20The%20Lancet%2C%20a%20venerable,hydroxychloroquine%20%28HCQ%29%2C%20originally%20published%20on%20May%2022%2C%202020.

    It's common for drugs to be prescribed for off label uses. About fifteen to twenty per cent of prescriptions fall under that category. Why are doctors not being allowed to do this for Covid? Why is it ok to not go through the normal testing process for vaccines and them being given an EUA but not ok for HCQ to be given an EUA? Why did the Covid vaccines get legal immunity for negative side effects if they are so safe? Big Pharma apologists don't have an answer for these questions and would like anyone who asks those and other questions to shut up. We live in a free country, though, with a First Amendment. The Founders of this country understood that the government could turn tyrannical and be run for the benefit of corrupt parasitical elites, so people had to be free to speak out when that happens. That is what me and others like me are doing now.

    Replies: @HA

  255. @Dieter Kief
    @PhysicistDave


    Christianity is a pack of lies. Anyone in the 21st century so unable to see that fact that he would “join a Franciscan or a Dominican order,” well, at least he will not be contributing to the human gene pool!
     
    In the light of your remark -- a very ironic social fact of huge importance: The European gene pool was deeply shaped/modeled by Christans (=most of all by christian monks (the brains in the church****), bishops and priests) in two steps:

    1) Cousin marriage was said to be undesired / forbidden from early medieval times on by Christian leaders. The Christian church managed to install this as a by and large well respected social norm, that did mark a big difference between the Islamic and the Christian world.

    2) Priests had kids after Luther - and those kids were the Professors then at the growing university system. So much so, that universities were looked upon as the wordly arm of the protestant church (s. max Weber's scoiology classic: The Protestant Ehtic and the spirit of Capitalism) . In the late 19th century this model was a bit modified, because - not least in Germany - many a Jew rose to prominence as a scientist/ Professor at German universities especially - from 1870 ca. their numbers were in the double digits in quite a few disciplines (zero before).

    No 1) might well have been the single most important social eugenical factor in European history.

    Harvard Historian Jo Henrich (see his book The Secret of Our Success) put it this way in an interview he gave to Markus Schär of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

    "The branch of Christianity that grew into the Roman Catholic Church, beginning around the year 500, enforced what we call its "marriage and family program": Norms that made polygamy and cousin marriages taboo, requiring married people to have their own households independent of their families and introduced new inheritance rules against collective land ownership. In this way, the Catholic Church destroyed the complex kinship structures we see elsewhere in the world. Around the year 1000 there were no more clans in Western Europe, almost only nuclear families. This led to what historians call voluntary associations: cities, guilds, monasteries, universities. People made their decisions free from the ties of their complex families. This ultimately led to individuality as we know it in the West."

    PS I've answered your Wittgenstein remarks in my comment 192, but did not link properly.

    **** see Arno Borst -
    Computus - Or: The ordering of Time -  From Ancient Computing to the Modern Computer

    - About the origins of counting and calculations in the Middle Ages (mostly about the early scientific work of - (Dominican and Franziscan) monks)

    (available at amazon - highly recommended little book - 178 p.)

    Also by Arno Borst: Medieval Worlds: Barbarians, Heretics, and Artists in the Middle Ages
    Bigger - 288 p. - and broader in its appraoch - very insightful book as well.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Dieter Kef wrote to me:

    In the light of your remark — a very ironic social fact of huge importance: The European gene pool was deeply shaped/modeled by Christans (=most of all by christian monks (the brains in the church****), bishops and priests) in two steps:

    But of course by taking some of the brighter males in society and insisting that they be celibate, the Catholic Church was engaged in highly dysgenic behavior!

    DK also wrote:

    those kids were the Professors then at the growing university system. So much so, that universities were looked upon as the wordly [sic — was that an intentional pun?] arm of the protestant church (s. max Weber’s scoiology classic: The Protestant Ehtic and the spirit of Capitalism) .

    The universities have not been positive additions to society throughout most of their history.

    The Renaissance largely occurred outside the universities. Einstein did his seminal work when he was a clerk at the Swiss patent office. Darwin was a country gentleman. Faraday was basically unschooled. Not to mention Locke or Hume.

    Yes, in some areas for a period in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the universities (sometimes) contributed to the advancement of human knowledge.

    But on the whole, and especially today, “Écrasez l’infâme!”

    The government-education complex is the single largest threat to Western civilization today — and I know the universities from the inside.

  256. @PhysicistDave
    @HA

    HA wrote to me:


    But if this is your main argument that Jesus was mythical, it’s an indication of a pretty weak case or you’d have listed a better one.
     
    Why on earth would you write that???

    I made very clear that I do not know whether or not Jesus lived, but merely that the Gospels themselves are fictional, which you seem to concede, just as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is fictional, even though Lincoln himself was indeed a real person.

    HA also wrote:

    In any case, my point remains. These “gotchas” that delight people like you have been known about for centuries, and somehow haven’t managed to derail Christianity yet.
     
    But of course you are wrong. Christianity is close to dead in a number of European countries and it is declining in the USA.

    While it is true, as I have emphasized, that scholars have known for centuries that the Gospels are nonsense, everyone was supposed to maintain a discreet silence around the ordinary people in the pews.

    That is (at last!) changing and the lies are dissipating.

    HA also wrote:

    I’ve actually talked to a number of Christians. What they seem to agree on is the notion that regardless of whatever details the Gospels left out or garbled, the part about Jesus rising from the dead is more or less accurate because they (or those close them) claim they have experienced Jesus’ influence in their own lives — similar in some ways that Saul of Damascus did. THAT personal testimony is what motivates them, more so than what someone wrote about him 2000 years ago, even if that earlier account forms the spine of the story they discuss when they gather.
     
    Yes, indeed.

    And Hindus have inner experiences of Vishnu or Shiva and so on for lots of different religions.

    But it is the Gospels that give Christians the initial impetus and idea for their Jesus nonsense.

    Discredit that and it all slowly fades away, just as has happened in much of Europe and is starting to happen here.

    George Carlin said he worships Joe Pesci, who is, after all, much more real than Jesus Christ!

    In a thousand years, there may still be a dew demented people who worship Jesus. Perhaps there will be more who worship Pesci.

    Replies: @HA

    “I made very clear that I do not know whether or not Jesus lived, but merely that the Gospels themselves are fictional, which you seem to concede, just as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is fictional,”

    Uh, no. Trying to equate whatever got garbled in those decades until the Jesus stories got written down with an Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer script that was never intended to be anything other than fiction is simply bizarre. Asperger level bizarre, I’d go so far to say, which means trying to point out how pointless that is is a fool’s errand even I won’t try.

    “Christianity is close to dead in a number of European countries…”

    You know what else is close to dead in a number of European countries? EUROPEANS, that’s who — disproportionately those who trumpet the death of Christianity. What does that tell you? We’ll see what survives once the ashes settle, but I’m not as certain as you are that the post-Christians will win that one.

    “But it is the Gospels that give Christians the initial impetus and idea for their Jesus nonsense.”

    No, it’s indisputable that the Gospel accounts were written decades after the years which they span. And well before that commitment to parchment, there was a community of people who cared enough to pass those Jesus stories around and THEY are the ones who decided which of them would go into the gospel. That is the initial impetus (though that same community would claim that it was actually Jesus and his followers from which that impetus stemmed.) For some bizarre reason, you people — and at this point, having read your lame literature for years, I feel free to call you that because you’ve become a church unto yourselves — keep tilting your lances at sola-scriptura literalists, and you believe that their demise will be the end of Christianity itself but in America at least, that has long been a minority sect. Pretending that they’re the heart and soul of Christianity doesn’t make much sense, except as a kind of rah-rah cheer amongst yourselves or as some common bogeyman you rally against in an effort to feel better about yourselves.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @HA

    HA wrote to me:


    Trying to equate whatever got garbled in those decades until the Jesus stories got written down with an Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer script that was never intended to be anything other than fiction is simply bizarre. Asperger level bizarre, I’d go so far to say, which means trying to point out how pointless that is is a fool’s errand even I won’t try.
     
    It did not get "garbled": it was made up.

    Just like the Russian-collusion hoax was made up or the transgender nonsense was made up.

    People get stories "garbled" about the year great-great grandpa was born.

    But the stories in the Gospels are lies.

    Or maybe it was just intended as edifying fiction and then, when the Palestinian church faced the disaster of the 66-70 AD war, things got so confused that people forgot it was fiction.

    In any case, anyone who has gone to a serious seminary today knows the truth.

    They need to stop lying.

    HA also wrote:

    No, it’s indisputable that the Gospel accounts were written decades after the years which they span. And well before that commitment to parchment, there was a community of people who cared enough to pass those Jesus stories around and THEY are the ones who decided which of them would go into the gospel.
     
    Another evasion on your part.

    No "community" wrote the Gospels or any one of them. People did not get together and vote on what to put in. Individuals wrote the Gospels and they put in things that were not true.

    HA also wrote:

    For some bizarre reason, you people — and at this point, having read your lame literature for years, I feel free to call you that because you’ve become a church unto yourselves — keep tilting your lances at sola-scriptura literalists
     
    Because millions upon millions of people around the world are being lied to -- I have known a lot of these people myself.

    You hurl personal insults at me -- "Aspergery" and so on -- because, for some bizarre reason, you wish to defend the deeply evil and contemptible behavior of scholars and religious leaders who encourage ordinary naive people in the pews to believe things that the leaders themselves know not to be true.

    I have more respect for those ordinary people than you do.

    I think the lying needs to stop.

    And, quite frankly, I think that a civilization dominated by people like you who have such contempt for the truth should not, and hopefully will not, survive. And, indeed, it seems pretty clear it will not.

    If you have any children, I suggest you teach them how to say, "Would you like soy sauce with that?"

    In Mandarin.

    Because that is the only future people like you deserve.

    Replies: @HA

  257. What happened in 2013? The proportion of young people to old in the society reached some kind of a tipping point I expect. Demographic determinism.

  258. @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    Look at my earlier post where I discussed the obvious fabrication by Mt. of the mountain from which all kingdoms could be viewed. Or the fact that Mt. and Luke could not have had a good basis for believing in the Virgin Birth. Or Luke’s bizarre fantasy about the census.

    All of that would have been (apart from the one about the census, maybe) similarly picked apart by many or most of the early Christians. Note that Wikipedia, for all your ridicule, actually agrees with you: "There is, of course, no mountain from where 'all the kingdoms of the world' can be seen. One explanation for this is that the word taketh does not necessarily refer to a physical transportation, it could mean that Satan merely took Jesus in a vision. John Calvin supported this view, and the Geneva Bible made this interpretation explicit."

    In other words, you're not the first person to note that a ragtag bunch of oral stories that were for decades thought to be not worth writing down in the first place (given that Jesus was expected to come real soon, to the extent that even holding on to their possessions seemed pointless) contains all the features of any such oral tradition: some word or phrase got interpreted differently, or meant something else over the decades, and so forth. So what? Because, even if the Bible were as historically accurate about censuses and vantage points as you like, would it prove anything to you more than the fact that some guy possibly managed to survive a botched crucifixion? I submit that it wouldn't. It might be a more fascinating tale if the details were fleshed out in the way you like, but you would still say, "Big deal -- a failed execution is still no proof that Jesus is the 'Son of God' (whatever that even means)".

    I've actually talked to a number of Christians. What they seem to agree on is the notion that regardless of whatever details the Gospels left out or garbled, the part about Jesus rising from the dead is more or less accurate because they (or those close them) claim they have experienced Jesus' influence in their own lives -- similar in some ways that Saul of Damascus did. THAT personal testimony is what motivates them, more so than what someone wrote about him 2000 years ago, even if that earlier account forms the spine of the story they discuss when they gather. Your Aspergery objections about whether all the kingdoms of the earth can be seen from any vantage point somehow miss that point in the way that Asperger cases often do. I'm not knocking your viewpoint, but I submit that if you could be similarly convinced that Jesus is an active presence in your life, it would become less important, even though it would still be the case that any oral traditions told about Jesus' life two millennia ago and not written down for decades might contain similar telephone tag craziness.

    As for Carrier, he evidently thinks Bart Ehrman's book(s) are trash -- something, as I suspect you know, most Christians would roundly agree with since the man is a fallen away evangelical-trashing agnostic (which I suspect is why he always keeps getting those NPR gigs). He also, evidently, dislikes another similar book by Freke & Gandy that "argues that orthodox Christianity was not the predecessor to Gnosticism, but a later outgrowth that rewrote history in order to make literal Christianity appear to predate the Gnostics." In other words, he'd get a round of applause from the pews for that opinion as well. But if this is your main argument that Jesus was mythical, it's an indication of a pretty weak case or you'd have listed a better one. If you want to trash Wikipedia, give me something more convincing or give me something specific instead of some endless tirade including matters as picayune as Carrier's bruised ego about Ehrman impugning his credentials. (Though I'm kind of getting a sense of why you are into him.)

    In any case, my point remains. These "gotchas" that delight people like you have been known about for centuries, and somehow haven't managed to derail Christianity yet. I used to find these games you people play with the minority of Christians who regard themselves as Biblical literalists more persuasive, but I've since learned that absurdity is a constant in human affairs, be it by way of virgin birth, or Banach-Tarski, or Russell's barber paradox. I now realize that if anyone wants to unseat Christianity, they'll need to provide something more meaningful, and so far, the Christianity-replacers from Marx to Nietzsche to Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Foucault have done a spit-awful job of that. Will any of their efforts outlast the Amish? Will any of the various believers in the church of eternal progress, your sect included, who nowadays seem more interested in excommunicating one another as trans-this clobbers feminist-that (exactly in the manner of Christians in the Emo Philips' God joke) than in actually making babies, survive the Christians they claim are no longer relevant?

    I have my doubts, and I'm not alone, and THAT is the kind of disbelief you might want to take more note of.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    HA asked me:

    In other words, you’re not the first person to note that a ragtag bunch of oral stories that were for decades thought to be not worth writing down in the first place (given that Jesus was expected to come real soon, to the extent that even holding on to their possessions seemed pointless) contains all the features of any such oral tradition: some word or phrase got interpreted differently, or meant something else over the decades, and so forth. So what?

    Look: it is true that serious scholars going back for the better part of two thousand years, at least back to Origen, have known that the Gospels were not true.

    No, I am not the first one to notice this.

    But most ordinary people sitting in the pews do not notice it.

    I know — I have known hundreds of such ordinary people.

    It is time to stop lying to them.

    During the last few decades, I have become close enough friends with several members of the clergy that they confided in me that they encouraged members of their congregations to believe in things that they themselves knew not to be true.

    That is despicable.

    That several members of the clergy would share this with me suggests, statistically, that it is very, very widespread: after all, I do not know all that many clergymen who would confide in me in this way.

    Jack Good’s classic The Dishonest Church suggests it is indeed very widespread: Good was a UCC minister and of course knew many, many more members of the clergy than I have.

    Similarly, check out the second edition of Dan Dennett’s Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind.

    You allude to some airy-fairy Christians you have known who do not care that the Gospels are make-believe and who are willing to base their faith solely on their imaginary friend Jesus.

    Fine. But let’s start telling everyone the truth about the Gospels.

    HA also wrote:

    I’ve since learned that absurdity is a constant in human affairs, be it by way of virgin birth, or Banach-Tarski, or Russell’s barber paradox.

    Are you high? Seriously.

    Banach-Tarski is a real result in math. The virgin birth is not real — it did not happen. (Where would Jesus have gotten his Y chromosome? How likely is it that working-class Palestinians would have swallowed such an absurd justification for an illegitimate birth?)

    You are now just resorting to silliness.

    HA also wrote to me:

    Will any of the various believers in the church of eternal progress, your sect included, who nowadays seem more interested in excommunicating one another as trans-this clobbers feminist-that…

    Are you so new here that you are unaware that I am one of the harshest critics of Leftist pieties on this site?

    I hate lies.

    I hate lies that pretend that a guy in a dress is a woman. I hate the lies of the global-warming hysterics. I hate the lies of the Russian-collusion hoax.

    And I also hate the lies by which people who know better encourage the ordinary people in the pews to believe that the Gospels are anything other than make-believe.

    It is time to expose the lying.

    All of it.

    • Replies: @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    "During the last few decades, I have become close enough friends with several members of the clergy that they confided in me that they encouraged members of their congregations to believe in things that they themselves knew not to be true. That is despicable."

    You'll have no disagreement from me on that. I think the people in the pews you pretend to care about would happily agree as well. In fact, the ones I know seem to be convinced it's people like that that are holding Christianity back.

    "Banach-Tarski is a real result in math."

    Real, you say? Funny thing to say about any non-constructive proof -- especially that one. Maybe if you're a Platonist or something, but in that case, you really have twisted yourself into knots. Anyway, you try explaining that to one of those people in the pews you so dearly want to "save" (kind of like another group of people I could think of who are going around trying to save everyone) and after that, well, see how much they trust any salvific endeavors on your part.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  259. @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    "I made very clear that I do not know whether or not Jesus lived, but merely that the Gospels themselves are fictional, which you seem to concede, just as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is fictional,"

    Uh, no. Trying to equate whatever got garbled in those decades until the Jesus stories got written down with an Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer script that was never intended to be anything other than fiction is simply bizarre. Asperger level bizarre, I'd go so far to say, which means trying to point out how pointless that is is a fool's errand even I won't try.

    "Christianity is close to dead in a number of European countries..."

    You know what else is close to dead in a number of European countries? EUROPEANS, that's who -- disproportionately those who trumpet the death of Christianity. What does that tell you? We'll see what survives once the ashes settle, but I'm not as certain as you are that the post-Christians will win that one.

    "But it is the Gospels that give Christians the initial impetus and idea for their Jesus nonsense."

    No, it's indisputable that the Gospel accounts were written decades after the years which they span. And well before that commitment to parchment, there was a community of people who cared enough to pass those Jesus stories around and THEY are the ones who decided which of them would go into the gospel. That is the initial impetus (though that same community would claim that it was actually Jesus and his followers from which that impetus stemmed.) For some bizarre reason, you people -- and at this point, having read your lame literature for years, I feel free to call you that because you've become a church unto yourselves -- keep tilting your lances at sola-scriptura literalists, and you believe that their demise will be the end of Christianity itself but in America at least, that has long been a minority sect. Pretending that they're the heart and soul of Christianity doesn't make much sense, except as a kind of rah-rah cheer amongst yourselves or as some common bogeyman you rally against in an effort to feel better about yourselves.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    HA wrote to me:

    Trying to equate whatever got garbled in those decades until the Jesus stories got written down with an Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer script that was never intended to be anything other than fiction is simply bizarre. Asperger level bizarre, I’d go so far to say, which means trying to point out how pointless that is is a fool’s errand even I won’t try.

    It did not get “garbled”: it was made up.

    Just like the Russian-collusion hoax was made up or the transgender nonsense was made up.

    People get stories “garbled” about the year great-great grandpa was born.

    But the stories in the Gospels are lies.

    Or maybe it was just intended as edifying fiction and then, when the Palestinian church faced the disaster of the 66-70 AD war, things got so confused that people forgot it was fiction.

    In any case, anyone who has gone to a serious seminary today knows the truth.

    They need to stop lying.

    HA also wrote:

    No, it’s indisputable that the Gospel accounts were written decades after the years which they span. And well before that commitment to parchment, there was a community of people who cared enough to pass those Jesus stories around and THEY are the ones who decided which of them would go into the gospel.

    Another evasion on your part.

    No “community” wrote the Gospels or any one of them. People did not get together and vote on what to put in. Individuals wrote the Gospels and they put in things that were not true.

    HA also wrote:

    For some bizarre reason, you people — and at this point, having read your lame literature for years, I feel free to call you that because you’ve become a church unto yourselves — keep tilting your lances at sola-scriptura literalists

    Because millions upon millions of people around the world are being lied to — I have known a lot of these people myself.

    You hurl personal insults at me — “Aspergery” and so on — because, for some bizarre reason, you wish to defend the deeply evil and contemptible behavior of scholars and religious leaders who encourage ordinary naive people in the pews to believe things that the leaders themselves know not to be true.

    I have more respect for those ordinary people than you do.

    I think the lying needs to stop.

    And, quite frankly, I think that a civilization dominated by people like you who have such contempt for the truth should not, and hopefully will not, survive. And, indeed, it seems pretty clear it will not.

    If you have any children, I suggest you teach them how to say, “Would you like soy sauce with that?”

    In Mandarin.

    Because that is the only future people like you deserve.

    • Replies: @HA
    @PhysicistDave

    "It did not get 'garbled': it was made up."

    And there's the gospel according to PhysicstDave. Vehemence and zeal aplenty, the kind that any fire and brimstone orator would envy, about what is "deeply evil and contemptible" and telling us which civilizations deserve to survive. So I guess the civilization that produced Euler and Faraday and other such devoted believers just doesn't cut the muster, in your eyes, is that right? See what I mean about you guys having become a church unto yourselves?

    But despite all that fulmination, there's precious little in the way of evidence beyond the usual gotcha that water simply doesn't turn into wine and no one -- even those who lived two millennia years ago -- would dispute that. I mean, who could possibly believe such a thing? But to you, it's evidently all the proof you need that all that was completely fabricated. Not just a mistake or something got left out -- no, it was all lies. At one point you tell us you do "not know whether or not Jesus lived", but you are also 100% sure that the stories about this person who maybe did or didn't live -- you don't know, after all -- were "made up". You are sure about that. No inconsistency in that whatsoever, according to you. You just KNOW it to be true. Really, really insistent about it, you are. It's on the very same level as Lincoln the Vampire Slayer in the sense that the author of that script never claimed it was anything other than mere entertainment. Is that the gist?

    If so, that's exactly the kind of garbled message that doesn't quite add up and that your followers would be called to account for at some point, but I think we both know that you don't need to worry about that.

    And I'm not even saying to you that I believe in Christianity, though given that what I'm saying riles you so, you have my permission to consider me an Opus Dei albino assassin for all I care. It's the bluster you're spewing that is eerily similar to what I've gotten from all the Christian blowhards who have told me over the years I'm going to hell, and at this point I find you both about equally convincing. Which is to say, not at all.

    "I suggest you teach them how to say, 'Would you like soy sauce with that?' In Mandarin."

    Well, as it just so happens:


    Today, [according to the Economist] it is estimated that [Protestant] Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China,
     
    We can also do Africa -- I know that influx to Europe is a bigger concern around here.

    Eppur si muove, you might just say.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  260. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Your argument is no different – and no less stupid and disingenuous – as the argument made by those who deny that race exists
     
    I don't deny that race exists. On the contrary, I recognize a lot more races than you do. Wogs begin at Calais. Hell, at Calais, Maine.

    a vested in interest in whites not seeing themselves as a people
     
    Whites are not a people. We are dozens of people. Who is keeping the wogs out of their country? The Hungarians. They are doing the opposite of "white solidarity"-- Magyar solidarity.

    Asia is kicking our 臀部. Do you see "yellow solidarity"?


    ...please join up with the colorblind civic nationalist crowd.
     
    We are members of ethnic communities. Of linguistic communities. Of religious faiths. And of political entities such as states. We "side" with each of these depending on the situation and the need. What is so hard to understand about that.

    You are purposely attempting to mislead whites who stray onto this comment board.
     
    The Crow calling the raven black!

    Like all the other "White solidarity" commenters here, you never seem to offer up specific steps for us to take.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Justvisiting, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I don’t deny that race exists. On the contrary, I recognize a lot more races than you do.

    Droll, but you know CoaSC is using the modern meaning of race, not using an archaic meaning of the word like you are.

    Whites are not a people.

    LOL. Of course Whites are a people. They’re visually identifiable as such, distinct from non-Whites. There may be borderline ‘mixed’ cases, and ethnic, cultural, and political diversity among Whites (as with other races), but that doesn’t mean Whites aren’t a people.

    You even boasted of your own non-specific “white solidarity” in a recent comment:

    [My county] is over 95% white and not even ½% black. Wouldn’t white solidarity (or “White solidarity” in your Negro orthography) show itself in a preference for white, and only white, neighbors?

    Are the Whites in your county all Catholic like you, vote like you do, and are all your preferred ethnicity(-ies), —or as you would glibly call them, race(s)? Who’s in or out, according to Reg?—Micks? Frogs? Krauts? Do tell! 🙂

  261. @PhysicistDave
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    The Last Real Calvinist wrote to angmoh:


    The baseline belief that all human beings are equally worthwhile is Christian, full stop.
     
    That is just not true historically.

    Christianity began in the multi-culti Roman Empire. The idea that all humans were equal regardless of ethnicity was "in the air": certainly the Stoics held to that view, as well as the Epicureans. And, indeed, it fits in nicely with the various "mystery religions."

    TLRC also wrote:

    We’re holding on to a cultural interregnum in which many non-Christians (like Murray, so far as I can tell) still cling to one of the most deeply-held and attractive features of Christian society, but in which there are no longer any solid foundations to uphold it. If there is no revival...
     
    There will not be a revival of Christianity for a very simple reason:

    Christianity has, for nearly two thousand years, made certain very clear historical claims: at the minimum, the Resurrection and the Vicarious Atonement, not to mention the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. One of the main selling points for Christianity had been that all this really happened, as opposed to the mystery religions, which were quite clearly simply mythical and allegorical.

    The only near-contemporaneous documents backing up those claims are in the New Testament.

    And the problem is that, if you read the New Testament with the eyes of modern science or modern historical scholarship, it clearly does not hold up.

    Paul makes clear that the early Church consisted of people who engaged in speaking in tongues, who interpreted the hidden meaning of those who spoke in tongues, and who took all that seriously.

    From the perspective not simply of a modern scientist or historical scholar but to any normal modern middle-class person, these people were nuts, not the sort of people you would want to have as next-door neighbors or even the school-bus driver for your children.

    And the Gospels, which came out of such people, are obviously historical fiction: there is no mountain from which you can see all the kingdom of the world (Mt. 4:8). The Romans did not (and could not) conduct a census by having people return to the town one of their ancestors had lived in nine centuries (!) earlier (Luke 2:1-4). And if you try to think through where Matthew and Luke got the virgin birth tale... well, did Mary tell them that she conceived out of wedlock but that it was not what it seemed -- it was really virginal conception? And they believed it?

    Christianity simply collapses if you apply any degree of modern critical analysis, even the sort of thinking ordinary middle-class people use when they are choosing a new car.

    For a long time, the educated elite knew this but were fairly discreet about it: as the quote attributed to Voltaire says, "There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night"

    But the truth is out there now.

    For bet