The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
ECONOMIST Watch: Reading the Mouthpiece of Anti-Trump Globalism So You Don’t Have to
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
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

Given that The Economist is a major journalistic voice for the globalist, nation-hating, open-borders, anti-Trump club of the Billionaire Left; and given that AntiFa is the “muscle” of that club; it’s not very surprising that when our President attacks AntiFa, The Economist pulls out all the stops.

The cover of the current (August 19th-25th) issue tells you all you need to know. Trump is bellowing into a megaphone drawn as a sideways-lying KKK hood.

The accompanying editorial is what you’d expect.

His unsteady response [i.e. to the riot engineered by state and city authorities in Charlottesville last week] contains a terrible message for Americans. Far from being the savior of the Republic, their President is politically inept, morally barren and temperamentally unfit for office.

It comes of course with a doctored version of history to conform to current CultMarx dogmas.

White supremacists and neo-Nazis yearn for a society based on race, which America fought a world war to prevent.

If you had asked 1,000 Americans in 1945 what they had been fighting for, then ranked their responses by common themes, I venture to suggest that “to prevent a society based on race” would not have been anywhere near the top of the rankings. I wonder if it would even have figured at all.

And what a great many white Americans today yearn for is a society not based on race: one in which their own race is not constantly belittled and insulted by talk of “white privilege,” one not riddled with preferences and favoritism on behalf of other races, one in which multicultural triumphalists do not crow over whites’ impending replacement, and elites do not seem hell-bent on bringing about that replacement.

The Economist tells us that defending Confederate statues—a cause which, for 150 years, was not even present in the collective American consciousness because those statues were not threatened—is a rearguard action by the evil, bitter past against the Radiant Future.

Mr Trump’s seemingly heartfelt defence of those marching to defend Confederate statues spoke to the degree to which white grievance and angry, sour nostalgia is part of his world view.

Perhaps one man’s “angry, sour nostalgia” is another man’s natural reaction to great but unnecessary social changes undertaken to the advantage of people who hate him.

If all this sneering and gloating were not sufficiently emetic, this issue gives over four full pages to grinding a boot heel into the face of James Damore, the programmer fired by Google on August 7th for his internal company memo on sex differentials in suitability for software work.

This was actually The Economist’s second attempt to break this particular butterfly on the wheel. Their previous edition (August 12th-18th) had run a 600-word editorial and a 1,000-word article in the Business Section both arguing that Google should not have fired Damore but that his arguments about women and men displaying different interests were wrong, wrong, wrong.

From the editorial:

An unbiased eye would light on social factors rather than innate differences as the reason why only a fifth of computer engineers are women … It would have been better for Larry Page, Google’s co-founder and the boss of Alphabet, its holding company, to write a ringing, detailed rebuttal of Mr Damore’s argument.

From the article:

Many of the memo’s assertions were risible, such as the idea that women are not coders because they are less intrigued by “things” than men are.

This is just ideological enforcement. Why is it more “unbiased” to presume social factors than to presume innate differences? It’s not more unbiased; it’s just more CultMarx-compliant.

And why is that latter assertion “risible” (“causing or capable of causing laughter; laughable; ludicrous “)? It’s not preposterous; it’s in the category of things that might or might not be true. Whether it is true or not can be determined by careful empirical enquiry.

Assertions in that category are not “risible” unless you have a strong ideological determination to find them so. The claim that men have one less rib than women could fairly be called “risible” since it is so easily disproved. Damore’s claim, as stated, is of a different kind.

To the best of my knowledge, it has not been disproved: but even if it has been, it’s still not “risible,” as the disproving would have involved painstaking research and lengthy debates in scholarly journals. To persons not current with all that specialized research, it is a thing that might be true.

Well, the four-page heel-grinding in this current issue is an attempt to write the “ringing, detailed rebuttal of Mr Damore’s argument” that The Economist recommended to Larry Page in last week’s editorial. It is a jeering, sneering specimen of equalist triumphalism.

Your interpretation is wrong. Your memo was a great example of what’s called “motivated reasoning”—seeking out only the information that supports what you already believe.

Uh: pot, kettle?

It was derogatory to women in our industry and elsewhere. Despite your stated support for diversity and fairness, it demonstrated profound prejudice.

You should be free of ideological prejudices, pure of heart, as we are!

Your chain of reasoning had so many missing links that it hardly mattered what your argument was based on. We try to hire people who are willing to follow where the facts lead, whatever their preconceptions. In your case we clearly made a mistake.

So then wouldn’t it be right to fire him?

You don’t seem to understand what makes a great software engineer … You clearly don’t understand our company, and so fail to understand what we are trying to do when we hire.

See previous.

I shouldn’t have had to write this: I’m busy and a little effort on your part would have made it unnecessary. But I know I have it easy. Women in our industry have to cope with this sort of nonsense all the time.



My impression is that Damore put considerable effort into his memo. And again, while some of his assertions could be wrong, they are not missing-rib-level “nonsense.”

But then, who’s this James Damore pest, anyway? How many billion is he worth? Feugh!

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 15 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. What do you have to drink to get through Economist drivel/propaganda? I’m spending some time in a hotel where we have CNN. I can’t watch more than two to three minutes–nothing but Trump criticism. The Russian news channels are more informative even though my Russian is very rudimentary

    • Replies: @Forbes
  2. Mr Derbyshire is wrong to say that the Antifa and their like are funded by the “Billionaire Left”. They do fund them, but to call them the Billionaire Left is incorrect.
    These people are best described as Corporatist Oligarchs, aided and created by Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is not liberal, it is thoroughly illiberal and unconcerned about free markets or free societies. As an example, SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch are merging. They will have 45% of the US beer market, when merged. 30 years, when the US still had competition laws, this would not be permitted. Indeed, it would not even be attempted.
    Effective competition laws are one of the cornerstones of a Capitalist society, or even one with a more Mixed Economy. Large areas of the US economy are now dominated by oligopolies: individual companies are often largely owned or controlled by one person, sometimes a few. These oligopolists seek cheap labour, open borders, free trade and exemption from the laws of the state. Indeed, as the TPTA made explicit, they wanted to be subject to rules made by themselves, not any state.
    Their aims cannot be said to be left wing. These policies benefit a small number of oligarchs and their associates, whose income has risen enormously. Most of the rest of us suffer as a result.
    These oligarchs not only fund dim-witted left wing groups to do their bidding, they control most of the media and the political parties. They constitute a very serious threat to the State, Society and ordinary people.
    These oligopolies must be broken up and sold in parts to a wide range of new owners. Effective Competition Laws must be reinstated and anti-completion laws ( e.g. Telecommunications Act 1996 ) rescinded. The holdings of individual oligarchs should be confiscated without compensation and the worst offenders (Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg et al ) sent to Work Camps in Northern Alaska, along with all the staff of \$PLC. The money so confiscated should be donated to charitable funds, e.g. VDARE, The John Derbyshire Retirement Fund.

  3. As a previous 20 year subscriber to the Economist magazine, this article touches a raw nerve in me. There was a time when I had a fascination with the world of globalism and the Economist was a source of great wisdom to be cherished on a Sunday morning. But as the real world of globalism started showing its ugly head, I started getting tired of this mouthpiece of the Illuminati and their mega sophisticated propaganda news of which I will expose some of the important myths they have acclaimed during the 90’s and in the first decade of the 21st century. Unfortunately, I don’t have the references for these articles as I am drawing from my long memory:
    -In one of their articles about the falling crime rate in America, they credited Roe vs Wade for legalizing abortion ” which led to a marked decline in undesired children and therefore a reduced crime rate”. Indicting innocent unborn children as potential criminals is the Economist way. It escaped them, that had abortion been legal when Steven Jobs saw the light of day, chances are the man would have not lived as a child born out of wedlock.
    -The Economist called for Arab oil producers to reduce the price of a barrel of oil to USD 5.00 to drive all potential non OPEC competitors out of the market in order to survive the coming drop in the price of oil. What happened after this article is that oil prices kept creeping up until it reached the price of USD 147.
    -The Economist was a supporter of the abrogation of the Glass Steegal Act that separated commercial banking from investment banking calling it an outdated law. Needless to remind the reader that the cancellation of the law by the Clinton Administration at the behest of Robert Rubin who had been appointed as Citi Chair while still working for the U S government was a case of conflict of interest and the reason for the 2008 financial crisis and the phony legacy of ” too big to fail” and ” too big to jail”.
    – The Economist was as big of a supporter of the war on Iraq just as its ilk The New York Slimes, a war that has killed millions and cost the American tax payer trillions of Dollars.
    I will limit my critique of the Economist to the above points while hoping that other new doubters in the authenticity of this propaganda machine will contribute theirs.

  4. Pericles says:

    No attempt at a rebuttal, just another puffed-up, empty soufflé of shaming. The Economist hardly recruits the best minds anymore.

  5. DrW says:

    You state that a great many white Americans today “yearn for is a society not based on race: one in which their own race is not constantly belittled and insulted by talk of “white privilege,” one not riddled with preferences and favoritism on behalf of other races…”

    Don’t you realize that yearning for a colorblind post-racial meritocracy is the modern definition of “hatred”?

  6. Hugh says:

    Google is 80% male in its most technical departments. This hiring “anomaly” cannot be blamed on the young Damore, as I doubt he has any say in hiring matters. Brin, Page and Schmidt built up the company in its present form.

    Should Larry Page be so foolish as to write the sneering epistle suggested by the Economist, he would then have a hard time explaining Google’s demographic makeup as he would have thrown away many of his best arguments.

    I share Joe Levantine’s sorrow over the demise of this once great weekly. What a shame.

  7. MEH 0910 says:

    I can’t wait to read about “unbiased” research showing that Afghan Hounds can’t herd as well as Border Collies due to unequal training. That will dethrone the “risible” assertions of the breedist bigots!

  8. peterike says:

    The New Yorker used a similar Trump/KKK cover. These people have such original minds. My guess is there’s a new Journolist site somewhere that hasn’t been smoked out yet, because the coordination is clear as day.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  9. So I don’t have to indeed! I new The Economist was shit but I had no idea. You’re a better man than I am Derb.

  10. Forbes says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    A life-long friend visiting from Italy this past December, while staying in a Manhattan hotel, noted that the CNN programming was all anti-Trump, all the time. He wondered if they reported any news.

    He found it bizarre.

  11. Corvinus says:

    “If you had asked 1,000 Americans in 1945 what they had been fighting for, then ranked their responses by common themes, I venture to suggest that “to prevent a society based on race” would not have been anywhere near the top of the rankings. I wonder if it would even have figured at all.”

    I venture to suggest that Americans at that point in time would have indeed indicated this topic as high on their list. Refer to the questions “Do you approve or disapprove of the Nazi treatment of Jews in Germany?” and “It is said that two million Jews have been killed in Europe since the war began. Do you think this is true or just a rumor?”

    In this context, one could reasonably assume that Americans by 1945 believed Jews to be a distinct race of people, and that German policy was designed to ensure the vitality of one race over another race of people. Thus, one major factor for fighting a war in the eyes of Americans would have been to prevent a society based on race.

    Of course there is irony here. I would suggest that the Germans would be incredulous that they were being democratized by a nation who had separated the races and prohibited their mixing by law.

    But, then again, pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

  12. Corvinus says:

    Of course Trump is not Alt-Right, or a virulent racist. He just associates himself with people who fall in that category. No different than Obama and his link to Reverend Wright. But the right had a field day labeling Obama in a similar fashion.

    Even though Trump is a globalist and an elitist and is continuing neo-con policies, his hardcore base ultimately relate to him because he embraces nationalistic and controversial ideas with bravado. He is their megaphone. And, of course, it doesn’t matter how many gigantic missteps he makes, because his ardent supporters would have to admit they were bamboozled yet again by the “establishment”.

  13. fitzGetty says:

    … the Economist has been historically, wrong & misinformed on most major issues over the past half decade … unfortunately, it still sells 1,000,000 copies weekly across the world … its writers now write down, to pander to lazy thinkers and maintain circulation …

  14. Anonymous [AKA " CountFosco"] says:

    As I wrote in the comments to “Larry’s Letter”: these Economist-people, always lecturing others about the benefits of diversity, are themselves one of the lily-whitest collections of people in media, and their male/female ratio approaches Googlian levels (I counted 26 women out of 108 editorial staff, or 24%). At least Google had the perfectly valid reason not to want to ruin their business in order to correct this skew, but what excuse does The Economist have? They can’t find enough women to write shrill “on peut cogner, chef ?”-pieces? (“can we beat them up now, chef?”)

  15. An ominous parallel:

    Netanyahu’s empathy for Trump” by Caroline Glick

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was attacked by the media for not jumping on the bandwagon and condemning US President Donald Trump for his response to the far-right and far-left rioters in Charlottesville earlier this month. It may be that he held his tongue because he saw nothing to gain from attacking a friendly president. But it is also reasonable to assume that Netanyahu held his tongue because he empathizes with Trump. More than any leader in the world, Netanyahu understands what Trump is going through. He’s been there himself – and in many ways, is still there. Netanyahu has never enjoyed a day in office when Israel’s unelected elites weren’t at war with him.

    From a comparative perspective, Netanyahu’s experiences in his first term in office, from 1996 until 1999, are most similar to Trump’s current position. His 1996 victory over incumbent prime minister Shimon Peres shocked the political class no less than the American political class was stunned by Trump’s victory. And this makes sense. The historical context of Israel’s 1996 election and the US elections last year were strikingly similar.


    Today it is clear that Trump is wrestling with how to proceed in governing, as the American elites openly seek his political and even personal destruction. One day he tacks to the establishment in the hopes of appeasing those who hate him, and the next day he embraces his supporters and repeats his campaign pledges to “drain the swamp.”

    The lessons of Netanyahu’s first term – and to a degree, his subsequent terms in office as well – are clear enough and Trump would do well to apply them.

    You cannot appease people who want to destroy you. And you cannot succeed by embracing the failed policies of your predecessors that you were elected to roll back. The elites who reject you will never embrace you. The only way to govern successfully when you are under relentless assault is to empower your supporters and keep faith with them.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS