Thursday, April 26, 2018

Why the Dread Ilk are so superior

To Jordan Peterson's milquetoast millennials.

All I can say is that if I ever screwed up as thoroughly, and as publicly, and demonstrated such a flagrant lack of intellectual integrity as Peterson has, I would damn well expect every single member of the Dread Ilk to jump down my throat with sharpened spurs on.

Instead, what do we see here? Oh, poor Jordie, it's just so difficult for him? It's so hard! How can a philosopher be expected to simply tell the truth? He's done so much good that we shouldn't criticize him when he's running around calling people cowards and failures because they point out the obvious to him! Don't be mean to Jordie and make him cry!

Excuses. Complaints. Rationalizations. Whining. Accusing. Anything but holding the man accountable for his deceitful words and his lack of intellectual integrity. I'm unimpressed enough with the man, but it's his followers that really have me rolling my eyes.

WTF? Is the guy such a delicate depressed flower that he's going to kill himself over being called on acting like an uncharitable and uninformed jackass? I thought this was supposed to be the fearsome debater, the formidable man of principle who isn't afraid to go into the belly of the beast to tell it like it is?

Let me make one thing clear. I do not give a fragment of a flying fuck about poor little Jordie or any other public figure with whom I am not personally acquainted. I have not read his books nor watched his videos. I care about the truth and the Truth, and I do not cut any intellectual figure any slack in that regard, including myself. I ask for neither quarter nor mercy from anyone, least of all my supporters.

When I get it wrong and you can conclusively prove it, then show me! If you're correct, I won't attack you, much less call you a coward and a failure like Peterson did, to the contrary, I will be grateful to you for helping me get back on the correct path of true understanding.

Labels: ,

NFL Draft Day

This is an open thread to discuss Day One of the NFL Draft. And just to get the conversation started, if I was the GM of the Cleveland Browns, I'd take Barkley, then Mayfield, with Allen as my fallback unless Darnold was still available and Mayfield wasn't.

I don't think that is what they will do, however. I think they'll take a quarterback at 1, then the Giants will take Barkley, as they should.


DOJ investigating Harvard's anti-Asian discrimination

This expanding lawsuit against Harvard University is not entirely unrelated from the recent discussion of intelligence, success, and ethnicity:
The Justice Department is actively investigating Harvard University's use of race in its admissions policies and has concluded the school is "out of compliance" with federal law, according to documents obtained by CNN.

The Justice Department's battle with Harvard potentially sets the stage for the first major legal test of affirmative action policies under the Trump administration. Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that race can be one among many factors universities use in making admission decisions. Two letters from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division indicate that Harvard has challenged the department's authority to investigate, and further state that if the school fails to provide documents to the department by December 1, the agency may file a lawsuit against the school....

Additional correspondence obtained by CNN shows that the Justice Department formally notified Harvard it was under investigation on September 20 and since that time, lawyers for the agency and the school have been trading letters over the scope of the department's document requests, despite what Harvard noted were "its concerns about the highly unusual nature of this investigation." The Justice Department's interest in Harvard's policies stems from a 2015 federal complaint that accuses the school of discriminating against Asian-Americans in admissions. When The New York Times reported in August that the Justice Department was looking for lawyers to work on "possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions," the department said that the posting was related to an ongoing case rolled over from the Obama administration.

But these more recent letters from the Justice Department, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, mark the first confirmation that the school is currently under investigation.
Who knows whether Harvard will be able to wave its magic wand and make it all go away somehow. But if they can't, here is what the statistics very strongly indicate they are trying to hide:
  • Asian-Americans are being heavily discriminated against.
  • White Christians are being moderately discriminated against
  • White residents of Midwestern, Southern, and Southwestern states are being heavily discriminated against.
  • Many unqualified Jews are being admitted by Jewish admissions officers
  • The majority of the Jews who attend an Ivy League university would not qualify for acceptance without affirmative action on their behalf.
The last bullet point is the big one, as it will have significant societal repercussions going forward. It's a little difficult to convincingly claim that you are merely a smart and meritorious elite when most of your children can't qualify for the top schools on an objective, merit-based standard. And, of course, there may be even more egregiously corrupt goings-on that the statistics do not even suggest. Regardless, Harvard would not be fighting this tooth-and-nail if it the release of the relevant information did not promise to be seriously damaging to its reputation and that of its alumni.

Labels: ,

Digital Maoism

This is a really good interview with Jaron Lanier which hits on three important concepts:
This dovetails with something you’ve said in the past that’s with me, which is your phrase Digital Maoism. Do you think that the Digital Maoism that you described years ago — are those the people who run Silicon Valley today?

I was talking about a few different things at the time I wrote “Digital Maoism.” One of them was the way that we were centralizing culture, even though the rhetoric was that we were distributing it. Before Wikipedia, I think it would have been viewed as being this horrible thing to say that there could only be one encyclopedia, and that there would be one dominant entry for a given topic. Instead, there were different encyclopedias. There would be variations not so much in what facts were presented, but in the way they were presented. That voice was a real thing.

And then we moved to this idea that we have a single dominant encyclopedia that was supposed to be the truth for the global AI or something like that. But there’s something deeply pernicious about that. So we’re saying anybody can write for Wikipedia, so it’s, like, purely democratic and it’s this wonderful open thing, and yet the bizarreness is that that open democratic process is on the surface of something that struck me as being Maoist, which is that there’s this one point of view that’s then gonna be the official one.

And then I also noticed that that process of people being put into a global system in which they’re supposed to work together toward some sort of dominating megabrain that’s the one truth didn’t seem to bring out the best in people, that people turned aggressive and mean-spirited when they interacted in that context. I had worked on some content for Britannica years and years ago, and I never experienced the kind of just petty meanness that’s just commonplace in everything about the internet. Among many other places, on Wikipedia.

On the one hand, you have this very open collective process actually in the service of this very domineering global brain, destroyer of local interpretation, destroyer of individual voice process. And then you also have this thing that seems to bring out this meanness in people, where people get into this kind of mob mentality and they become unkind to each other. And those two things have happened all over the internet; they’re both very present in Facebook, everywhere. And it’s a bit of a subtle debate, and it takes a while to work through it with somebody who doesn’t see what I’m talking about. That was what I was talking about.

But then there’s this other thing about the centralization of economic power. What happened with Maoists and with communists in general, and neo-Marxists and all kinds of similar movements, is that on the surface, you say everybody shares, everybody’s equal, we’re not gonna have this capitalist concentration. But then there’s some other entity that might not look like traditional capitalism, but is effectively some kind of robber baron that actually owns everything, some kind of Communist Party actually controls everything, and you have just a very small number of individuals who become hyperempowered and everybody else loses power.

And exactly the same thing has happened with the supposed openness of the internet, where you say, “Isn’t it wonderful, with Facebook and Twitter anybody can express themselves. Everybody’s an equal, everybody’s empowered.” But in fact, we’re in a period of time of extreme concentration of wealth and power, and it’s precisely around those who run the biggest computers. So the truth and the effect is just the opposite of what the rhetoric is and the immediate experience.

A lot of people were furious with me over Digital Maoism and felt that I had betrayed our cause or something, and I lost some friends over it. And some of it was actually hard. But I fail to see how it was anything but accurate.
This guy is sharing some important insights into the intrinsic danger of centralization, even when it is unintentional and inadvertent. It also underlines the importance of the Infogalactic approach, which rejects the concept of the One True Page that defines objective reality for everyone on the basis of the opinions of the information gatekeepers.

Labels: ,

The myth of Jordan Peterson's integrity

yclepedbobali observes that Jordan Peterson not only cannot answer my critique in a for summarized by someone else, he is downright afraid of his readers encountering it and exposing his posturing on a subject he refuses to honestly address.
I'm a midwit, at very best. Just synthesising your arguments, with a little embellishment, blew his grand 'arithmetic triumph over the bucko Nazgul' into a million tiny leaves on the Canadian breeze.

He can publicise and flaunt his flawless victory over the lead comment, so 'representative' of the apparent poor intellectual stock of right wing thugs. Just another conspiracy theorist helpless before the isolate and trinity of that 'irrefutable' average IQ of 115, the bell curve tail distribution, and openness to experience and liberalism. But he knows, and he knows we know.

I see why no one debates you. Even a midwit like me becomes something formidable armed with your mental tools and pugilist approach.
Here is my articulated critique of Jordan Peterson's argument. First, I suggest reading Jordan Peterson's actual argument in full: "On the so-called Jewish Question" as well as his subsequent response to a critic who did a reasonable job of showing how Peterson's argument did not hold up given the population demographics. I linked to the archive as well as to his site because I anticipate Peterson will memory-hole it once he realizes how hapless and dishonest it makes him look to an unbiased reader. His argument is summarized as follows:
  1. One requires a victim and a perpetrator in order to play identity politics.
  2. The Far Right has chosen European culture as a victim due to its unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly, and have incorrectly selected the Jews as perpetrator due to Jewish overrepresentation in positions of authority, competence and influence. 
  3. Jewish people are overrepresented in positions of competence and authority because, as a group, they have a higher mean IQ.
  4. Jews have a mean IQ of 115.
  5. "40.8% of the 145+ IQ population is Jewish."
  6. "There is no evidence whatsoever that Ashkenazi Jews are over-represented in any occupations/interests for reasons other than intelligence and the associated effects of intelligence on personality and political belief. Thus, no conspiratorial claims based on ethnic identity need to be given credence."
Peterson's argument is not merely incorrect, literally every single aspect of it is false. It is so resolutely and demonstrably false that it is not possible for Jordan Peterson to have constructed it in innocence by mistake. In my opinion, it clearly represents a purposeful intent to deceive his audience and falsely accuse those he labels "the far right". My responses to those six points.
  1. One does not require a victim or a perpetrator in order to play identity politics. One does not need to be aware of identity politics or even to believe they exist to find oneself engulfed in them. To quote Lee Kwan Yew, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” All a society requires is multiracial, multiethnic, or multireligious components and identity politics will inevitably appear once the minority populations become sufficiently numerous or influential.
  2. European culture and the European nations are observably victims of mass immigration. This is a fact that is no more disputable than the fact that the indigenous American populations were victims of mass immigration in the 16th and 17th centuries and Asian populations were victims of colonization and imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. The perpetrators are, by definition, the immigrants, as well as those who worked to alter the various laws to permit the immigrants entry.
  3. Jews are not overrepresented in positions of competence and authority because, as a group, they have a higher mean IQ, because a) IQs over 145 do not tend to help, but rather tend to hinder, an individual's ability to attain such positions, and b) their higher mean IQ is not high enough to compensate for their much smaller population.
  4. Jews do not have an average mean IQ of 115. Globally, they have an average mean IQ that is a maximum of 103.1. In the US, where the percentage of high-IQ Ashkenazim is higher, they have a maximum average mean IQ of 105.3.
  5. Less than 4 percent of the 145+ IQ population in the USA is Jewish.
  6. Thus, conspiratorial claims based on ethnic identity remain a valid potential explanation for Jewish overrepresentation in positions of competence and authority. Jordan Peterson is at best an inept intellectual disputant, and at worst an intentional deceiver.
Now I will proceed to prove responses 3, 4, and 5 in detail. Response 6 follows naturally from them.

On point 3.

There is a linear relationship between intelligence and effective leadership, but only up to 120 IQ. This association reverses at IQ 120. This is primarily due to the IQ communication gap which prevents effective communication across 2 standard deviations (30 IQ points) of intelligence. This negative effect of high IQ is further compounded by the statistical exclusion of the cognitive elite from intellectually elite professions.

The probability of entering and remaining in an intellectually elite profession such as Physician, Judge, Professor, Scientist, Corporate Executive, etc. increases with IQ to about 133. It then falls about 1/3 by 140. By 150 IQ the probability has fallen by 97%! In other words, a significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded from the population that addresses the biggest problems of our time or who are responsible for assuring the efficient operation of social, scientific, political and economic institutions.

Jordan Peterson's explanation for Jewish success is not only wrong, but, ironically, even if it had been factually based his argument would have proven precisely the opposite of that which he was attempting to demonstrate. The fact that Jews are overrepresented in positions of competence and authority is actually conclusive statistical evidence that their average mean IQ cannot be uniquely and extraordinarily high.

On point 4

The primary and oft-cited source of the "115 mean IQ" claim is the 1957 study by Boris Levinson entitled "The Intelligence of Applicants for Admission to Jewish Day Schools" published in Jewish Social Studies,Vol. 19, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1957), pp. 129-140.

In the study, which reported a 114.88 mean IQ for the 2083 very young students sampled, the author duly noted its intrinsic limitations.

"This study is limited to applicants for Day Schools adhering to the principles of the National Commission for Yeshiva Education. This sampling does not claim to represent the entire Jewish school population or even those children attending yeshiva Day Schools with a different educational emphasis."

The 114.88 mean IQ did not represent the entire U.S. Jewish population in 1956 and therefore cannot possibly represent the entire U.S. Jewish population 61 years later. Furthermore, even if it did correctly represent the entire Jewish Ashkenazi population in the USA then, it would not do so now, due to the fact that what used to be a relatively pure Ashkenazi population is now 44 percent genetically adulterated by the mainstream population due to intermarriage. The current US population of 5,425,000 Jews is now made up of the following genetic groups:
  • 51.6 Ashkenazi
  • 40.6 Half-Ashkenazi, Half-European (Which really means three-quarters European ancestry.)
  • 07.8 Sephardic, Mizrahi, and other backgrounds
Remember, it's not the ethnic identity that magically conveys intelligence on an individual, intelligence is primarily a consequence of the individual's genetic ancestry. Even if individuals in the second category consider themselves to be every bit as Jewish as their immigrant Jewish grandparents in a cultural, ethnic, or religious sense, it is not true from a genetic perspective and the studies on mean Ashkenazi IQ therefore cannot apply to them. I suspect that this is an unintentional focus on identity instead of genetics on Peterson's part, (an ironic one, given his attack on identity politics), and it is a mistake that he makes it twice. Now, given that the 107.5 mean Ashkenazi IQ given by Flynn is at least possibly correct (unlike the false 115 claim which cannot be) and the 102 mean IQ for white Americans, we can reasonably estimate the Half-Ashkenazi mean IQ to be halfway between the two population groups, or 104.8.

Since the non-Ashkenazi Jewish mean IQ can be no higher than 90.5 given the reported average IQ of Israel being 95, this means that the maximum mean IQ of the U.S. Jewish population is 105.1, 3.1 points higher than the mean White IQ of 102 but below the reported mean East Asian-American IQ of 106.

On point 5

Peterson's claim that 40.8 percent of the 145+ IQ population in the USA is Jewish is not merely wrong, it is off by more than an order of magnitude! First, he omits the Asian and Black populations, second, he exaggerates the US Jewish population by 10 percent and fails to account for the fact that 48.4 percent of that population is either part-Ashkenazi or non-Ashkenazi, and third, he again makes the mistake of relying upon identity rather than genetics for the White population. Use of the White, Non-Hispanic population is not correct here, because the White Hispanic population is defined as being genetically white and therefore cannot be excluded from the relevant White population numbers.

With a mean IQ of 105.1 and a population of 5,425,000, the standard distribution curve indicates 21,158 Jews with 145+ IQs in the United States. In addition to this, the mean IQ of 102 for the White population of 246,660,710 indicates 517,987 Whites with 145+ IQs, plus another 31,913 equally high-IQ Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans resident in the United States.

Jews therefore account for 3.7 percent of the 145+ IQ set in the United States, not 40.8 percent of it. Jordan Peterson was off by more than an order of magnitude, his argument is completely incorrect, and his public charges of cowardice and "incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly" appear to be emotional projections of Peterson's own cowardice and incompetent failure.

On point 6

I do not know Jordan Peterson, but his incorrect and deceitful arguments and his unfair, unjustified attacks on his critics show him to be an inept and integrity-challenged coward who lacks commitment to the truth. The combination of his sudden success with his observable intellectual ineptitude suggests that he has been elevated by the mainstream media in order to provide a harmless, toothless, and non-Christian alternative to the failed conservative movement of William F. Buckley and the failed neoconservative movement of Bill Kristol and Ben Shapiro.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

It's probably for the best

No more songs of Ice and Fire for you, at least not this year:
George R.R. Martin is confirming what Game of Thrones fans have increasingly suspected: The long-awaited sixth book in his A Song of Ice and Fire saga, The Winds of Winter, will not be out in 2018 (here are some of the best fan reactions to this news).

The author revealed the decision in a press release announcing a publication date for Fire and Blood, his upcoming history of the Targaryens which has clocked in at a massive 989 pages long.

“No, winter is not coming… not in 2018, at least,” Martin wrote. “You’re going to have to keep waiting for The Winds of Winter. You will, however, be able to return to Westeros this year. I do want to stress… indeed, I want to shout… that Fire and Blood is not a novel. This is not a traditional narrative and was never intended to be… let’s call this one ‘imaginary history’ instead. The essential point being the ‘history’ part. I love reading popular histories myself, and that’s what I was aiming for here … (Though there are enough stories here for twenty novels. Battles, bloodshed, betrayals, love, lust, horror, religious wars, politics, incest, historical revisionism, all the fun stuff) .… As for me, I’m returning once again to The Winds of Winter.”
I can, however, confirm that the full A Sea of Skulls will be released this year. The hardcover will definitely be available for Christmas.


In which I address Jordan Peterson

As you've probably noted, I have remained resolutely silent on the man. Tonight, at about 7:15 EST, I'm doing a Darkstream to address what I believe to be his inherent lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. Tune in via Periscope.

My analysis of the so-called "Jewish question" has been criticized by exactly the people you would expect to criticize it. I responded today with an update, making the mathematical case linking higher IQ to higher Jewish achievement properly:

In summary, his updated case is based on a false premise that is supported by inaccurate numbers which are based on irrelevant and outdated studies that never purported to claim what is being cited. It is the most intellectually shoddy case I have seen any public intellectual attempt to make since Richard Dawkins tried to prove that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual abuse in childhood by citing an apocryphal story about Alfred Hitchcock driving through Switzerland.

Peterson would have done much better to simply state that he is not free to state his opinion on the subject since he lives in Canada and is subject to Canadian anti-speech laws.

Labels: ,

Torn between truth and identity

John Derbyshire is frustrated with geneticist David Reich's one-step-forward, two-steps-back routine in Who We Are and How We Got Here.
It is plain from the evidence, amply presented in this book, that many—perhaps most—of the “mixture” events Prof. Reich urges us to “embrace” in fact involved one group of human males killing off another group’s males and mating with their females.

Does Prof. Reich really expect males from that second group to “embrace” their annihilation?

The last three chapters of Who We Are are marbled with incoherent gibberish like this, punctuated with shamefully gratuitous insults to more honest and brave human-science writers like Wade, Cochran, the late Henry Harpending, and even the great James Watson.

What makes it all very odd is that these preposterosities and insults are interleaved with commendably frank statements about the reality of biological race differences, e.g.

If selection on height and infant head circumference can occur within a couple of thousand years, it seems a bad bet to argue that there cannot be similar average differences in cognitive or behavioral traits.

Reich’s lurching between PC pablum and honest race realism left this reader feeling positively dizzy. Why is the book like this? The most charitable explanation: Prof. Reich believes he needs to do the signaling in order to preserve his funding.
It is more than a bit bizarre, as are Reich's regular digressions into Jewish history, the myth of Jewish intelligence, and various other Jewish minutiae that have literally nothing to do with the science of ancient human DNA that is the nominal topic of the book. Reich is a serious and accomplished scientist, but as Derb points out, he lacks the basic literary competence of science popularizers like Dawkins and Wade, and he is almost astonishingly nasty and unfair to Wade as well as James Watson. That being said, Reich does step firmly, if not fully, away from the blank slate theory and leaves the anti-racist anthropologists without a single scientific leg to stand on. From Chapter 11, The Genomics of Race and Identity:
Beginning in 1972, genetic arguments began to be incorporated into the assertions that anthropologists were making about the lack of substantial biological differences among human populations. In that year, Richard Lewontin published a study of variation in protein types in blood.7 He grouped the populations he analyzed into seven “races”—West Eurasians, Africans, East Asians, South Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians, and indigenous Australians—and found that around 85 percent of variation in the protein types could be accounted for by variation within populations and “races,” and only 15 percent by variation across them. He concluded: “Races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.”

In this way, through the collaboration of anthropologists and geneticists, a consensus was established that there are no differences among human populations that are large enough to support the concept of “biological race.” Lewontin’s results made it clear that for the great majority of traits, human populations overlap to such a degree that it is impossible to identify a single biological trait that distinguishes people in any two groups, which is intuitively what some people think of when they conceive of “biological race.”

But this consensus view of many anthropologists and geneticists has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy that the biological differences among human populations are so modest that they should in practice be ignored—and moreover, because the issues are so fraught, that study of biological differences among populations should be avoided if at all possible. It should come as no surprise, then, that some anthropologists and sociologists see genetic research into differences across populations, even if done in a well-intentioned way, as problematic. They are concerned that work on such differences will be used to validate concepts of race that should be considered discredited. They see this work as located on a slippery slope to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement to sterilize the disabled as biologically defective, and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews.

The concern is so acute that the political scientist Jacqueline Stevens has even suggested that research and even emails discussing biological differences across populations should be banned, and that the United States “should issue a regulation prohibiting its staff or grantees…from publishing in any form—including internal documents and citations to other studies—claims about genetics associated with variables of race, ethnicity, nationality, or any other category of population that is observed or imagined as heritable unless statistically significant disparities between groups exist and description of these will yield clear benefits for public health, as deemed by a standing committee to which these claims must be submitted and authorized.”

But whether we like it or not, there is no stopping the genome revolution. The results that it is producing are making it impossible to maintain the orthodoxy established over the last half century, as they are revealing hard evidence of substantial differences across populations.
It's not a good book. But it is a useful one that may well point the way towards better-written, more intellectually coherent books in the future.


The Rainbow Coalition unravels

We can expect more of this inter-party conflict as whites cease to become the only identity group with influence who can be safely targeted:
California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, the prominent #MeToo activist now under investigation for groping and sexual harassment of former legislative staffers, was reprimanded by former Assembly Speaker John Perez in 2014 for making racially insensitive comments directed toward Asians.

Perez confirmed to POLITICO on Saturday that he had to “strongly admonish” Garcia after she made comments against Asians in a closed-door Assembly Democratic Caucus meeting in 2014 — the same year in which she also acknowledged using homophobic slurs aimed at Perez, the first openly gay speaker of the California State Assembly.

Sources familiar with the incident say Garcia’s anti-Asian remarks came during a legislative battle that arose when Asian-American community activists successfully lobbied to defeat a Democratic proposal to overturn California’s ban on affirmative action in college admissions. They argued that such a move could hurt Asian student admission rates.

Perez in mid-March 2014 announced a move to return the bill to the Senate without any action from the Assembly, effectively blocking its advance. Garcia, the sources said, erupted in anger during a tense meeting of the entire Assembly Democratic caucus.

“This makes me feel like I want to punch the next Asian person I see in the face,” according to sources present at the meeting and other legislative sources who were told about the comments in the immediate aftermath.
It is beginning to look like there will be a Hispanic-Jewish alliance battling the Asians for control of the Democratic Party. Which is why LA Mayor Garcetti, who is the poster boy for that alliance, will be heavily pushed to be the next Democratic candidate for President.


The importance of rhetoric

Thales points out that the social media world is literally engulfed in low-level leftist rhetoric:
Surfing around Instagram, you will find a large number of scantily-clad women travelling the world petting cute little animals, talking about “body positivity” and posing provocatively, generally with the juicy bits only barely covered enough to avoid attracting the attention of the censors. Invariably, every cause spouted by these Instagram ladies is boilerplate Leftism. Save the whales, maybe, or fat is beautiful, or white men are vaguely shitty and probably shouldn’t even exist. Also, Christianity is crap, and Atheism is morally superior to the zombie sky wizard.

Now, we roll our eyes at this and go about our business. Why, after all, should we worry excessively about near-porn fusing with idiotic Leftism?

Truthfully, this is a massive problem. Leftism is seen, even by most Rightists, as the default position. It’s the ‘no thinking required’ setting. If you want to spout some kind of philosophical nonsense to make yourself look smart and cultured while your boob is falling out, you do Leftism. It’s easy rhetoric. Hey look, there’s a man with no fish. Saying “somebody should give him a fish, look he’s starving” is the easy rhetorical answer. Defeating this argument is simple with dialectic, but few people care about dialectic. It’s boring. Nerdy. Too many words. Better to just call somebody a bigot and move on.
The correct way to fight this is through memes. That's why I created the Daily Meme Wars, although to be honest, the memes I create tend to incorporate excessively high rhetoric. But it would be more effective to simply subvert the low-level rhetoric by taking their imagery and repurposing it. This will tend to be even more effective than their incoherent, dishonest rhetoric because, as Aristotle notes, the most effective rhetoric is based on the truth.

One can even engage in destructive meta-rhetoric, by taking their message and attaching it to images that make it clear how absurd and false their rhetoric is.

So, I'm going to be experimenting with lowering the level of the rhetoric and making it more direct to see if that makes it more effective on social media. For example, it doesn't change the message if the background image is a painting of the signing of the Constitution or a girl in an American flag bikini when the words, and the intrinsic truth underlying those words, are the same.

It is not your Country. It is not your Constitution. You have to go back.

The only substantive difference is in the effectiveness of the memes on different people. Some people do react emotionally to images from 1776. But a lot more react emotionally to images of attractive young women.

UPDATE: Here is an example from today's Daily Meme Wars that directly addresses the feminist body-positivity rhetoric.



Tuesday, April 24, 2018

This could be interesting

Or it could be a whole lot of nothing. We'll find out soon enough.

Labels: ,

Back to the balance of power

Russia now has the ability to drown the US coasts:
Russia's new nuclear drone submarine could be capable of causing 300ft-high tsunamis, able to wipe out coastal cities, experts say. The existence of the drone, believed to be the Status-6 system - also known as 'Putin's doomsday machine' - was confirmed by the Russian President himself in his annual state-of-the-nation speech in Moscow last month.

Experts say a 50 megaton underwater nuclear bomb would be able to create tsunami waves reaching more than 320ft - the 'Status-6' is allegedly able to carry a 100 megaton warhead.
Perhaps the neocons should stop trying to throw the US weight around and interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations. On the plus side, the prospect of having both coasts submerged underwater is considerably better than thermonuclear war. Indeed, one could quite credibly argue that the American nation would be better off without either of them.

Labels: ,

Even dead, he's more productive

JRR Tolkien is releasing a new book, The Fall of Gondolin, which sounds right up my alley.
In the latest sad episode of the saga of George R. R. Martin’s next book in the A Song of Ice and Fire series, The Winds of Winter, never being published, legendary deceased author J.R.R. Tolkien has reportedly finished another book before Martin could complete Winds of Winter. Not only is the legendary Lord of the Rings author publishing a new book before Martin, but he’s publishing them at a faster rate in general. Tolkein’s new book, The Fall of Gondolin, which will be published in 2018, follows 2017’s Beren and Lúthien, meaning despite being dead since 1973, Tolkien is somehow able to release books at a rate of one per year, while Martin hasn’t released a new ASOIAF book since 2011’s A Dance With Dragons.

The Fall of Gondolin is billed as the first “real” story of Middle Earth, and tells of the fall of the titular city to dark forces. Edited by Tolkein’s 93-year-old son, Christopher Tolkien, the book was reportedly written while J.R.R. Tolkien was convalescing after the Battle of the Somme. The Guardian, which broke the story, provides a summary of the story:

The book, said publisher HarperCollins, sets the “uttermost evil” of Morgoth against the sea-god Ulmo. Morgoth is trying to discover and destroy the hidden city of Gondolin, while Ulmo is supporting the Noldor, the kindred of the elves who live in the city.

The story follows one of the Noldor, Tuor, who sets out to find Gondolin; during his journey, he experiences what the publisher described as “one of the most arresting moments in the history of Middle-earth”: when Ulmo, the sea-god, rises out of the ocean during a storm.

When Tuor arrives in Gondolin, he becomes a great man and the father of Eärendel, an important character in Tolkien’s The Silmarillion. But Morgoth attacks, with Balrogs, dragons and orcs, and as the city falls, Tuor, his wife Idril and the child Eärendel escape, “looking back from a cleft in the mountains as they flee southward, at the blazing wreckage of their city”.

It might seem shocking that a deceased author could publish two books in his popular fantasy series in just two years, while Martin has taken over 7 years to provide fans with the penultimate chapter of his series and seems unlikely do so before HBO finishes Game of Thrones, the television adaptation that had to chart its own course after lapping Martin. However, it’s worth noting that, being dead, Tolkien needn’t be distracted by things like LiveJournal or WildCards books, so he has a distinct advantage.

Look for The Fall of Gondolin sometime this year. Don’t bother looking for The Winds of Winter. It’s never coming out.
They may well be right. I strongly suspect that George RR Martin simply can't write at the same level as his previous books in the series anymore, and he knows it. Being a gamma, he'd rather not even try than take the risk of trying, failing, and destroying his literary legacy.

That's my current theory, anyhow. And it's totally not based on any concerns about the rest of A Sea of Skulls living up to the first two-thirds....

Labels: ,

The dysgenic city

Freeman Dyson explains why cities, and indirectly, interracial relationships, are inherently dysgenic:
If a small population is inbreeding, the rate of drift of the average measure of any human capability scales with the inverse square root of the population. Big fluctuations of the average happen in isolated villages far more often than in cities. On the average, people in villages are not more capable than people in cities. But if ten million people are divided into a thousand genetically isolated villages, there is a good chance that one lucky village will have a population with outstandingly high average capability, and there is a good chance that an inbreeding population with high average capability produces an occasional bunch of geniuses in a short time. The effect of genetic isolation is even stronger if the population of the village is divided by barriers of rank or caste or religion. Social snobbery can be as effective as geography in keeping people from spreading their genes widely.

A substantial fraction of the population of Europe and the Middle East in the time between 1000 BC and 1800 AD lived in genetically isolated villages, so that genetic drift may have been the most important factor making intellectual revolutions possible. Places where intellectual revolutions happened include, among many others, Jerusalem around 800 BC (the invention of monotheistic religion), Athens around 500 BC (the invention of drama and philosophy and the beginnings of science), Venice around 1300 AD (the invention of modern commerce), Florence around 1600 (the invention of modern science), and Manchester around 1750 (the invention of modern industry).

These places were all villages, with populations of a few tens of thousands, divided into tribes and social classes with even smaller populations. In each case, a small starburst of geniuses emerged from a small inbred population within a few centuries, and changed our ways of thinking irreversibly. These eruptions have many historical causes. Cultural and political accidents may provide unusual opportunities for young geniuses to exploit. But the appearance of a starburst must be to some extent a consequence of genetic drift. The examples that I mentioned all belong to Western cultures. No doubt similar starbursts of genius occurred in other cultures, but I am ignorant of the details of their history.

West’s neglect of villages as agents of change raises an important question. How likely is it that significant numbers of humans will choose to remain in genetically isolated communities in centuries to come?
You know the current situation is becoming entirely unsustainable when both the traditional religious perspective and the secular scientific perspective are increasingly in alignment concerning the pressing need to eliminate big cities.

Ironically, despite the 20th century being known for eugenicism, it may prove to be the biggest experiment in dysgenics that Man will ever know. The Alt-Right is not only scientodific, it is apparently necessary for future human achievement, if not survival.

Labels: , ,

The dangers of Facebook dating

That is clearly the important lesson women should take from this British woman's harrowing ordeal:
A British woman held as a sex slave in Italy and raped repeatedly by three men managed to escape after calling her family for help, police say.

The victim, from the north of England, originally met Mamadou Jallow, a migrant from Burkino Faso, on Facebook and travelled with him to Rosarno, south-west Italy. But when she arrived, Jallow, 37, held her against her will, took away her mobile phone and then raped her repeatedly. Two more men, from Mali, also abused her at the house, it has been claimed.

The victim, 39, was only able to escape when she managed to get access to her phone and made a secret call to her family for help. Eventually she escaped through a window and made her way to safety with the help of police.

Jallow had met the woman though Facebook and travelled to Germany to live with him. But she revealed that he was forced to flee the country after knifing a rival during a drugs dispute and they ended up in Italy, local media reports.
Well, at least she can't say he was boring, right? This is a really irresponsible article, as I think we can all agree that the real danger here is that women might become afraid to date migrants from Burkina Faso. That would be racist and we all know there is nothing worse than that.


Monday, April 23, 2018

Terror attack in Toronto

  1. 9 dead, 16 injured after van strikes pedestrians in Toronto, sources say suspect is Alek Minassian.
  2. Minassian is an Armenian name.
  3. Armenia's opposition leader has demanded a snap parliamentary election in the wake of former Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan's resignation over widespread anti-government demonstrations.
  4. Why was Armenia mentioned recently? Clowns losing control. Q
Which makes me wonder if the Toronto attack could be revenge for Sargsyan being forced from office. Then again, it may be just another case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

Labels: ,

What we're up against

It's hard not to be stirred by the new SJW anthem, THIS IS ME. It hits all the right rhetorical chords. Only if you understand what the composer and lyricist are doing, and what their underlying purpose is, can you grasp the pure and unapologetic evil of the song. It is literally a celebration of sin and an assault on Western civilization.

And yet, most of those who consider themselves firmly anti-SJW will be tempted to deny the possibility of any ill-intent and to defend it, in much the same way they defend Hamilton, Let It Go, and other weapons of cultural mass destruction, despite the fact that the message of hatred, defiance, and opposition is openly declared.

Another round of bullets hits my skin
Well, fire away 'cause today, I won't let the shame sink in
We are bursting through the barricades and
Reaching for the sun (we are warriors)
Yeah, that's what we've become

My first response to hearing the song and seeing the video was to feel the profound and programmed emotional stirring. My second response was to put that emotional effect in intellectual context, and think, kill it with fire. And my third response was to reflect upon how good these evil rhetoricians are, and realize how far we have to go in order to effectively counteract their influence on the mass culture.

Don't be surprised if you find yourself feeling oddly defensive of the song. That defensiveness you are feeling is testimony to the power of the rhetoric. But review the lyrics and analyze the imagery. It is powerful cultural programming, but it loses its power and becomes transparent when viewed through coldly dialectic analytical eye. "Reaching for the sun" indeed.....

Just remember that we're the ones with the guns. We're the side with no reason for shame. We are servants of the King and the defenders of the West. They know they are guilty, they know they are damned, and they are openly flaunting their sin. They are warriors and they are at war with our God, our civilization, our faith, and our nation.

I knew nothing about the lyricist, so I looked him up. Disney, check. Gay, check. Jewish, check. He even admits that "we were tasked with writing an anthemic identity song." Quelle surprise.

Whatever. Their satanic hymns will not save them from the justice of the Almighty God in the end. Deus vult.

Labels: ,

In defense of the Deep State

Even its proponents are now admitting its existence and are worrying that it might have gone too far:
America doesn’t have coups or tanks in the street. But a deep state of sorts exists here and it includes national security bureaucrats who use secretly collected information to shape or curb the actions of elected officials.

Some see these American bureaucrats as a vital check on the law-breaking or authoritarian or otherwise illegitimate tendencies of democratically elected officials. Others decry them as a self-serving authoritarian cabal that illegally and illegitimately undermines democratically elected officials and the policies they were elected to implement.

The truth is that the deep state, which is a real phenomenon, has long been both a threat to democratic politics and a savior of it. The problem is that it is hard to maintain its savior role without also accepting its threatening role. The two go hand in hand, and are difficult to untangle.

The deep state has been blamed for many things since Donald Trump became president, including by the president himself. Trump defenders have used the term promiscuously to include not just intelligence bureaucrats but a broader array of connected players in other administrative bureaucracies, in private industry, and in the media.

But even if we focus narrowly on the intelligence bureaucracies that conduct and use information collected secretly in the homeland, including the FBI, National Security Agency (NSA), and National Security Council, there is significant evidence that the deep state has used secretly collected information opportunistically and illegally to sabotage the president and his senior officials – either as part of a concerted movement or via individuals acting more or less independently.

As deep state officials get a taste for the power that inheres in the selective revelation of such information, and if the leaks are not responded to with severe punishments, it is easy to imagine the tools that brought down Flynn being used in other contexts by national security bureaucrats with different commitments and interests.

Even the most severe critics of Trump should worry about this subtle form of anti-democratic abuse. The big loser in all this will probably be the national security bureaucracy itself and, to the extent it is weakened, the security of the American people.
This is just a Stage One admission. "Yes, it's real, but it's not that bad, and besides, it means well." That means we still have a few stages to go before everyone understands that the Deep State is the Praetorian Guard of New Babel, acting to preserve the secrets and the rule of the the elite Satanist pedophiles.


Right Ho, Jeeves #3

Right Ho, Jeeves #3: Bertie at Bay is now available in Kindle format.

BERTIE AT BAY is the third issue in the RIGHT HO, JEEVES series, which tells of the travails of the inimitable Bertie Wooster, summoned from the comforts of #3A Berkley Mansions, London to Brinkley Manor by his imperious Aunt Dahlia. Love is in the air and Wodehousian shenanigans are afoot, as Wooster's well-meaning attempts to help out his friends sort out their romantic difficulties only leads to one hilarious disaster after another.

Adapted from the classic Wodehouse novel by comics legend Chuck Dixon and drawn by SAVAGE SWORD OF CONAN illustrator Gary Kwapisz, BERTIE AT BAY is issue #3 of 6 in the RIGHT HO, JEEVES series

But that is not all. There is more good news on the Castalia front. Both Hitler in Hell and The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon are now available in paperback editions. The former is 472 pages in our standard demi-octavo size, the latter is 550 pages in royal octavo. Due to our desire to keep them under the $19.99 price point on Amazon and the discount structure required to do that, both books are slightly more expensive on the Castalia Direct Store.

We do our best to keep our prices down and are continuing our efforts in that vein. This sometimes leads to anomalies, such as the $3 comic price and the occasional higher price on the direct store.

Labels: ,

Beyond irreproducibility

As I observed in my most recent Voxiversity, Why the West Needs Christianity, the most serious challenge now facing science is the historical decline in the percentage of scientists who are Christians, and the concomitant decline in the personal and professional ethics of scientists that has inevitably resulted from this demographic change. And this lack of ethics is having a profoundly negative effect on science, including some unanticipated consequences.  In his book Who We Are and How We Got Here, David Reich laments the decreasing willingness of American Indian tribes to permit their DNA to be studied by genetic scientists as a result of bad behavior and broken promises by previous scientists.
Modern genomics offers an unexpected way to recover the past. African Americans—another population that has had its history stolen as its ancestors descend from people kidnapped into slavery from Africa—are at the forefront of trying to use genetics to trace roots. But if individual Native Americans often express a great interest in their genetic history, tribal councils have sometimes been hostile. A common concern is that genetic studies of Native American history are yet another example of Europeans trying to “enlighten” them. Past attempts to do so—for example, by conversion to Christianity or education in Western culture—have led to the dissolution of Native American culture. There is also an awareness that some scientists have studied Native Americans to learn about questions of interest primarily to non–Native Americans, without paying attention to the interests of Native Americans themselves.

One of the first strong responses to genetic studies of Native Americans came from the Karitiana of Amazonia. In 1996, physicians collected blood from the Karitiana, promising participants improved access to health care, which never came. Distressed by this experience, the Karitiana were at the forefront of objections to the inclusion of their samples in an international study of human genetic diversity—the Human Genome Diversity Project—and were instrumental in preventing that entire project from being funded. Ironically, DNA samples from the Karitiana have been used more than those of any other single Native American population in subsequent studies that have analyzed how Native Americans are related to other groups. The Karitiana DNA samples that have been widely studied are not from the disputed set from 1996. Instead, they are from a collection carried out in 1987 in which participants were informed about the goals of the study and told that their involvement was voluntary. However, the Karitiana people’s later experience of exploitation has put a cloud over DNA studies in this population.

Another strong response to genetic research on Native Americans came from the Havasupai, who live in the canyonlands of the U.S. Southwest. Blood from the Havasupai was sampled in 1989 by researchers at Arizona State University who were trying to understand the tribe’s high risk for type 2 diabetes. The participants gave written consent to participate in a “study [of] the causes of behavioral/medical disorders,” and the language of the consent forms gave the researchers latitude to take a very broad view of what the consent meant. The researchers then shared the samples with many other scientists who used them to study topics ranging from schizophrenia to the Havasupai’s prehistory. Representatives of the Havasupai argued that the samples were being used for a purpose different from the one to which its members understood they had agreed—that is, even if the fine print of the forms said one thing, it was clear to them when the samples were collected that the study was supposed to focus on diabetes. This dispute led to a lawsuit, the return of the samples, and an agreement by the university to pay $700,000 in compensation.

The hostility to genetic research has even entered into tribal law. In 2002, the Navajo—who along with many other Native American tribes are by treaty partly politically independent of the United States—passed a Moratorium on Genetic Research, forbidding participation of Navajo tribal members in genetic studies, whether of disease risk factors or population history. A summary of this moratorium can be found in a document prepared by the Navajo Nation, outlining points for university researchers to take into account when considering a research project. The document reads: “Human genome testing is strictly prohibited by the Tribe. Navajos were created by Changing Woman; therefore they know where they came from.”
However, David Reich manages to completely miss the point and fails to learn the obvious lesson of not lying to people and failing to deliver on one's promises.
Scientists interested in studying genetic variation in Native American populations feel frustrated with this situation. I understand something of the devastation that the coming of Europeans and Africans to the Americas wrought on Native American populations, and its effects are also evident everywhere in the data I and my colleagues analyze. But I am not aware of any cases in which research in molecular biology including genetics—a field that has arisen almost entirely since the end of the Second World War—has caused major harm to historically persecuted groups. Of course, there have been well-documented cases of the use of biological material in ways that may not have been appreciated by the people from whom it was taken, not just in Native Americans. For example, the cervical cancer tumor cells of Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman from Baltimore, were distributed after her death, without her consent and without the knowledge of her family, to thousands of laboratories around the world, where they have become a mainstay of cancer research.

But overall there is an argument to be made that modern studies of DNA variation—not just in Native Americans, but also in many other groups including the San of southern Africa, Jews, the Roma of Europe, and tribal or caste groups from South Asia—are a force for good, contributing to the understanding and treatment of disease in these populations, and breaking down fixed ideas of race that have been used to justify discrimination. I wonder if the distrust that has emerged among some Native Americans might be, in the balance, doing Native Americans substantial harm. I wonder whether as a geneticist I have a responsibility to do more than just respect the wishes of those who do not wish to participate in genetic research, but instead should make a respectful but strong case for the value of such research.
Yeah, attempting to justify ethical lapses and avoid the responsibility to obtain consent on the grounds that you're ultimately doing more good than harm isn't exactly convincing when the argument is being presented by a group of godless, amoral individuals who are already known to be corrupt, untrustworthy, and ethically challenged.

Labels: ,

Sunday, April 22, 2018

That explains the lack of investigation

Apparently English paedos are not inclined to interfere with Pakistanis who share their interests:
Social services chief is one of three politicians exposed as paedophiles as Telford child sex grooming scandal grows. County councillor Graham Bould groomed 15-year-old he met at a church group. He chaired Shropshire social services department when abuse in town was rife.

The shocking revelation comes just a week after authorities in the Shropshire town voted to commission an independent inquiry into child abuse after years of inaction. Up to 1,000 children are feared to have been groomed and abused by predominantly Asian paedophile gangs.

Now it has emerged that former county councillor Graham Bould groomed a 15-year-old boy in the early 1980s after meeting him at a church group. The 60-year-old is the third politician to be exposed as a convicted child sex offender in the West Midlands town.
The disclosures are only going to get worse and more serious. These are the third- and fourth-tier predators that they're rounding up now.

Labels: ,

The skinsuits come off

The Hollywood Lawyer who has been playing a Fake Republican for over a decade has finally left the GOP. Of course, (((Jennifer Rubin))) is also a Fake American, so it probably won't be long before she leaves the USA as well. Good riddance on both accounts.
Hours after Paul Ryan announced his retirement last week, President Donald Trump tweeted a photo of the House speaker and the rest of the GOP congressional leadership at dinner together at the White House. All did the traditional Trump-style smiling thumbs-up—a big show of unity to rebut anxiety about the party collapsing.

What Jennifer Rubin saw while looking at that photo: a Republican Party that “has become the caricature the left always said it was—the party of old white men. And that has become more so in the age of Donald Trump, when he is actively courting and stoking white resentment.”

Trump’s use of identity politics, Rubin told me in an interview for the latest episode of POLITICO’s Off Message podcast, “is a dead end for the party. It’s a dead end because it’s immoral and anti-American to base an entire political movement on one racial group, and it’s a dead end because that’s not America and what America is becoming.”

For Rubin, author of the Washington Post’s “Right Turn” blog, it’s been a fast trip from conservative apostle to apostate.

Rubin was hired in late 2010 to be a forceful conservative presence, the counterpart on the right to the Post’s liberal blogger, Greg Sargent. But since Trump’s election, she’s been one of the president’s most strident critics, attacking him multiple times a day as an “arrogant fool” and “flat-out racist.” In the process, she’s becoming a leading voice for a group of conservative intellectuals who don’t fit comfortably in either political party.
Conservatives are so dumb that they actually looked to a Hollywood lawyer from Berkeley as one of their opinion leaders because she told them she was one of them. Talk about controlled opposition! I wonder how long will it be before the Littlest Chickenhawk removes his Republican skinsuit in favor of this Fake Right party?

Labels: ,

The Fake Right is collapsing

And yet, the Alt-Right remains inevitable. Now that it is of no further use to them, the media is finally killing off its cartoon parody of the Right. But the Right is not, and never was, based on races or states, but rather, on nations. The material distinction between nationalism and imperialism is the easiest way to distinguish between true Right and Fake Right. Meanwhile, the genuine nationalists are growing steadily in popularity and influence, and taking over entire nations:
Eight months after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia ended in the death of a counterprotester, the loose collection of disaffected young white men known as the alt-right is in disarray.

The problems have been mounting: lawsuits and arrests, fundraising difficulties, tepid recruitment, widespread infighting, fierce counterprotests and banishment on social media platforms. Taken together, they've exhausted even some of the staunchest members.

One of the movement's biggest groups, the Traditionalist Worker Party, dissolved in March. Andrew Anglin, founder of the Daily Stormer, the largest alt-right website, has gone into hiding, chased by a harassment lawsuit. And Richard Spencer, the alt-right's most public figure, cancelled a college speaking tour and was abandoned by his attorney last month.

"Things have become a lot harder, and we paid a price for what happened in Charlottesville. . . . The question is whether there is going to be a third act," said Spencer, who coined the name of the movement, which rose to prominence during the 2016 presidential campaign, advocates a whites-only ethno-state, and has posted racist, anti-Semitic and misogynistic memes across the internet.
This is why it is vital for nationalists to adhere religiously to the philosophical truth rather than to various dogmas and ideologies. Any departure from the truth and the media will adroitly exploit that gap and use it to discredit and disqualify you. Speak the clear and unvarnished truth and they will fear to even mention your name because there is little they can do to effectively spin what you are saying into something that it observably is not. They really, really, really do not want to permit any discussion of which narrative is closer to the observable truth, because that calls their own veracity and legitimacy into question.

Reject the Fake Right. Reject the neoconservatives. Reject the cuckservatives. Reject the conservatives. They are all fakes. They are all frauds. None of them are able to speak the truth reliably, and that is why the media is always able to successfully exploit the vulnerabilities exposed by their dishonesty.

UPDATE: Yes, in the unlikely event you still take any of them seriously, reject the libertarians, the communists, and while we're at it, the Whigs.

Labels: , ,

The myth of Jewish intelligence

Allow me to demonstrate why it is a bad idea to try to bullshit those who are considerably smarter than you are. We are often told that Jews are the smartest ethnic group in the world and that this explains their current position of cultural and socio-economic dominance in the United States. However, the core claim is observably false, and readily and conclusively disproved.

First, what is the basis for the claim that Jews are highly intelligent?
Researchers who study the Ashkenazim agree that the children of Abraham are on top of the IQ chart. Steven Pinker – who lectured on “Jews, Genes, and Intelligence” in 2007 - says “their average IQ has been measured at 108-115.” Richard Lynn, author of “The Intelligence of American Jews” in 2004, says it is “only” a half-standard higher: 107.5.  Henry Harpending, Jason Hardy, and Gregory Cochran, University of Utah authors of the 2005 research report, “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence,” state that their subjects, “score .75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ of 112-115.” Charles Murray, in his 2007 essay “Jewish Genius,” says “their mean is somewhere in the range of 107-115, with 110 being a plausible compromise.” A Jewish average IQ of 115 is 8 points higher than the generally accepted IQ of their closest rivals—Northeast Asians—and approximately 40% higher than the global average IQ of 79.1 calculated by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in IQ and Global Inequity.
First, you will note the usual definitional switch we've learned to anticipate. A subset - Ashkenazim - is substituted for the full set of Jews. Second, if one takes the trouble to look up and read these studies that are often referenced but never cited, one is immediately struck by the fact that the studies are a) misrepresented, b) old and outdated, c) invariably authored by those with an observable bias, and d) the samples reported are always limited to a very small subset of the subset of the set. For example, the primary source of the "115 IQ" claim appears to be a 1957 study by Boris Levinson entitled "The Intelligence of Applicants for Admission to Jewish Day Schools" published in Jewish Social Studies,Vol. 19, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1957), pp. 129-140.

Right in the study, which reported a 114.88 mean IQ for the 2083 students sampled, the author notes its intrinsic limitations.
This study is limited to applicants for Day Schools adhering to the principles of the National Commission for Yeshiva Education. This sampling does not claim to represent the entire Jewish school population or even those children attending yeshiva Day Schools with a different educational emphasis. 
Levinson further admits that the students sampled only represented 38 percent of the 5494 students attending the 16 Day Schools, raising the possibility that the sampled scores were cherry-picked. Now, are we seriously expected to believe that the mean of a partial subset of a wealthy private school subset of a half-European subset is even remotely representational of the average of the complete population set? This is so utterly absurd on its face that for the logically inclined, it alone should suffice to conclusively refute the claim.

In the study, Levinson refers to a 1956 study by Robert D. North concerning American fourth-graders from 16 independent private school, and noted the following:
Many of these schools select their pupils on the basis of mental ability and achievement. Because these schools charge tuition fees, most of their pupils come from higher socio-economic levels. These children had a mean IQ of 119.3.
Shall we therefore conclude that the average white American is more intelligent than the average Jew because one very small group of elite private-schooled white Americans outperformed another very small group of elite private-schooled Jews? Of course not, that would be nonsensical, right? The samples are not representative, right? There are numerous other statistical idiosyncracies that demonstrate the irrelevance of these post-WWII IQ studies to average population IQs; for example, one study reported that the average IQ of the boys was 112.8 and of the girls was 113.6. If we are to take these particular IQ studies as definitive, then we must conclude that girls are more intelligent than boys, all other subsequent studies and observations to the contrary.

Third, given the average reported Israeli IQ of 95, and the average reported Jordanian IQ of 84, the claim of an average 115 IQ for Ashkenazi Jews would necessarily require all other Jews to have an average IQ of 83.9. This means that even if Ashkenazi Jews did have a mean IQ of 115, then the average Jewish IQ would be 106.7. However, on the basis of the original studies pointing out that the reported IQ scores are not indicative of mean or average Ashkenazi IQ, we can be 100 percent certain that this estimated 106.7 IQ is higher than the real Jewish average.

For example, if Lynn is correct and the Ashkenazi mean is 107.5, then the average Jewish IQ is 103.1. Not bad, certainly, but considerably lower than 115 and an insufficient foundation on which to construct a believable narrative of intellectual superiority and inevitable success.

There are many other reasons to be dubious of the myth of Jewish intelligence. Consider Israel, for example. It is a successful quasi-European society, superior in most respects to the lower-IQ Arab societies surrounding it, but it is no more technologically advanced or socio-economically successful than most Western or East Asian societies, and it remains economically dependent upon regular handouts from Germany and the USA. Even after 70 years, it is not the advanced society that one would expect a uniquely high average IQ society to be. The reason, of course, is that it is not.

Moreover, where was this disproportional high-IQ success in Roman times, in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance? Where was it in the Napoleonic era? Why did it only appear when and where a sufficient degree of societal influence in certain societies had been obtained? And most of all, how did various European countries observably benefit so greatly from reducing their average IQs through the various expulsions?

The good news for those who are interested in the truth is that despite the reproducibility crisis in science, the relentless advancement of scientage means it is no longer possible to utilize dishonest citations of biased studies of limited relevance from 62 years ago to deceive the general public. The advancement of genetic science and the confirmed links between genetics and intelligence will soon scientifically explode this outdated and self-serving myth that has been relentlessly pushed upon the unsuspecting American public along with similar myths such as the Zeroth Amendment, "a nation of immigrants", "the melting pot", and Judeo-Christianity.

Now, it is remotely possible that I am wrong and there is a factual basis to the myth. More likely, however, we will learn that Flynn is too generous and the correct average is below 103. Regardless, the facts of the subject will soon be known and they will be beyond the possibility of reasonable dispute. If I am right, however, you can expect to see the previous link between average IQ and societal success to be played down, just as Ivy League admissions officers are now attempting to play down the importance of test scores and merits in the university admissions process.

Labels: ,

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Inadvertent special edition

We made a minor error and a slightly more serious one on the initial printing of the Rebel Dead Revenge teaser. You can see the former in this photo from a happy Arkhaven supporter. Another Arkhaven supporter shared his thoughts.
The postman took his sweet time, but I am finally able to comment on the second issue of Arkhaven's Dixon/Kwapisz adaptation of Wodehouse, and I continue to be impressed. Margins are better this time out (my only quibble last time, IIRC), coloring remains marvelous (no page 1 credit for the colorist, or is that Gary doing double duty?), Chuck's script hits all the right notes, and Gary's art is absolutely delightful. I think I may prefer Cartoony Gary to Representational Gary - the exaggerated body language is fantastic. There's a meatiness to these comics - I don't sail through them like I used to with a Mark Millar Wolverine (a three-minute read, maybe), and they're worth going back over. And of course - Gold Logo. Can't beat owning a collector's item. Or three.
Now, if you look at the gold logo on RDR in the picture linked above, you can see there is a sliver of the main image in between it and the black border. That is a mistake and we corrected it almost immediately, but 64 copies were sold and shipped before we caught it. The image now on the store, and on Amazon, correctly displays the cover the way it is now.

That initial set also printed with a slightly higher than optimal ink density, which can cause some very slight warping or wrinkling on the interior pages. This has also been fixed. In any event, if you've got one of them, you now have confirmation that you own one of the first 64 copies of Rebel Dead Revenge.


The Storm approaches

It is safe to assume that the arrest of this Trudeau associate and the arrest of Smallville actress Alison Mack are not unrelated.
A former London lawyer who left the legal world more than 30 years ago to become an expert in international humanitarian work with street children has been arrested in Nepal on suspicion of sex crimes against children.

Reports out of Kathmandu say Peter Dalglish, the 60-year-old founder of Street Kids International, was taken into custody last weekend on suspicion of pedophilia.

Dalglish, who has worked with the United Nations on child poverty issues, was arrested at a home about 50 kilometres north of Kathmandu on April 8. Two girls aged 12 and 14 were also found in the home. Authorites said they suspect there may be other children involved.

Dalglish, a graduate of California’s Stanford University, has been operating the Himalayan Community Foundation for two years, helping to educate and support children.

He has been working in Nepal for decades after being drawn to humanitarian work in 1984 during the Ethiopian famine. His journeys made him a leading expert on street kids, child labour and child soldiers — and a subject of admiration in his hometown, London.

In 2002, he became the United Nations adviser on child labour in Nepal while working for a non-government organization called NGO Terre des Hommes. He was also involved with programs to send millions of laptop computers to children in Third World countries.
Remember, we've been told that this thing is much bigger, and the evil is far more widespread, than the average individual is going to be able to easily credit. That, I suspect, is why we've been seeing these arrests taking place on a regular basis, without too much media attention. But if you've noticed, the names, and the names to whom the arrested individuals are connected, just keep getting bigger and more recognizable.
Peter Dalglish appointed to the Order of Canada
January 5, 2017

His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, announced 100 new appointments to the Order of Canada just before the start of the new year.

Peter Dalglish (LLB’83, LLD’08) is among the 75 new Members of the Order (C.M.) to receive one of Canada’s highest honours. Residing in London, Ont., Dalglish was appointed “for his efforts to alleviate child poverty worldwide, notably by establishing and leading Street Kids International.”

Labels: ,

A festive evening and a false alarm

This season has been a difficult one for me so far. Four games (including two friendlies), two starts, no goals. I had a horrible game last week, which was of some concern to me because it's the first time I felt as if I was playing like a fragile old man afraid to go in and win a contested ball. One thing I've noticed with age is that it's harder to play in cold weather and that one tends to become more contact-avoidant for fear of injury. Then again, the last time we played our most recent opponent, one of our defenders snapped the leg of an attacker like a twig with a late tackle, so it could be argued that this is more late-onset wisdom than cowardice. It also doesn't help that I'm now playing at 180 instead of 190, which helps with the speed and endurance, but puts you at a distinct disadvantage when going shoulder-to-shoulder with a 200-pound defender.

Anyhow, I had a distressingly bad game last week. Even when I am overmatched in terms of speed or fitness I can usually keep at least the defensive half of my wing under control, but the left defender and I were completely out of sync and allowed two crosses that led to goals, at least one of which should have never happened. We both stood there, waiting for the other to close on the guy with the ball, and gave him the opening he needed to cross it. In fairness, I probably shouldn't have been playing at that point, as I'd already taken myself out of the game earlier after receiving a hard knee to the thigh that left me limping for three days afterward. But still, I had told the captain I was okay to go back in, so that was entirely on me.

The problem was that the bruise slowed me down just enough to inhibit me from trying to move the ball forward myself, and we had changed our stopper from an attack-minded player to a defensive-minded one, so when I received the ball on the wing, I looked to pass it in to the middle right away rather than pushing it up myself. This would normally have been all right, but with our new stopper, instead of advancing the ball he invariably passed it back to one of the other defenders. More than once, I ended up with the ball again, which meant our attacks were going precisely nowhere.

It was probably one of the worst games I've ever played, and my on-field plus-minus was uncharacteristically negative at net -1, but fortunately we were playing a weak team so we ended up winning 5-3 anyhow. The problem was that our next game was against the second-best team in the league, and one which we have always had to be on our game in order to beat. And, of course, at my age, there is always the looming possibility that one simply can't play anymore.

At practice, I played hard for more than two hours despite the bruised thigh, finished fourth in the team penalty kick competition, and that served to get my mindset back to normal, more or less. However, on game night I knew we were in trouble when two of our three best players showed up but did not suit up due to injury, and was even more alarmed when the captain started me at attacker despite last week's debacle. I like playing up front, but not when both our starting wings are more inclined to push forward and assist the attack than getting back to help out the defense. Sure enough, despite controlling the ball for most of the first 10 minutes, we went down 1-0 on their first serious attack coming from the wing. We produced little in the way of chances, except for a header on a corner that just missed and one cross that I put just inches too deep in front of our other striker. At halftime were down 2-0 on a beautiful free kick that struck the underside of the far corner and banked in. It wasn't even one of their best players taking it either; these guys are really good. Not even Buffon at his best could have saved that one.

I was out for a while, and we went down another goal, but they were starting to wear down a bit, and I went back in on the left wing, which helped us start putting pressure on both wings. I burned the defender on the side once, but my pull-back pass into the box was too fast for our captain to put in the net, although he scored a beautiful goal on the following post-corner chaos. The ball came low and hard, bounced off my shins on the far side, and ricocheted off a defender. As they pushed forward on the clearance, our captain retrieved it, turned, and shot high just as the goalie was moving up, catching him completely off-guard. 3-1.

We kept attacking, but that was all we managed and that's how it ended. It was a good game, all in all, and they deserved to win. We get along with them well despite last season's unfortunate incident, and there were two or three amusing "here, it's your ball - no, really, it's your ball" situations after someone went down and both sides called for a halt in play. It was a festive evening, as Ender's team was playing on our other field and won their game 5-2. It was fun to introduce him afterwards to one of the former pros who plays for the team that beat us, as Ender has a lot of respect for the retired pros and internationals, and they are always pleased to be recognized by the younger generation of players.

So, false alarm on the age front. The former pro and I were talking about the challenges our years pose, as we are of an age, and he figures we can both play until at least 55. My original goal was to make it to 50, but I am happy to revise that in view of his professional opinion.


"Cuck!" they cucked, cuckingly

David French urges conservatives to refrain from going on the offensive against a left-wing professor. It would be unseemly, don't you know.
No, Conservatives Shouldn’t Try to Punish Radical Professors for Offensive Speech

We’re reaching a disturbing point in American discourse where increasingly both sides of the national debate (it’s not the Left that’s driving the firestorm against Jarrar) are looking for ways to justify and rationalize censorship and suppression of offensive views. If the censorship comes through a public employer or government entity, then the Twitterati transforms into a squad of hapless law students, hunting through the results of hasty Google searches to find just the right exceptions to the relevant First Amendment jurisprudence — exceptions that allow for the infamous phrase, “I believe in free speech, but . . .”

If the suppression comes through private employers, then it’s easier to justify. From the left — “Sure, The Atlantic can fire a conservative.” From the right — “Get those damn football players off their knees.” Both sides eagerly obliterate the culture of free speech in the quest to cleanse the marketplace of ideas we don’t like.

But culture drives law, and law drives culture. Every time that we refuse to tolerate offensive expression, we incentivize the culture of crocodile tears. We motivate government officials to expand state power over speech until the silencing exceptions swallow the free-speech rule. California’s recent efforts to compel crisis-pregnancy centers to advertise for free or low-cost abortions represents what happens when the people, to borrow my friend Greg Lukianoff’s excellent phrase, “unlearn liberty.” Periodic conservative efforts to expel radical professors from the academy demonstrate the pernicious effects of a “fight fire with fire” mentality. In both cases, a culture of coercion triumphs and liberty loses.

Here’s an alternative: Leave the trolls alone. Let the radicals rant. Then, rebut the bad speech with better speech, or — sometimes better yet — rebut it with silence. Does anyone really care what Randa Jarrar thinks of Barbara Bush? Or is she now mainly useful as a foil, as clickbait, as the latest pawn in the culture war? I think we know the answer.

If you truly hate the offensive speech in question — if you truly believe it’s hurtful — why share it far and wide? Why amplify the offensive voice? Arguably, the worst rebuke for a troll, the worst punishment for the self-promoting radical, is indifference. I have my own standard for engaging bad ideas — First, I wait. I ask myself: Are these ideas gaining traction? Do they threaten to make a material difference in the marketplace of ideas? If the answer is yes, then I engage. If the answer is no, I let the offensive speech die a natural death.

But killing an idea through censorship? That’s not what free people do.
Actually, it's what people who are not free, but would like to be free, have to do. It's called "reprisal". It's remarkable how these cuckservative idiots are still relying on the same tactics that have uniformly failed for the last 50 years. Why, it's almost as if they want to fail....

Rod Dreher, of course, agrees that nothing should be done. The most important thing when the Left attacks is to not respond, not in kind, and not in any way. Because as long as you keep your eyes shut and pretend it isn't happening, it will eventually stop.
My job here at TAC involves opinion writing. I have been paid for most of my career to state my opinion. Yet no employer of mine — no newspaper, no magazine — would keep me on if I tweeted something as vile as what Jarrar tweeted. It would be devastating to the institutional reputation of these newspapers and magazines. TAC would lose donors left and right, and would take a real hit in terms of its credibility. Any magazine or publication would. I would never abuse the privilege I have. With that privilege comes responsibility.

So, today, I am much less sympathetic to Randa Jarrar than I was when she first spouted off. I still lean towards not firing her. But boy, is she ever a poster child for left-wing academic privilege and arrogance. If the university president fires her for pranking the crisis hotline, I won’t be sorry.
That will show her! Now, I can't help but wonder, do these two gentlemen of principle and champions of free speech also counsel indifference to the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement?

Labels: ,

Friday, April 20, 2018

Re-opening the closed door

How immigrants and their allies conspired to end the national origins system that made America great in the 20th century.
The demographic consequences of ending the open door cannot be known with certainty, since no one can be sure what immigration would have been in the absence of restriction. Demographer Leon Bouvier has estimated that, assuming no restriction and pre-war levels of one million a year for the rest of the century, the American population would have reached 400 million by the year 2000. This would have meant 120 million more American high-consumption lifestyles piled upon the roughly 280 million reported in the census of 2000, making far worse the dismal figures on species extinction, wetland loss, soil erosion, and the accumulation of climate-changing and health-impairing pollutants that are being tallied up as the new century unfolds.

The chief goals of the national origins system, shrinking the incoming numbers and tilting the sources of the immigration stream back toward northern Europe, were less decisively achieved. Numbers entering legally but outside the quotas (“non-quota immigrants,” mostly relatives of those recently arrived and Europeans entering through Latin American and Caribbean countries) surprised policymakers by matching and in time exceeding those governed by quotas. Yet with overall numbers so low, ethnic composition did not agitate the public.

International economic maladies, war, and the new American system of restriction had thus combined to reduce immigration numbers to levels more in line with the long course of American history, and to some observers seemed to have ended the role of immigration as a major force in American life. Apparently the nation would henceforth grow and develop, as Thomas Jefferson had preferred, from natural increase and the cultural assets of its people.

The curbing of the Great Wave created a forty-year breathing space of relatively low immigration, with effects favorable to assimilation. The pressures toward joining the American mainstream did not have to contend with continual massive replenishment of foreigners.

The new immigration system was widely popular, and the immigration committees of Congress quickly became backwaters of minor tinkering or inactivity. The 1930s arrived with vast and chronic unemployment, and the American people wanted nothing from immigration. War in Europe would bring unprecedented refugee issues, but dealing with these — or avoiding them — did not require any rethinking of the basic system for deciding on the few thousand people who would be given immigration papers.

But American immigration policy in the postwar years attracted a small but growing body of opponents. The political core of a coalition pressing for a new, more “liberalized” policy regime was composed of ethnic lobbyists (“professional immigrant-handlers,” Rep. Francis Walter called them) claiming to speak for nationalities migrating prior to the National Origins Act of 1924, the most effective being Jews from central and eastern Europe who were deeply concerned with the rise of fascism and anti-semitism on the continent and eternally interested in haven. Unable by themselves to interest many politicians or the media in the settled issue of America’s immigration law, these groups hoped for new circumstances in which restrictions could be discredited and the old regime of open doors restored. The arrival of the Civil Rights Movement thrust (racial) “discrimination” into the center of national self-examination. The enemy everywhere at the bottom of virtually every national blemish seemed to be Discrimination, the historic, now intolerable subordinating classification of groups on the basis of inherited characteristics. The nation’s national origins-grounded immigration laws could not escape an assault by these reformist passions, and critics of the national origins system found the liberal wing of the Democratic Party receptive to their demand that immigration reform should be a part of the civil rights agenda.

Who would lead, and formulate what alternatives? Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy cautiously stepped out on the issue in the 1950s, sensing that a liberalization stance would gather vital ethnic voting blocs for his long-planned run for the presidency. His work on a refugee bill caught the attention of officials of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, who convinced Kennedy to become an author of a pamphlet on immigration, with the help of an ADL supplied historian, Arthur Mann, and Kennedy’s staff. The result was A Nation of Immigrants, a 1958 bouquet of praise for the contributions of immigrants and a call for an end to the racist, morally embarrassing national origins system. The little book was initially ignored, but its arguments would dominate the emerging debate. The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-semitism, had made a golden alliance. John F. Kennedy was no crusader on immigration (or anything else), but he was an activist young President by 1961, comfortable with immigration reform as part of his agenda, elected on a party platform that pledged elimination of the national origins system.
What comes next? The USA is again on course to reach 400 million imperial subjects sometime between 2043 and 2051, depending upon which UN report you credit. Its population is unlikely to ever reach that size, of course, but it should be apparent that the forty-year breathing space created by the national origins system is the primary reason the empire has not collapsed already.

Barring a mass repatriation program for all post-1965 immigrants and their descendants, which appears extremely unlikely at the moment, the political breakup should begin by the early 2030s. Every empire is destroyed by immigration of one sort or another in the end, but it is the cultural decadence and lack of confidence that permits such immigration to take place that is the true cause of the collapse.

Had American politicians possessed the wisdom to arrest and deport the seditious ethnic lobbyists who agitated for ending the national origins system, the collapse of the empire would not be rapidly approaching. Now the necessary surgery is even more difficult and considerably less politically palatable. So, we can safely conclude that it will not be performed.

Labels: ,

SJWs in SF: Sad Puppy version

Sarah Hoyt laments the ejecting of John Ringo from something called ConCarolinas:
It’s been known for years – as long as I’ve been published in SF/F – that conservatives get invited to be guests of honor at conventions far less often than leftists in SF/F and infinitely less than red-diaper-babies in SF/F, but ConCarolinas seemed like a weird place for a conflagration of snowflakism.

I went over to John Ringo’s page and read about it.  As far as I could tell, a bunch of people on Twitter had been badgering both the con-committee and the other (very leftist) guest about inviting someone who was… what the heck was he?  I don’t know.

In the beginning, the accusation against him was that he was “Puppy Adjacent.”

For those of you wanting to follow this at home, the score card is this: Five years ago, my friend Larry Correia started a movement called Sad Puppies, which was a half joking attempt to get books not of solid leftist bent (not even right wing, just not preachy left) nominated for the Hugo, which used to be one of the most prestigious fan awards in science fiction.

When Larry tired of the game after two years, my friend Brad Torgersen took it over…

It was supposed to be me, but a cancer diagnosis and emergency surgery stopped it.

Brad ran it creditably, suggesting fan-favorites who had never got nominated (over the last decade, the Hugos have become a log-rolling club of leftists.) He got people who’d never before nominated to nominate, increasing the number of people involved by three fold.  And we got practically everyone on our suggestions list on the ballot.  (Ours because I was involved both in planning and defending the guys, as was my friend Kate Paulk and my friend Amanda S. Green.)

Imagine our surprise when we found out that:
  1. We’d promulgated an immutable slate, that had to be voted for in order. We must have managed that by cleverly telling people to read and vote for those they liked, or add others, or whatever, just get involved.
  2. We were against the participation of women, people of color, and people of different gender identification and orientation in science fiction and fantasy. (How we were supposed to divine all that except perhaps women, is beyond me.  And even there, there are gender neutral names.)  The fact that three of us, in the “inner council” were women made no difference.  Since we’re not leftists, we’re obviously not “real women.” Oh, by the way, we also nominated women, people of color, and I think at least one gay person for the Hugo.  That most of those recused themselves had nothing to do with us, and was a function of the attacks by the left, who threatened to destroy careers of those who stayed on the ballot, or promised them they would get nominated by them next.  (On the eve of never, I’ll wager.)
  3. We’d done this to oppress people by being gatekeepers. Note our coalition was one best selling author (Larry Correia), a promising beginner (Brad Torgersen), a midlist author (me), and two indie authors (Kate Paulk and Amanda S. Green).  None of us had or had ever had gatekeeping powers.  In fact, the people who called calumnies against us to Entertainment Weekly (who later retracted) and other national publications were gatekeepers, since everything points to their working for TOR.
Anyway, that was the conflagration called Sad Puppies.  After our nominees were treated horribly at the 2015 Hugos, after leftists bought memberships by the dozen for the express purpose of voting “no award” over people they proudly admitted they’d never read, we thought there was no point.  My friend Kate Paulk, probably the most conciliatory woman in the world, ran it the next year and did everything the left said they wanted done.  They still attacked her.  I and Amanda claimed the right of succession, but never took it, because it was obvious the Hugos were dead, their reputation destroyed and only academics seeking tenure could be interested in them.  The only reason we claimed them was to prevent a few deluded people from trying to ride a movement they had nothing to do with to fame.

So.  This is now three years later.  There have been no Sad Puppies for two years.  And by the way, John Ringo’s extent of involvement in this was to be our friend and to joke about giving Larry and Brad the Don Quixote award.

But he was “puppy adjacent” and the deranged game of post office on the left adduced to him all the things they said we were.  You know the drill: racisss sexisss homophobic.  (They really need to come up with a more sibilant word for that.)
I find this rather fascinating for what it omits. The Baen cum Sad Puppies crowd is in an uncomfortable position not terribly different from that of Never Trump and the cuckservatives. They are accustomed to being the sole opposition to the SJWs in science fiction, and viewing themselves as the proper and respectable opposition, so they really don't know what to do about the Rabid Puppies or the considerably less accommodating opposition that is now represented by Castalia House, Arkhaven, and Dark Legion. Nor do they understand how various trends favor the growth of our influence, in part at their expense.

So, they push a narrative to the public in which we don't exist, even though without us, Sad Puppies would have remained what it was prior to our involvement, a minor bump in the road that didn't even require any suppression outside of the usual routine. This is not to say that what they did was not admirable, and indeed, their construction of the Dragon Awards will likely prove to be more significant in the long run than our demolition of the Hugo Awards. I merely observe that their efforts would have been insufficient in our absence.

But unlike the SJW narrative, the Sad Puppy narrative does not harm us at all. I am content to let them push it in peace; after all, they are not the enemy. Right now, we are marshaling our forces and preparing to engage in offensives on multiple fronts, some of which are known and others which will prove to be unexpected.

Understand that many people are going to become exhausted. Others are going to fall away for one reason or another. Friends will become allies, and allies will become neutrals. All of that is fine. None of that gives us any cause for concern nor should any such transitions be discouraged or criticized. The core remains stronger than ever, and our focus and our efforts remains relentlessly targeted at the enemy.

Let the others trail in our wake at their own pace. As long as they refrain from either attacking us or getting in our way, they are not part of the problem. They are trying to be part of the solution, even if they go about it in different and suboptimal ways.

Speaking of the SJW narrative, the crazy never ends.
I liked The Hobbit. A lot. But while Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books are influential as exercises in world building, as novels they are barely readable. It never seemed to me that Tolkien cared about his story as much as he cared about rendering, in minute detail, the world he built. Why not instead read Ursula K. Le Guin's magnificent (and as beautifully rendered) stories and novels surrounding Earthsea? Le Guin captures the world of Earthsea through a powerful, dark, gorgeous kind of storytelling that is irresistible. Perhaps Le Guin's work—along with an entire universe of fantasy fiction—wouldn't have been possible without Tolkien's influence behind it, but in its time, Le Guin's books are more influential and make for better reading.
—"21 Books You Don’t Have to Read", GQ
Only on Planet SJW are Ursula Le Guin's tedious and tedentious books deemed more influential and better reading than Tolkien's.

Labels: ,

Older Posts