The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT Sends a Lit Crit to Review Charles Murray's "Human Diversity," Inanities Ensue
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From the New York Times:

Charles Murray Returns, Nodding to Caution but Still Courting Controversy
By Parul Sehgal

That’s a South Asian name, so I guess when the New York Time assigned her Murray’s imposing Human Diversity: The Science of Gender, Race, and Class to review, they figured she had to be smart at STEM.

Feb. 12, 2020

Just when the world seems poised to boil over with political rancor and outrage, along comes Charles Murray — right on time — with a new book titled “Human Diversity.”

Yes, that Charles Murray, who in 1994 co-authored “The Bell Curve,” with Richard J. Herrnstein, arguing in two notorious chapters that I.Q. differences between the races were mostly innate and mostly intractable. (They allowed that environmental factors play a part in I.Q., but held that the “balance of the evidence” put a genetic factor of 60 percent “on the low side.”)

Uh, no, she’s getting two different questions confused here.

… In the years since its publication, the book has been roundly discredited on moral, political and scientific grounds. Reviewing “The Bell Curve” in The New Yorker, Stephen Jay Gould called attention to the authors’ questionable use of statistics

After all, who is a more trustworthy expert on statistics than Stephen Jay Gould?

and cherry-picked data. Peer reviews found shoddy reasoning and mathematical errors (all in service of the book’s thesis). There have been debates about what I.Q. really measures (other than the ability to take I.Q. tests), and whether an individual’s I.Q. is as relatively unchangeable as the authors claimed. …

Outrage has been good to Charles Murray. Far from being the victim of “a modern witch burning,” as the neuroscientist and podcaster Sam Harris has described him, Murray has been able to cloak himself in the mantle of the embattled intellectual, the purveyor of forbidden knowledge, while comfortably ensconced at the American Enterprise Institute, the influential think tank, for three decades. … The violent actions of protesters when Murray appeared at Middlebury College in 2017 were widely deplored. …

Developments in epigenetics, for example — outside mechanisms that effectively turn genes “on” or “off” — are waved away as “hype.” …

The main question is: Why am I asking these questions of Charles Murray? True, the burden of proof is on him to make a case for this “exciting” scientific revolution (whose discoveries just happen to regurgitate some of humanity’s most pernicious, wearying and stubborn stereotypes). But proof is not Murray’s concern. Despite its blizzard of statistics, the book’s most astonishing (and telling) declaration is on the first page. If “you have reached this page” — the first page, I remind you — “convinced that gender, race and class are all social constructs, and that any claims to the contrary are pseudoscience, you won’t get past the first few pages before you can’t stand it anymore. This book isn’t for you.” He continues smoothly: “Now that we’re alone…”

Now that we’re alone. This book is for the believers. Rigorous readers, skeptics, the unindoctrinated — you won’t be persuaded by “Human Diversity,” but why should that matter? You’re not even invited. How’s that for a safe space. How’s that for an orthodoxy.

Aren’t those last two sentences missing questions marks?

Here are the first three paragraphs of Human Diversity:

Uh, I think “Now that we’re alone” is a joke.

But big props to Ms. Sehgal for reading all the way to the third paragraph in the book she is reviewing. You sure didn’t let Charles Murray slip anything by you by burying it in the end notes.

And congratulations to her for shattering stereotypes about South Asians being good at science.

My suspicion is that Murray read the similar opening to Dave Barry’s 1987 career advice book Claw Your Way to the Top:

 
Hide 110 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. > the book has been roundly discredited

    Looks like hasty, emotional, bad writing.

    Neither “has been” nor “roundly” go with “discredited”. Perhaps she was thinking “disparaged”, but wanted something more definitive-sounding.

  2. Meanwhile, not a lot of articles in the NYT about NYC’S ethnic cleansing of African-Americans with moving vouchers.

  3. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Ms. Schgal’s misrepresentation of those first three paragraphs is just a relatively blatant example of the constant dissembling in lieu of reporting by publications like the New York Times. Big time “journalists” now write like sleazy lawyers.

    What many still fail to see is that these Establishment publications are just as dishonest about other things, like Uncle Sam’s efforts to run the rest of the world.

  4. IHTG says:

    Hell yeah:

  5. It speaks volumes of this Sehgal gal’s worldview, that her schtick relies critically on a very flagrant misrepresentation of the very first page of the book… and she obviously thinks that nobody in her audience will notice.

    I wonder if she will be hounded about this on Twitter: it should be absolutely ruinous to her self-esteem, since it opens her up to assertions that either she is dishonest (and ought to be dismissed on those grounds), or her reading comprehension is so poor that she didn’t properly understand Page 1 (and ought to be dismissed on those grounds).

    Or both – but definitely not neither.

    Since NYT readers are like NYT writers (i.e., dilettante, retarded and pretentious), she will obviously get away with it inside the NYT sheltered workshop… but out in the wild she ought to be torn to pieces by the Internet Hate Machine.

    (Scratch that: the IHM is almost entirely disinterested in NYT/WaPo/WSJ circle-jerks – it has better things to do).

    • Replies: @ConfirmationBias
  6. I’d also suggest this for your reading list:

    • LOL: ben tillman
  7. nebulafox says:
    @IHTG

    I’ll bet anything he already sees a Sanders candidacy on the horizon…

  8. El Dato says:
    @European-American

    “roundly discreted” *is* Newspeak for “viviously attacked by righteous bellyfeelers, possibly in NYT articles, with the author getting a good canceling”.

  9. El Dato says:
    @IHTG

    In other news, “Java” will now be officially renamed “Trump”.

    “Can you code in (checks notes) ‘Trump’?”
    “Of course. I have often used C# on .Net, which is more or less the same.”
    “C#? You mean, the #Clinton programming language?”

    • LOL: Bumpkin
  10. When Dave Barry was at his prime, he was probably the funniest writer there was.

    Also, I enjoyed this tweet to Miss Sehgal:

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • LOL: Jack D, Ragno
  11. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    And, Mr. Sailer, your use of imagery of the published text that she’s lying about is very effective.

    Ms. Sehgal, her editor and publisher should be ashamed. But at least they can be shamed.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  12. Aidan Q says:

    If I were writing a review of Murray’s book I would use Nassim Taleb’s pulverizing of Murray and his work. Taleb calls mountebank and worse than a mathematical and statistical illiterate.

    Murray was one of the most vitriolic NeverTrumpers and has made his living associated with the Zionist stink tank AEI. He’s a self-described libertarian who’s been a loyal operative in supporting the great replacement. Murray can go to hell.

  13. These are my favorite kinds of your posts, Steve. You give this idiot some well-deserved shit in a snarky manner, and then, to top it off, Dave Barry. I used to confuse him with P.J. O’Rourke a lot, as they seem to have the same sense of humor.

    Anyway, thanks!

    (I don’t know if she read only those first 3 paragraphs, but I think there’s no way this lady would read the whole book because there’s no way this lady COULD read the whole book.)

  14. @anonymous

    Indeed, #245. Before I put up the obligatory Simpsons clip, I’ll link to Peak Stupidity‘s first experience, as a youngster, with the Lyin’ Press and this misrepresentation and dissembling. From My Introduction to the Lyin’ Press:

    I was on TV!: “Well, we are being kicked out of the dorms during the speech, so we want the school to give us passes to get up front and watch.” Yep, the TV interviewer lady cut off the 2nd half of the sentence, making my meaning sound almost 180-degrees off.

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
  15. lhtness says:

    So now a “true believer” means “anyone who isn’t in ny cult.” Sounds about par for course.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  16. @anonymous

    Big time “journalists” now write like sleazy lawyers.

    I’m curious as to why so many of them are Subcons.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Jack D
  17. everyone should calm down

    Same energy:

    Heckuva job, Murray!

  18. Big Chuck with the “I’m ackchyually not hitting myself, you’re hitting me with my own arm!” comeback.

    If he ever figures out that sucking up to his declared enemies is counterproductive the man could go places.

    • Replies: @Anon
  19. Clyde says:
    @IHTG

    Larry Ellison via 1997 Vanity Fair mag, he was at 6 billion then. And all his going after many women in 1997, is banned today and will hurt business. If this jamoke is not getting those Silicon Valley style blood transfusions, I will eat my virtual hat.
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/1997/06/larry-ellison-silicon-valley-bill-gates

    A playboy who flies fighter jets, races world-class sailing boats, and collects antique samurai swords, all while drinking in the publicity and adulation his exploits increasingly attract. There was the time a few months back, for instance, when he created a stir by going on Oprah to talk about the NC, only to have the show take a sharp turn toward his personal affairs when he confessed that he had yet to find the right woman to fill the void in his life. At 52, Ellison is dark, lean, and rather handsome, a natural athlete whose salt-and-pepper beard offsets a face that hints at some touch-up surgery, the nose maybe, or around the eyes.

    He is Silicon Valley’s pre-eminent ladies’ man; thrice married and divorced, he was dragged through the courts in a long-running sexual-harassment dispute, which has done nothing to sate his appetite for the young women fresh out of Stanford who throng the area. Sex is a staple of his comments in private and sometimes in public. When the San Francisco Examiner asked Bay Area celebrities for a favorite Valentine’s Day memory, Ellison mentioned a sexual conquest on the side of Silicon Valley’s Woodside Road. After his Oprah appearance, Oracle’s phone lines were jammed with thousands of calls from women.

  20. @Clyde

    Robert Downey Jr. should play Larry Ellison.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  21. The NYTs doesn’t even pretend to do much analysis anymore. Instead, it just tells us what the fashionable set thinks (and by implication, what we should think).

    Unrelated question: Is the NYTs readership becoming more female?

  22. @Aidan Q

    The good thing about Murray is that he doesn’t seem like he has an agenda, except to just partake in good research. This is why he manages to keep the debate very low temperature and doesn’t actually care about its political ramifications.

  23. Anon[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Clyde

    What happens to his Hawaiian Island when he dies?

  24. @ScarletNumber

    Wonder how long it took for her to delete the iTweet.

  25. Jack D says:
    @European-American

    “Roundly discredited” means that the reader no longer has to give serious consideration to whatever Murray has to say. Smarter people like Gould have informed us that his work is invalid, so it can be dismissed without further consideration. It’s a great shortcut for not having to deal with the substance of his work. It reminds me of some Nazi propaganda film that I once saw. At the end of the film, the last line of the sharp talking narrator (in German) was “That’s all you need to know!” Modern Leftist thinking operates in the same way. Murray is Roundly Discredited. That’s all you need to know!

    • Replies: @G. Poulin
  26. Jack D says:
    @Aidan Q

    But tell us how you REALLY feel about Murray. Don’t hold back.

  27. @IHTG

    He must fear a Bernie Sanders taking his money more than a Trump marching him into a gas chamber.

  28. @Aidan Q

    I’ve always had the sense that Taleb despises any hierarchy that doesn’t place him (or his group) at the top.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Reg Cæsar
  29. Jack D says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    Of all the New Americans, high caste Indians are the closest to Jews in terms of how their IQ is set up (also in terms of historically breeding only within their own caste, thus allowing them to pull away from the masses in certain traits). East Asians have high IQ but it is imbalanced toward the mathematical vs. the verbal. Jews are strong in both as are high caste Indians. So they do well in the same types of professions as Jews. Not just medicine and math and science but also law, politics, corporate management, journalism, etc.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  30. Erik L says:

    I enjoy that she admits she believes a book can be discredited on moral grounds. That is, if you don’t like the moral implications of the conclusions of the book you should disbelieve them.

  31. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @lhtness

    No, they don’t believe as a cult might, they are simply desperate to prevent people noticing heritable differences. Might lead to questions about groups not involved in productive industry, labor, agriculture. These are propaganda efforts. Attempts to control, “ways of seeing. ”

    Its a blend of a censorship and misinformation as a kind of rear guard action while continuing to extract resources, weaken the host.

  32. bomag says:
    @Aidan Q

    Probably something to be said here about not making perfect the enemy of the good.

    • Replies: @Danindc
  33. Kronos says:
    @Aidan Q

    If I were writing a review of Murray’s book I would use Nassim Taleb’s pulverizing of Murray and his work.

    You got the link?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Aidan Q
  34. peterike says:

    Another charming South Asian getting in on the racism game! I’m telling you, progressive white peepo, the Jews (gatekeepers to most of your preferred SJW jobs) are steadily replacing Prog Whytes with Asians, both Indian imports and Americanized Chinese that roll off the Ivy assembly lines.

    Ten years from now there won’t be any white people writing for major American publications. It will be all Jews and Asians. And YOU helped it happen to yourself, stupid Prog White!

    • Replies: @Known Fact
  35. @ScarletNumber

    Steve’s question ultimately goes to Pinch, the answer is yes, has been for decades, and is at the root of a great deal of the present madness given the outsize influence of the NYT.

  36. BB753 says:

    If Charles Murray is so controversial, why does he get invited to Bilderberg meetings?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Bilderberg_Conference

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @gregor
  37. My favorite line from this is the one that declares Murray the conqueror at Middlebury because his persecutors were “widely deplored.” After all, who could forget the smug victors whom Bull Connor was widely deplored for turning the hose on. Wait, does that make Murray good? I’m so confused!

  38. @IHTG

    He needs to invite fellow South Shore High School alumnus Nobel Prize winner James Watson; that will make all the lefty heads explode!

  39. bomag says:

    [criticisms of The Bell Curve included] the authors’ questionable use of statistics… and cherry-picked data. Peer reviews found shoddy reasoning and mathematical errors

    Left unsaid here, of course, is that when we get better statistics; better data; improve the reasoning; and correct the errors, we get even stronger Bell Curve results.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
  40. @Kronos

    Taleb doesn’t need links. The sheer force of his manly persuasiveness pulsates through all space and time.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  41. BenKenobi says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Homer: “Help me… HELP ME GOD!!!”

    *phone rings*

    *visibly nervous Homer answers phone*

    Voice on phone: “Hello Homer? This is God….frey Jones of the TV news show Rock Bottom.”

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  42. @Clyde

    Garden-variety Jewish Billionaire. The ‘rather handsome’ part is risible.

    Oracle’s phone lines were jammed with thousands of calls from women.

    Sure they were. American journalism is so preposterous that it should simply be shut down, lock stock and barrel. Put it out of its misery! It has nothing to offer the nation, particularly since it’s been instrumental in wrecking it.

  43. @ScarletNumber

    Has anyone ever seen Dave Barry and P.J. O’Rourke in the same room at the same time?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  44. MEH 0910 says:
    @anonymous

    Angela Saini misrepresented Charles Murray’s twitter joke about who would review his book in the New York Times:

    https://twitter.com/AngelaDSaini/status/1215625928753152001

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  45. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910

    Angela Saini apparently deleted that tweet:

    I hear that the infamous Charles Murray, co-author of the widely-discredited The Bell Curve, has a new book out soon on race, gender and class. Indeed, he’s already expressed concern that I might read and review it. Fortunately, I got my rebuttals in good and early! pic.twitter.com/fWuzimcswB

    — Angela Saini (@AngelaDSaini) January 10, 2020

  46. @European-American

    This is supposed to sound hip – and diverse. Unsuppressed by the powers that be.

  47. @anonymous

    Big time “journalists” now write like sleazy lawyers.

    This is crucial, since lawyers only need to win, whereas an essay or a decent article ought to get things right in the first place.

    It’s ironic, that postmodernism fits in with the lawyer-mindset 1:1.

    So – the lawyerization of the pubic sphere is something pretty destructive because it trades in truth and the search for truth for something as simple as – – – victory.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
  48. Danindc says:
    @bomag

    Disagree. How could you be that smart and not know that Trump would be better for the country? F him.

  49. G. Poulin says:
    @Jack D

    “Roundly discredited” is a kind of argument from authority, used for the purpose of making an end run around the evidence, and to attempt to humiliate anyone who is not on board with the Narrative.

  50. Kronos says:
    @Desiderius

    I gotta get those gains! I never miss leg day! Especially with my little toe shoes!

  51. Cardano says:

    Someone asked about Taleb vs. Charles Murray. Here’s a sample from the many hits turned up by searching under “Taleb Charles Murray”

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1160246858977095680.html

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
  52. @Dieter Kief

    What hath ought to do with postmodernism?

    Trading truth for victory will leave one with neither and deserving less than that.

  53. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desiderius

    He doesn’t want to go anywhere because he’s old and already has money.

    Nice study bro! Wish I had one of those.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  54. @bomag

    Every establishment review says the same thing: erroneous, discredited, disproved, diversity is our strength, blah, blah, blah. They never seem to mention who did that other than Gould, who pre-discredited it apparently, absolutely absurd.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Dieter Kief
  55. @Jack D

    She’s also a rootless cosmopolitan with two junk degrees, no real work experience:

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

    Sehgal was born to Indian parents and was raised in India, Hungary, the Philippines and Northern Virginia. She studied political science at McGill University in Montreal. After graduating, she traveled to Delhi to work at an NGO. After returning to the US, she earned an MFA from Columbia University, after which she gained an editing position at Publishers Weekly.

    No surprise that she was unable to coherently review a science-focused book.

    She looks much better in stills than video:

    The basic Becky accent/speech pattern is pretty blech.

  56. MEH 0910 says:

    • Thanks: Desiderius
  57. @Malcolm X-Lax

    At your feet or at your throat.

  58. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Classic case of Metrics vs Mantrics.

    Metrics carefully measures and weighs reality and its many facets with curiosity and thought.

    Mantrics repeat the official mantras and push the same stale agenda mindlessly.

    It’s thinking vs slogans.

    The Mantric crowd are too self-righteous and blind to entertain the notion that reality might not be as their ideology proclaims. It’s a strange combo of confidence and cowardice. Paradoxically, they are so confident and adamant about their worldview precisely because they are so afraid and chicken about the fact that their assumptions or dogma may be false. So, they just gushing forth without questioning their the base ‘truth’ fed to them by institutional education.

  59. Big Chuck gets it:

    Suck it, haters! How’s the wrong side of history taste?

  60. @Unladen Swallow

    They’re wrong. Stop reading them.

  61. @Malcolm X-Lax

    I’ve always had the sense that Taleb despises any hierarchy that doesn’t place him (or his group) at the top.

    And this differs from Strom Thurmond in that…?

  62. @The Wild Geese Howard

    My family watched this earlier this week– the first half anyway. We zoned out at Proust. The grade-doctoring is impressive. Did the teacher really miss it, or quietly bury it?

    Parul Sehgal =

    Phallus gear.
    Harp seagull.
    Phrase glue.

    Laugh pearls.

  63. Outrage has been good to Charles Murray. Far from being the victim of “a modern witch burning,” as the neuroscientist and podcaster Sam Harris has described him, Murray has been able to cloak himself in the mantle of the embattled intellectual, the purveyor of forbidden knowledge, while comfortably ensconced at the American Enterprise Institute, the influential think tank, for three decades.

    Stupid article of course, but this is a legitimate point. It would’ve taken me much longer to discover Murray (who led me to Steve) if it weren’t for all the controversy.

    Plus, the media only plays the outrage card on him some of the time. Murray had no trouble promoting Coming Apart on MSM shows back in 2012.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
  64. anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    Sehgal was born to Indian parents and was raised in India, Hungary, the Philippines and Northern Virginia.

    Globalhomo grifter parents, obviously. Subcontinental Beckies just like this are all over NoVa, and are a major factor in the recent decline in quality of government in the Old Dominion. This is an example of the new 10% that our 0.1% is importing in order to firm up the neo-caste system under construction.

    It is certain that she both got good grades, and learned absolutely nothing of substance.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  65. Aidan Q says:
    @Kronos

    You got the link?

    Too many tweets to link to, search on his Twitter feed. But here’s a good piece:

    https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

    IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

    …Racists/eugenists, people bent on showing that some populations have inferior mental abilities based on IQ test=intelligence; those have been upset with me for suddenly robbing them of a “scientific” tool, as evidenced by the bitter reactions to the initial post on twitter/smear campaigns by such mountebanks as Charles Murray…

    Reactions to this piece in the Alt-Right Media: all they got is a psychologist [James Thompson] who still hasn’t gotten to the basics of elementary correlation and noise/signal. The fact that psychologists selected him to defend them (via retweets) speaks volumes about their sophistication…

    Hack job by one Jonatan Pallesen, full of mistakes about this piece (and the “empiricism”), promoted by mountebanks such as Murray. He didn’t get that of course one can produce “correlation” from data. It is the interpretation of these correlations that is full of BS. Pallesen also produces some lies about what I said which have been detected in online comments (e.g. the quiz I gave and using Log vs X )…

    I think Taleb pulverizes Murray with the math. Murray:
    🤣

    • Thanks: Kronos
    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @YetAnotherAnon
  66. @Anon

    Nice study bro! Wish I had one of those.

    What’s the logo on his jacket? And what’s sitting on his printer? Is it stuffed?

  67. Dr. Doom says:

    Being based squarely on hateful facts, its roundly discredited in Manhattan circles.

    There is no place in the 21st Century for these kinds of biased scientists.

    Only our biases can be verified by official sources.

    The Moon Gawds of the Copybook Headings.

  68. @peterike

    Coronavirus will be supplying Asian-American op-ed contributors with a motherlode of “racism!” material

    • LOL: Hibernian
  69. @Cardano

    That Taleb is found in a health club having the lettering “cycling” on a glass divider wearing those toe shoes pretty much discredits everything he has ever written.

  70. syonredux says:

    Scientifically illiterate, but kinda cute:

  71. syonredux says:
    @Aidan Q

    I think that Taleb is just upset that the Levant hasn’t contributed much to science in the last 500 years….

  72. Polynices says:

    No, Taleb doesn’t pulverize Murray. Taleb spews math like a cuttlefish spews ink and tries to confuse the reader into thinking he has debunked something. IQ researchers have gone ahead and debunked Taleb’s debunking. Worse, one major principle that Taleb generally espouses is the superiority of practice and experience over theory but then he proceeds to dismiss IQ entirely on theoretical grounds despite lots of real world proof of the utility and validity of the idea.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  73. Anonymous[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753

    If Charles Murray is so controversial, why does he get invited to Bilderberg meetings?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Bilderberg_Conference

    Lol, good rhetorical question.

    https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=77877

    Why Is Charles Murray So Vicious About Donald Trump?
    Posted on October 28, 2015 by Luke Ford

    He’s never ripped any politician, any body, like this. What’s going on?

    On facebook and twitter Charles Murray has mounted a continual attack campaign against Donald Trump (and also on his presidential aspirations and its supporters–but, surprisingly, against Trump in an acerbically personal way more than anything else).

    From Trump’s perspective, this is an ant-pissing-on-my-shoe scenario, of course. Another Establishment figure renouncing Trumpian populism is nothing new, nor is it anything that will hurt Trump’s candidacy. To the contrary, it’ll likely help it*.

    It is, however, surprising to see someone who has been on the receiving end of a vicious, unrelenting Establishment assault so enthusiastically pick up stones stained with Murray’s own blood and throw them at the newest official object of hate.

    There is no air of reservation or scholarly thoughtfulness present here, either. It’s embarrassingly sophomoric stuff. For instance, today Murray writes:

    It could be the 1850s and the Know Nothings. Same fear, same rhetoric, same fascist tendencies. And I don’t use “fascist” loosely.

    Yikes. Fascism is a distinctly 20th century European cultural-political movement. To label a distinct movement that occurred several decades previous to the existence of fascism as fascist is anachronistic and thus almost definitionally a very loose application of the term. It’s like saying the Jacobins were Marxists. This is something I’d expect from a talk show host, not from the author of Human Accomplishment.

    Mountebank Murray who failed Matrix Algebra

    • Replies: @BB753
  74. peterike says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    She looks like a big nosed version of Seinfeld’s Elaine Benes, and even speaks in a similar cadence and uses the same kind of speaking-through-closed-teeth schtick. My guess is she’s quite consciously styling her speech patterns after the character.

    Anyway, her spiel is right out of the writer’s workshop, the usual sort of over-precise, self-referential “oh I’m so terrible but you know, actually so awesome” crap that we get from a million over-privileged, mis-educated, incalculably destructive womyn.

  75. @Carolingian Leprechaun

    Only because “Coming Apart” conspicuously avoided discussing race, if it had it would have been a replay of the “Bell Curve”. Pretty clear that Murray leaned a lot on Herrnstein’s greater statistical sophistication for that book.

  76. Hibernian says:
    @European-American

    “Has been” OK if you see “discredited”, not as an adjective, but a verb in past tense. “Roundly” I’m not sure about.

    • Thanks: European-American
    • Replies: @European-American
  77. @Aidan Q

    Taleb reminds me of Greg Cochran in that they both like a scrap, and their world is divided neatly into two classes – people who agree with them about everything, and idiots. Professor Challenger type.

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

    Cochran’s blog is great, though. So many ideas and questions, over such wide areas of science.

  78. @Hibernian

    What I was thinking is that you can be discredited (it’s a state), but someone can’t discredit you, though they can try to bring you discredit.

    So you could be widely discredited (state), but not roundly discredited (action). But I’m probably just thinking too much, and wrongly, since the phrase is widely (roundly?) used.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22roundly+discredited%22

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discredit

  79. @anon

    It is certain that she both got good grades, and learned absolutely nothing of substance.

    I guarantee she went down this path after she realized she’s just not quite attractive enough to model or act. That has to be hugely frustrating since she didn’t miss by a lot.

    I can also guarantee the NGO stint in Delhi was a multi-year party with her relatives/caste and she had a giant apartment with a servant.

    She obviously managed to leverage that into her editorial position and is now living the high life in NYC.

    Subcontinental Beckies just like this are all over NoVa, and are a major factor in the recent decline in quality of government in the Old Dominion.

    They even made a TV show about this phenomenon:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantico_(TV_series)

  80. MEH 0910 says:

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  81. @MEH 0910

    The liberal Saxon awakes. Dot Indians must be missing the good old Victorian pimp hand.

  82. Ragno says:

    Yet another smug Hindoo born too late to throw rocks at the Britih Raj, making up for lost time snarling her sing-song invective at North America, a continent that has been almost unanimously good to her people.

    Hsst – Ms Sehgal: don’t have a cow, ma’am. Unless it’s being served medium rare with scalloped potatoes as a side dish.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  83. Anon[105] • Disclaimer says:

    How the media’s oppressive information-control system works:

    Marxist-Zionist (NYT) affirmative statements = truth, news, journalism, democracy, fact, objective, moral justification.

    Dissenting opinions = fake news, Russian propaganda, Far Right fringe opinion, White Supremacy, fascism, immoral.

    Conservative affirmative statements = controversial, problematic, ugly, regressive, subjective, debunked, supremacist, immoral.

    Marxist-Zionist dissenting opinions = democracy, journalism, the People, modern, historical victimhood, moral.

  84. MEH 0910 says:
    @Ragno

    Hsst – Ms Sehgal: don’t have a cow, ma’am.

  85. @Steve Sailer

    • Replies: @res
  86. Uh, I think “Now that we’re alone” is a joke.

    I see. Then there’s another way to make sense of this sentence: As a case of objective surprise – or a somewhat astonishing factual truth, served with ironic understatement.

    Ahh the truth, Charles Murray is referring to is that the author and the reader are by the very nature of a text alone, as soon (or as long) as a text written by someone is read by somebody else in quiet seclusion, which is the case most of the time, the one exception that comes to my mind is, that the text would be read out loud to others.

    (Now this might be the appropriate situation for the Marshal McLuhan-moment in Wood Allen’s Anny Hall, wouldn’t it?)

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  87. @Unladen Swallow

    One thing that’s absolutely astonishing in this context is, that Bernard D. Davis showed in his 1986 volume Storm Over Biology that Stephen J. Gould was methodologically and ethically and scientifically wrong in his IQ papers. – A complete disaster.

    https://www.amazon.com/Storm-over-Biology-Bernard-Davis/dp/0879753242

    So, this is one big case of the NYT and Scientific American, etc. (the American scientfic community in general) going off the scientific rail in the pursuit of – – – a greater (higher) good.

    I might add: Whoever has read a bit of Kant, for example, should be very clear, that there is no higher good for us earthlings than truth. For Kant, it was very clear, and essential for the self-respect of any rational human being, that this treasure could not be sacrificed, no matter what.

  88. @The Wild Geese Howard

    Tom Ripley is way above her head. If she met one, she would be easy prey for him. And as always, she’s about feelings and multiculturalism and multiculturalism and feelings, etc. pp. – the most serious part of her speech is her subcomplex Tom Ripley reference.

    The most tricky winner is this part of her performance: “It seems to treat jealousy as a problem of geometry, not of emotion” – what is this – an echo of something she once heard or read about what/whom – Russel, the early Wittgenstein, Carnap? She must have heard something about anyone sometime – could also have been Baruch de Spinoza or René Descartes, Goethe’s marriage-novel “Elective Affinities”? – Just who cares? These old white f****rs (OWFs) are all dead by now anyhow! Seghal, on the other hand, is able to charmingly evoke an aura of a sophisticated upbringing and that does the job nicely. The young lady embodies everything it takes to succeed: She is not white, she is a woman, she can act on stage and talk to people and is willing to entertain them. Maybe not perfectly well, but you know, the perfect parcel is not your regular parcel, so…sigh: Let’s declare her a winner, and she will win. Except for that: No doubts allowed, we thank you kindly!

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
  89. “Harmeet Kaur”

    “Airman 1st Class Jaspreet Singh”

    ” approved US Air Force turban”

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/us/air-force-dress-code-sikhs-muslims-trnd/index.html

    Folks, it’s over.

  90. @Dieter Kief

    The young lady embodies everything it takes to succeed: She is not white, she is a woman, she can act on stage and talk to people and is willing to entertain them.

    Correct.

    This what life on easy mode looks like in Current Year America.

    I bet she’s easily bagging $150k a year.

  91. BB753 says:
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, Murray is in bed with the globalists. And yet antifas still want to beat him up wherever he shows up for a lecture. Murray should ask his fellow Bilderberg pal Soros for his goons to stand down.

  92. @Dieter Kief

    Yes, but he takes it a step further by accentuating the fact that among those excluded by the scandously free association of Murray and his reader are the SJW clowns themselves who have by this point self-segregated.

    The Times reviewer doesn’t miss this point but does miss where the fault lies. Caldwell knows.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  93. @Desiderius

    I’m still not through with this “joke” (the expression joke is not wrong).

    It’s a good joke. Murray wants to win over the patient, those people interested in complex arguments. And in order to achieve this goal you need not the loudness of the market place, or the stage, or a newsroom, but the tranquillity and the intimate relation, which constitutes the act of any kind of serious reading in the first place. She doesn’t get that, and I’m not sure, that Steve Sailer got this one quite right either.

    As a side note – I myself did not understand what was up here until I started reading Murray’s book, which happened shortly after I’ve read Steve Sailer’s comment.

    Parul Seghal does not get Murray’s point about the necessity of the tranquility and intimacy, which implies that the reader is really alone with the text. There is one more irony: The reader and the author are existentially alone while being what they are, and the remark of a shared loneliness is not only truly funny for those who know and accept this basic fact. – To get Murrays joke is a rather complex thing, because it can only be done if all addressed by Murra’s sentence understand the deeply virtual nature of it. In the crude physical reality, the reader and the author are separated. What unites them is an ethos: To understand complex matters and therefore to sit still and sit through those long hours of actual loneliness. Neither Steve Sailer nor Parul Seghal (sigh) get this point. Sailer hints somewhat in the right direction with his DaveBerry quote. But Parul Seghal dismisses the existential necessity of rigorous individuality as an integral part of the dedicated reading act itself, by somehow triumphalistically pointing out that Murray, in saying that he is alone with his reader, admits, that he does not look for “rigorous readers, skeptics” but for – “the believers”.

    Now that we’re alone. This book is for the believers. Rigorous readers, skeptics, the unindoctrinated — you won’t be persuaded by “Human Diversity,” but why should that matter? You’re not even invited. How’s that for a safe space. How’s that for an orthodoxy.

    She is all at once: To uneducated, too inexperienced with literature and the act of reading, too unreflected altogether to grasp what’s up here, let alone to be able to write it down, so that in the end she is in the position to fail perfectly well. She is what we’ve got now, in the New York Times, at the top end of the intellectual food-chain: A perfect impersonation of Eich Fromm’s market-character: No moral center, little knowledge, a lot of energy and will, to grasp and say, what everybody else grasps and says. Her absolute horror – Fromm got this one too quit right, is being – – – alone. And – the last thought – for very good reasons: If she were alone she would have a very hard time to get along.**** Since what makes her success is in wide parts not her abilities and her clear understanding of things, but her strictly social ability to conform (and – manipulate).

    **** this is where – my mind – – – wanders (you remember, don’t you) – and while wandering, I’m – – – in the Black Forest – – – – – near Todtnauberg and see a man in his fifties, brimming with ideas about the down-side of the modern mass-societies and thus problematizing the expression “man” as a term, which deceives peoples minds, because it annihilates the basic fact, that there is no existential reliability in collectiveness. – Fromm (and Habermas) were the rare Frankfurters, who understood, that it makes no sense to wipe these arguments out by hinting at Heidegger’s errors. I’d say, that Fromm made much better use of Heidegger than Habermas.

    (It’s interesting, how the commentariat melts down quite a bit, as soon as thoughts get a bit – – deeper. I mean, the destructive side of the lawyerization of the American public discourse which iI wrote about above, isn’t even that deep. But – really few people care, as soon as even such a relatively easy to grasp level of abstraction is reached. Strange.

    I’m really glad bout your comments, Desiderius. I miss the Old Palo Altan. I wish him well – maybe he is already in the Grand Chartreuse? – I’ll write him a letter – or a postcard – addressed: The ex-Old Palo Altan, novice in the Grand Chartreuse? – That should do!

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Desiderius
  94. Ron69 says:

    Leticia olalia Morales of 15501 Pasadena ave #H Tustin .ca 92780 submitted fake documents and bribed to get a tourist and work visa. She now has a green card applying for citizenship. She can be reached at 714 508 0937

  95. Ron69 says:

    Leticia olalia Morales of 15501 Pasadena ave #H Tustin .ca 92780 submitted fake documents and bribed to get a tourist and work visa. She now has a green card applying for citizenship. She can be reached at 714 508 0937…

  96. Ron69 says:

    Leticia olalia Morales of 15501 Pasadena ave #H Tustin .ca 92780 submitted fake documents and bribed to get a tourist and work visa. She now has a green card applying for citizenship. She can be reached at 714 508 0937,,,,…

  97. @Dieter Kief

    No. She gets it. It’s postmodern lit crit 101.

    It’s why she got the review, the Library of Alexandria was burned, Tyndale martyred, Damore fired.

    The core freedom of association is between writer and reader, and the Brahmins would have it for themselves alone.

  98. @Dieter Kief

    Parul Seghal dismisses the existential necessity of rigorous individuality as an integral part of the dedicated reading act itself

    No. The publisher means to destroy it. In part to spare himself the indignity of reflecting upon the extent to which he’s squandered his own.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  99. gregor says:
    @BB753

    And he has a position at AEI. And he still gets published. And he gets widely reviewed.

    Murray has taken heat from the left, but interestingly he was never excommunicated by the right. Far from it, in fact. There seems to be this idea that “race realism” gets you automatically purged, but that doesn’t actually seem to be true.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Desiderius
  100. @Desiderius

    So – your comment is an excuse for Parul Sehgal and an attack at the publishers
    of the New York Times?

    Maybe a tad too top-down? Existential questions need to be solved by individuals. They are rooted oftentimes in faulty superstructures, but that social fact can not annihilate the individual side they have, and therefore the individual responsibility they carry with them.

    I’d still hold, that Parul Sehgal loathes the intimate and basically lonely (=existential?!) nature of the act of reading. Such existential questions are not the subject, but rather what’s neglected in the postmodernist/deconstructivist classes I know of because deconstructivism loathes individuality as a bourgois concept.

    What I still don’t get over is the fact that (at least in my fantasy…) there must be thousands of intellectuals in the US who understand perfectly well what a dishonest hack-job is being performed here by Ms. Sehgal, but remain quiet!? – Incredible? The new normal? The darkest hour, right before the dawn? I mean, if the New York Magazine, for example, would publish an attack on this NYT piece, wouldn’t they win a status fight – at least in the eyes of the Happy Few? Why is nobody in the mainstream media willing to fight such a honoable fight?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  101. @Dieter Kief

    She’s doing exactly what she was Carefully Taught by the people for whom the publisher’s paper is the Paper of Record. It’s up there with Harry Potter and Tennesee Coates. In other words he has Carefully Taught the teachers on top of choosing her to write the review. Unless you get the root the weed will just grow back.

    Pinch is an individual, not a superstructure.

    The brazen, barefaced lie is the secret handshake of that ruling class who have convinced themselves that Truth is for suckas. They’re not quiet, they’re cheering her, and Pinch, on, or rather chastising them for not going far enough.

  102. @gregor

    He’s traditionally found the right people properly distasteful, which is the strongest emotion they allow themselves. He’s used his Never Trumpism as a cover to get people like Sailer their proper due and get his 95 Theses published.

    Were the chips down they’re confident he would go along with burning the disapproved books. My sense is they’re walking into a check-raise.

  103. res says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    Direct link to that article (so no need to go through a Twitter redirect):
    https://nationalpolicy.institute/2020/02/14/bravery-signaling/

    I tend to agree with the substance of Dutton’s article, but am not sure the tweet (intellectual cowardice) was constructive. Though perhaps Murray taking fire from the extremes on both sides will help make clear how reasonable and moderate his positions actually are.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS