When Michelle as First Lady spoke about 'white flight', that was the most profoundly offensive political utterance I have ever heard. Not holding my breath for an apology, though.
What Mrs. Obama failed to do is explain why white flight happens. I saw it happen in the neighborhood I grew up in. It starts slowly and then it reaches critical mass very quickly like an explosion.
Remember when the left incessantly promoted the idea of "gentrification" throughout the 2010s, claiming that white professionals were driving up rents in low-income "ethnic" neighbourhoods and displacing families whose God-given right it was to live there, even though they'd mostly moved in within the past half century or so?
Well we need a word that means the opposite: the downgrading of previously thriving, if maybe modest, neighbourhoods through the influx of too many migrants in too short a time, with mostly alien values and insular attitudes.
The anti-gentrifiers never wanted to look far enough back to understand what those neighbourhoods had been before becoming dominated by particular ethnic groups. Were those previous inhabitants newcomers themselves or had many of them been there for generations? Were they economically active? Who displaced whom, exactly?
Also, I never understood the complaint that a group of people are evil for making a neighbourhood more livable through enterprise and regeneration and through -- wait for it -- diversification. Suddenly, because of the identity of so-called gentrifiers, diversity becomes bad thing?
I totally agree with Steve: the Racial Reckoning needs a reckoning.
Seriously. He’ll be out with a collection of essays as a counterpoint to Steve titled “Not Noticing” any day now.
For a guy who is a prominent member of the pundit class that claims to just be after good policy that works, it seems to be a massive deficiency to lack curiosity as a deliberate choice.
Matt Yglesias, 2021: "It's kinda weird that deplatforming Trump just like completely worked with no visible downside whatsoever."
The strangest phenomenon is how "smart" people get their opinions from "experts" like Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Noah Smith, Jesse Singal, Nate Silver, etc. Tons of wonk slop without an ounce of insight. Their version of the NBA: "No But Akshually..."
I'm fine with respecting taboos. But if you blindly respect them, other people can use your blindness to get one over on you. So like your request for a apology from Obama. If Yglesias wants the taboo to be respected then there will need to be assurances on behavior so that respecting the taboo cannot be used to disadvantage certain people
I'm for politeness and fairness but some people play a trick to take advantage. They give you a word with a definition, e.g. 'racist'. They do this in say the 1950s and you read the definition and you agree that it is something you don't want to be. Then every year they change the functional definition ever so slightly. Before you know it, the definition moved over your head way far to the other side of you. But you still don't want to be called that name, right? So if now it's racist to enforce laws against violent crime, well, you don't want to be racist do you?
I actually think affirmative action in some form is a good idea. We like to think that all hiring is done at every level as a calculated business decision to maximize corporate profits. That simply isn't true. Most managers are terrible at hiring and very likely to hire the person who is arguably ok for the job and also makes the manager feel most comfortable. So, all things being equal white managers end up over hiring white people and Indian managers end up hiring almost exclusively Indian people.
I'm not sure that is a racial thing so much as the old 'A's hire 'A's who will improve the business, and 'B's hire 'C's who won't outshine them. Most people are 'B's.
Maybe, but given the large number of otherwise undifferentiated C's to hire, one might as well hire someone he can see himself liking, maybe hanging out with. Why hire a C who might make you uncomfortable or have to parse your words carefully or who just seems a little foreign to you?
Yglesias knows which side of his bread is buttered. By no later than 1978 (the Bakke decision) elites had figured out that 'affirmative action' was an excellent way to keep the wrong kind of whites from exploiting their occasional wins in the IQ lottery while at the same time admitting people who would be no competition for their legacy admits. Yglesias is just fine with that situation continuing.
Matt Yglesias in re the Woke: “political correctness” is really nothing more than the basic habit of being polite.
Chamfort in re the Jacobins: “Be my brother—or I’ll kill you.”
Forced egalitarianism through intense social pressure is why Leftists get out of bed in the morning, no matter the time or place.
The difference here is that it was the aristocrats back then who were on the receiving end of the lash whereas in 2025 it's the aristocrats holding the whip, telling you what to say, do and think, because they care so much about the sacred marginalized.
Our liberal clerisy is just instructing us on how we should address their serfs and servants.
Point well taken. But the "sacred marginalized" can not be serfs and servants. They are the hostile elite's Golden Child. It's we who are the serfs and servants, or The Designated Scapegoat.
Political correctness as politeness is pure gaslighting. In fact, political correctness is an expression of mature liberal ideology and functions as a comprehensive enforcement mechanism for conformity to this ideology. The result is a rigidly uniform society that can tolerate no dissent from politically correct orthodoxy, that abolishes any rational politics, and that destroys community and deprives life of any meaningful choices.
Here is an old post that explains the difference between PC and politeness:
My summary: Both politeness and PC are concerned with supporting a social order, but their conceptions of the proper social order are radically different. Politeness aims at supporting a social order that strengthens the community by encouraging cooperation and social harmony. PC, in contrast, supports a social order that is radically individualistic and anti-communitarian by favoring preferences and identities that are disfavored by the community and regarded as inimical and threatening to it. Therefore, instead of PC being a form of politeness, it is instead directly opposed to politeness. We can also see the distinction between politeness and PC in the drastically different consequences that follow from flouting the norms of either: if one is habitually impolite, the worst that might happen is that people might avoid him; if one offends PC orthodoxy, he might lose his job and be the subject of a nationwide two-minutes hate campaign and public humiliation. This is because the former is a cultivated *disposition* while the latter is a coercive *ideology*. PC is not itself polite, as revealed by how those who run afoul of PC orthodoxy are treated with the most disproportionate retaliation.
The virtue signaling is enough to make me throw up. I despise virtue signaling. I prefer honesty. Like blacks are great at football and basketball but terrible at self-government. Look at the empirical evidence. Only a fool or a liar would disagree.
Yep, if you don't want to comment just keep your mouth shut. Also, it is wrong of me to judge someone by their appearance but Hanania just LOOKS like a creep
I might be giving Will Stancil too much credit by including him in that category in the first place but his demeanor is so off-putting; if you asked Republican Central Casting to come up with a better strawman they couldn't
“I have noticed that Black people are significantly overrepresented in the top ranks of professional basketball, and my guess is that you have noticed this as well.”
Nope. Never noticed a thing regarding black overrepresentation in the NBA. Why exactly is this even a topic for discussion? What kind of noticing is this Yglesias doing? Is it a potential thought crime? Best to stay out of Woke DEI jail by avoiding such noticing.
“than other currently particularly tall people like the Dutch and the Dinkas”
Inka Dinka Do, except when they don’t.
“also not surprisingly, Kendi, with his low 1000s SAT score, became America’s dominant intellectual for a few years during the Black Lives Matter era, at least among the seemly and appropriate."
To paraphrase the 60’s band the Association ‘Everyone knows its Kendi’.
"If the former President made an eloquent speech apologizing for how things got out of hand beginning in his second term and peaking in the craziness of the 2020s, then national healing could begin in earnest."
And exactly why would he do this? After all, he didn't get where he is today by backtracking on the shibboleths and pearls of wisdom that made him the beloved and annointed one. And the good whites all love and respect him. To actually backtrack on all that he has done on their behalf would just confuse them. And it wouldn't help with donations and contributions to his presidential library, speakers fees of 8 figures whenever he gives speeches around the world, etc.
“the way the Brooklyn Dodgers prospered from 1947-1956 by taking the lead in hiring black baseball players.”
Except when it came to the WS, when BRK lost to all white NY in the WS (47, 49, 52, and 53) and again with mostly white NY in 56.
In 2025, black representation in MLB hovers around 13%.
I did notice that by the way.
But MLB doesn't have the same popular appeal among the younger generations, so perhaps that's not a strict thought crime per se. Hopefully it just amounts to a misdemeanor, like jaywalking.
Blacks are only 13% of MLB only because Latin-American players, even if part black, or as black as Sammy Sosa, are considered latino, or Hispanic, rather than black
There are also pure white Hispanics (Hispana, refers to the Iberian Peninsula--Portugal and Spain, which for most of their history, was caucasian. As the North African Moors as well as the Arabs and Berbers helped invade, historically they were counted as white). Many Hispanics in MLB today not only can "pass" for being white, uh...they are white. There are more white Hispanics in MLB than there are black Hispanics in MLB. If one wants to "count" the white Hispanics in MLB by saying that that tends to skew the total numbers of whites in MLB, that's another argument.
So actually MLB reached it's peak of total number of black in MLB with around 30-35%, in the 1960- to about 1985. From that point, starting in the late 80's, total number of black Americans started to decline.
BO is too much of a leveler to do what you suggest, and he doesn't give a damn about The Party. Valerie Jarrett and many others might get mad and spill the beans.
Speaking of Kendi's SATs, was the national average for the college-bound (932) you posted really a hundred points lower than his? I could see it maybe for ALL test-takers.
If Obama made a statement like that it would be the end of his place in public life. Blacks would turn on him and point out he isn't like them. He seems fairly forgotten anyway. It reports are correct, he didn't even have enough clout left to get Kamala pushed off the ticket last year.
Yglesias does not belong in America. He does not belong in the West.
One of the striking things is that the disaster that is happening to America, to the West, is actually quite straightforward to fix.
The solution is simply to toss out the toxic minoritarian glop and do the exact opposite of what these establishment loons like Yglesias advocate--on immigration, "racism!", "diversity!", CRT, homosexuals, "you go grrl", marriage, fertility, eugenics, trannies, heck even China and "free trade".
Ok, I can't--quite--blame them for obesity and tattoos, but pretty much everything else really is their fault.
The serious problems the West faces are pretty much entirely the result of this toxic minoritarian, anti-whitism and anti-nationalism that these bastards have been spewing for the past 60 plus--really since the War. We had better ideas and a functional society before and we can have it again. Toss these bastards and their ideologies out and yeah, everyone would get better--much better.
It's sad and frustrating, really. Americans are truculent, intellectually curious tinkerers and investigators, always looking to shake things up. But now our public intellectuals are this genteel, effete class that seems completely incurious about everything. Numerous topics are off limits to any degree of complexity or multi-facetedness: WW2, human biodiversity, "climate change," nationhood and sovereignty. To even state as much puts you outside the Overton frame.
Remember when public intellectuals actually took pride in their iconoclasm? Compare to 2020 when the suggestion of a lab leak of an engineered coronavirus rendered you certifiably KA-RAY-ZEE and we had to kick you off social media after consultation with Nina Jankowicz.
Where did all these apparatchiks come from? What are they doing in my country?
Does it make sense to speak about the statements of a Jew without mentioning his specifically Jewish motivations for pretending not to understand things?
You mean because time is also a dimension (a point I like to make about the misnomer '3d movies' which are actually 4d) or because the pieces are 3d or because current political maneuvers these days are only forward or backwards?
Hah. An obviously intelligent writer such as Yglesias is capable of playing 4D chess, whatever that is. Instead, he posts an essay with this central point: "Crimestop is to my advantage. People who are curious are thus evil."
"Not even 2D" was an allusion to dull, in an Orwellian sense.
A more self-aware pundit would have pressed "Delete" rather than "Publish."
If a Jew is telling the truth about a topic that Jews normally lie about (and where the lie is perceived by most Jews to advance Jewish interests), we can just attribute normal human motivations such as the desire to do one's job well and spread the truth. But when a Jew tries to lie or obfuscate that same topic, and is in a position to know better, it seems likely he is lying for "Jewish reasons", that is, because he believes Jews need to protect themselves by distracting whites from the truth about race.
Well, if we are noticing, we will notice that Jews disproportionately attack HBD, racism, etc. and we shouldn’t be surprised in the aftermath of the Holocaust. But there will be Jewish outliers just like Sowell is a black outlier.
> And what are David Epstein's specifically Jewish motivations for publicly understanding things? <
Are there any? Heck, I'm sure you can find some short guys in the Dinairac Alps as well.
The academic side of anti-HBD "science" whether bio or psych is one of the most Jewish endeavors this side of Talmudic study. Jews have done a tremendous amount of anti-science to denigrate and toss out the actual knowledge Wasps had been building over the previous century and establish HBD ignorance and denial as the establishment narrative. And the anti-white-gentile, anti-nationalist motivations of people from a middle man minority with chronically hostile relations with its host populations aren't exactly rocket science to discern.
I realize it is politically expedient for you to not notice this but that's what it is--anti-noticing.
The very smart people at Harvard don’t seem to remember that the Supreme Court has already told them that discriminating on the basis of race is unconstitutional and yet today they promised to continue to do so. I hope the Feds drop the hammer on them.
Harvard knows that Chief Roberts' police force is very small and never ventures from the Supreme Court grounds. It is up to the Executive Branch to enforce laws. Perhaps Trump will send the 101st Airborne to Cambridge to enforce the Supreme Court ruling.
> The very smart people at Harvard don’t seem to remember that the Supreme Court has already told them that discriminating on the basis of race is unconstitutional and yet today they promised to continue to do so. I hope the Feds drop the hammer on them. <
Despite Steve trotting out "the Constitution", the actual Constitution pretty clearly does *not* prohibit discrimination on the basis of race for private people and entities--like Harvard. It is at least somewhat arguable that the 14th Amendment's "equal protection of the laws" clause does ban it for state (and hence local) government entities--like the University of North Carolina. (Arguable.)
Gorsuch joined the majority in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard (what a clunky ass name) but wrote a separate concurrence that the issue is decided by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bans racial discrimination in federally funded programs. I.e. if Harvard wants to take Uncle Sammy's money, iit has to play by Uncle Sammy's rules.
I'm a natural born republican and in a properly functioning republic the productive and responsible men of the nation should set whatever "rules of the road" best help the nation--the nation's people--to survive, reproduce and thrive. I.e. institutions in a nation ultimate have to conform to the direction of the nation's people,
But it is worth noting that a government that delves into and bosses around private people and institutions in their private affairs--in fact the most basic private interest of association with whom they choose, of "who they are"--is being tyrannical. A core element of the American founding is precisely the ideology of keeping the federal government *out* of busybodying the people. Our founders certainly did not think "the Constitution" banned discriminating in one's private affairs on the basis of race nor anything else. At the time of the Founding pretty most all of the colleges were sectarian and none of them were so silly as to be admitting women.
AnotherDad: So you are saying that Harvard can just deny all black student or job applicants simply because they are black. That’s a pretty far out view of the world.
Matt is the sort of intellectual who proves POL POT DID NOTHING WRONG.
AMEN
Matt could use a Holiday in Cambodia, working those rice patties on a bowl of rice per day.
Would make a man out of him.
… where people dress in black!
When Michelle as First Lady spoke about 'white flight', that was the most profoundly offensive political utterance I have ever heard. Not holding my breath for an apology, though.
What Mrs. Obama failed to do is explain why white flight happens. I saw it happen in the neighborhood I grew up in. It starts slowly and then it reaches critical mass very quickly like an explosion.
White flight is ethnic cleansing, but with the victims bearing the blame
Remember when the left incessantly promoted the idea of "gentrification" throughout the 2010s, claiming that white professionals were driving up rents in low-income "ethnic" neighbourhoods and displacing families whose God-given right it was to live there, even though they'd mostly moved in within the past half century or so?
Well we need a word that means the opposite: the downgrading of previously thriving, if maybe modest, neighbourhoods through the influx of too many migrants in too short a time, with mostly alien values and insular attitudes.
The anti-gentrifiers never wanted to look far enough back to understand what those neighbourhoods had been before becoming dominated by particular ethnic groups. Were those previous inhabitants newcomers themselves or had many of them been there for generations? Were they economically active? Who displaced whom, exactly?
Also, I never understood the complaint that a group of people are evil for making a neighbourhood more livable through enterprise and regeneration and through -- wait for it -- diversification. Suddenly, because of the identity of so-called gentrifiers, diversity becomes bad thing?
I totally agree with Steve: the Racial Reckoning needs a reckoning.
“My job is write about the world without noticing any patterns. Please subscribe to my paid Substack” — Matthew Yglesias
Seriously. He’ll be out with a collection of essays as a counterpoint to Steve titled “Not Noticing” any day now.
For a guy who is a prominent member of the pundit class that claims to just be after good policy that works, it seems to be a massive deficiency to lack curiosity as a deliberate choice.
He's sort of a modern Mr. Magoo.
Matt Yglesias, 2021: "It's kinda weird that deplatforming Trump just like completely worked with no visible downside whatsoever."
The strangest phenomenon is how "smart" people get their opinions from "experts" like Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Noah Smith, Jesse Singal, Nate Silver, etc. Tons of wonk slop without an ounce of insight. Their version of the NBA: "No But Akshually..."
I'm fine with respecting taboos. But if you blindly respect them, other people can use your blindness to get one over on you. So like your request for a apology from Obama. If Yglesias wants the taboo to be respected then there will need to be assurances on behavior so that respecting the taboo cannot be used to disadvantage certain people
I'm for politeness and fairness but some people play a trick to take advantage. They give you a word with a definition, e.g. 'racist'. They do this in say the 1950s and you read the definition and you agree that it is something you don't want to be. Then every year they change the functional definition ever so slightly. Before you know it, the definition moved over your head way far to the other side of you. But you still don't want to be called that name, right? So if now it's racist to enforce laws against violent crime, well, you don't want to be racist do you?
I actually think affirmative action in some form is a good idea. We like to think that all hiring is done at every level as a calculated business decision to maximize corporate profits. That simply isn't true. Most managers are terrible at hiring and very likely to hire the person who is arguably ok for the job and also makes the manager feel most comfortable. So, all things being equal white managers end up over hiring white people and Indian managers end up hiring almost exclusively Indian people.
I'm not sure that is a racial thing so much as the old 'A's hire 'A's who will improve the business, and 'B's hire 'C's who won't outshine them. Most people are 'B's.
Maybe, but given the large number of otherwise undifferentiated C's to hire, one might as well hire someone he can see himself liking, maybe hanging out with. Why hire a C who might make you uncomfortable or have to parse your words carefully or who just seems a little foreign to you?
Yglesias knows which side of his bread is buttered. By no later than 1978 (the Bakke decision) elites had figured out that 'affirmative action' was an excellent way to keep the wrong kind of whites from exploiting their occasional wins in the IQ lottery while at the same time admitting people who would be no competition for their legacy admits. Yglesias is just fine with that situation continuing.
(((elites))) you mean
*Elitists. Bakke was academically elite, but was kept out of medical school by elitists
That's bogus. In fact, the number of Jewish kids that go to Ivy league universities has been collapsing since Bakke.
Unz had a piece on this I believe, about Jewish overrepresentation beyond what IQ would dictate, in the Ivies.
Matt Yglesias in re the Woke: “political correctness” is really nothing more than the basic habit of being polite.
Chamfort in re the Jacobins: “Be my brother—or I’ll kill you.”
Forced egalitarianism through intense social pressure is why Leftists get out of bed in the morning, no matter the time or place.
The difference here is that it was the aristocrats back then who were on the receiving end of the lash whereas in 2025 it's the aristocrats holding the whip, telling you what to say, do and think, because they care so much about the sacred marginalized.
Our liberal clerisy is just instructing us on how we should address their serfs and servants.
Point well taken. But the "sacred marginalized" can not be serfs and servants. They are the hostile elite's Golden Child. It's we who are the serfs and servants, or The Designated Scapegoat.
how bout sacred serfs and servants? lol
i was just waxing lyrical about the sacred victim class, the fetish objects of our liberal ruling class.
but yes, the scapegoats are anyone outside their circle, anyone who objects or dissents or even abstains.
Political correctness as politeness is pure gaslighting. In fact, political correctness is an expression of mature liberal ideology and functions as a comprehensive enforcement mechanism for conformity to this ideology. The result is a rigidly uniform society that can tolerate no dissent from politically correct orthodoxy, that abolishes any rational politics, and that destroys community and deprives life of any meaningful choices.
Here is an old post that explains the difference between PC and politeness:
https://collapsetheblog.typepad.com/blog/2015/07/is-political-correctness-merely-niceness.html
My summary: Both politeness and PC are concerned with supporting a social order, but their conceptions of the proper social order are radically different. Politeness aims at supporting a social order that strengthens the community by encouraging cooperation and social harmony. PC, in contrast, supports a social order that is radically individualistic and anti-communitarian by favoring preferences and identities that are disfavored by the community and regarded as inimical and threatening to it. Therefore, instead of PC being a form of politeness, it is instead directly opposed to politeness. We can also see the distinction between politeness and PC in the drastically different consequences that follow from flouting the norms of either: if one is habitually impolite, the worst that might happen is that people might avoid him; if one offends PC orthodoxy, he might lose his job and be the subject of a nationwide two-minutes hate campaign and public humiliation. This is because the former is a cultivated *disposition* while the latter is a coercive *ideology*. PC is not itself polite, as revealed by how those who run afoul of PC orthodoxy are treated with the most disproportionate retaliation.
Thanks for that, Bruce Charlton is great.
It should surprise no one that Hanania is on Team MattY on this one
https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1911853604140446090
https://substack.com/@birbantum/note/c-108900653
At this point anyone who unironically uses the term "midwit" can be safely ignored as a db
To the surprise of no one.
The virtue signaling is enough to make me throw up. I despise virtue signaling. I prefer honesty. Like blacks are great at football and basketball but terrible at self-government. Look at the empirical evidence. Only a fool or a liar would disagree.
Yep, if you don't want to comment just keep your mouth shut. Also, it is wrong of me to judge someone by their appearance but Hanania just LOOKS like a creep
A lot of intellectuals or wannabe intellectuals are weird.
I might be giving Will Stancil too much credit by including him in that category in the first place but his demeanor is so off-putting; if you asked Republican Central Casting to come up with a better strawman they couldn't
“I have noticed that Black people are significantly overrepresented in the top ranks of professional basketball, and my guess is that you have noticed this as well.”
Nope. Never noticed a thing regarding black overrepresentation in the NBA. Why exactly is this even a topic for discussion? What kind of noticing is this Yglesias doing? Is it a potential thought crime? Best to stay out of Woke DEI jail by avoiding such noticing.
“than other currently particularly tall people like the Dutch and the Dinkas”
Inka Dinka Do, except when they don’t.
“also not surprisingly, Kendi, with his low 1000s SAT score, became America’s dominant intellectual for a few years during the Black Lives Matter era, at least among the seemly and appropriate."
To paraphrase the 60’s band the Association ‘Everyone knows its Kendi’.
"If the former President made an eloquent speech apologizing for how things got out of hand beginning in his second term and peaking in the craziness of the 2020s, then national healing could begin in earnest."
And exactly why would he do this? After all, he didn't get where he is today by backtracking on the shibboleths and pearls of wisdom that made him the beloved and annointed one. And the good whites all love and respect him. To actually backtrack on all that he has done on their behalf would just confuse them. And it wouldn't help with donations and contributions to his presidential library, speakers fees of 8 figures whenever he gives speeches around the world, etc.
“the way the Brooklyn Dodgers prospered from 1947-1956 by taking the lead in hiring black baseball players.”
Except when it came to the WS, when BRK lost to all white NY in the WS (47, 49, 52, and 53) and again with mostly white NY in 56.
In 2025, black representation in MLB hovers around 13%.
I did notice that by the way.
But MLB doesn't have the same popular appeal among the younger generations, so perhaps that's not a strict thought crime per se. Hopefully it just amounts to a misdemeanor, like jaywalking.
Blacks are only 13% of MLB only because Latin-American players, even if part black, or as black as Sammy Sosa, are considered latino, or Hispanic, rather than black
There are also pure white Hispanics (Hispana, refers to the Iberian Peninsula--Portugal and Spain, which for most of their history, was caucasian. As the North African Moors as well as the Arabs and Berbers helped invade, historically they were counted as white). Many Hispanics in MLB today not only can "pass" for being white, uh...they are white. There are more white Hispanics in MLB than there are black Hispanics in MLB. If one wants to "count" the white Hispanics in MLB by saying that that tends to skew the total numbers of whites in MLB, that's another argument.
So actually MLB reached it's peak of total number of black in MLB with around 30-35%, in the 1960- to about 1985. From that point, starting in the late 80's, total number of black Americans started to decline.
Blah, blah
Pot calling kettle.
BO is too much of a leveler to do what you suggest, and he doesn't give a damn about The Party. Valerie Jarrett and many others might get mad and spill the beans.
Speaking of Kendi's SATs, was the national average for the college-bound (932) you posted really a hundred points lower than his? I could see it maybe for ALL test-takers.
If Obama made a statement like that it would be the end of his place in public life. Blacks would turn on him and point out he isn't like them. He seems fairly forgotten anyway. It reports are correct, he didn't even have enough clout left to get Kamala pushed off the ticket last year.
Not many people know about Hitler's secret basketball commando group - Passendunkendribblingrupen.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yglesias does not belong in America. He does not belong in the West.
One of the striking things is that the disaster that is happening to America, to the West, is actually quite straightforward to fix.
The solution is simply to toss out the toxic minoritarian glop and do the exact opposite of what these establishment loons like Yglesias advocate--on immigration, "racism!", "diversity!", CRT, homosexuals, "you go grrl", marriage, fertility, eugenics, trannies, heck even China and "free trade".
Ok, I can't--quite--blame them for obesity and tattoos, but pretty much everything else really is their fault.
The serious problems the West faces are pretty much entirely the result of this toxic minoritarian, anti-whitism and anti-nationalism that these bastards have been spewing for the past 60 plus--really since the War. We had better ideas and a functional society before and we can have it again. Toss these bastards and their ideologies out and yeah, everyone would get better--much better.
It's sad and frustrating, really. Americans are truculent, intellectually curious tinkerers and investigators, always looking to shake things up. But now our public intellectuals are this genteel, effete class that seems completely incurious about everything. Numerous topics are off limits to any degree of complexity or multi-facetedness: WW2, human biodiversity, "climate change," nationhood and sovereignty. To even state as much puts you outside the Overton frame.
Remember when public intellectuals actually took pride in their iconoclasm? Compare to 2020 when the suggestion of a lab leak of an engineered coronavirus rendered you certifiably KA-RAY-ZEE and we had to kick you off social media after consultation with Nina Jankowicz.
Where did all these apparatchiks come from? What are they doing in my country?
Forty years ago R. Emmett Tyrell called it The Culturesmog. It still exists to this day.
Does it make sense to speak about the statements of a Jew without mentioning his specifically Jewish motivations for pretending not to understand things?
And what are David Epstein's specifically Jewish motivations for publicly understanding things?
All will be revealed in due time. Our chess isn't even 4d, it extends to the complex plane.
> Our chess isn't even 4d
At times like this, it seems that 'Slow Boring' chess isn't even 2d.
You mean because time is also a dimension (a point I like to make about the misnomer '3d movies' which are actually 4d) or because the pieces are 3d or because current political maneuvers these days are only forward or backwards?
Hah. An obviously intelligent writer such as Yglesias is capable of playing 4D chess, whatever that is. Instead, he posts an essay with this central point: "Crimestop is to my advantage. People who are curious are thus evil."
"Not even 2D" was an allusion to dull, in an Orwellian sense.
A more self-aware pundit would have pressed "Delete" rather than "Publish."
If a Jew is telling the truth about a topic that Jews normally lie about (and where the lie is perceived by most Jews to advance Jewish interests), we can just attribute normal human motivations such as the desire to do one's job well and spread the truth. But when a Jew tries to lie or obfuscate that same topic, and is in a position to know better, it seems likely he is lying for "Jewish reasons", that is, because he believes Jews need to protect themselves by distracting whites from the truth about race.
Well, if we are noticing, we will notice that Jews disproportionately attack HBD, racism, etc. and we shouldn’t be surprised in the aftermath of the Holocaust. But there will be Jewish outliers just like Sowell is a black outlier.
> And what are David Epstein's specifically Jewish motivations for publicly understanding things? <
Are there any? Heck, I'm sure you can find some short guys in the Dinairac Alps as well.
The academic side of anti-HBD "science" whether bio or psych is one of the most Jewish endeavors this side of Talmudic study. Jews have done a tremendous amount of anti-science to denigrate and toss out the actual knowledge Wasps had been building over the previous century and establish HBD ignorance and denial as the establishment narrative. And the anti-white-gentile, anti-nationalist motivations of people from a middle man minority with chronically hostile relations with its host populations aren't exactly rocket science to discern.
I realize it is politically expedient for you to not notice this but that's what it is--anti-noticing.
As the kids would say: this piece is an absolute banger.
Steve, thank you for yet again having the audacity to notice.
Only by acknowledging reality can all of us learn how to live together.
The very smart people at Harvard don’t seem to remember that the Supreme Court has already told them that discriminating on the basis of race is unconstitutional and yet today they promised to continue to do so. I hope the Feds drop the hammer on them.
Harvard knows that Chief Roberts' police force is very small and never ventures from the Supreme Court grounds. It is up to the Executive Branch to enforce laws. Perhaps Trump will send the 101st Airborne to Cambridge to enforce the Supreme Court ruling.
> The very smart people at Harvard don’t seem to remember that the Supreme Court has already told them that discriminating on the basis of race is unconstitutional and yet today they promised to continue to do so. I hope the Feds drop the hammer on them. <
Despite Steve trotting out "the Constitution", the actual Constitution pretty clearly does *not* prohibit discrimination on the basis of race for private people and entities--like Harvard. It is at least somewhat arguable that the 14th Amendment's "equal protection of the laws" clause does ban it for state (and hence local) government entities--like the University of North Carolina. (Arguable.)
Gorsuch joined the majority in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard (what a clunky ass name) but wrote a separate concurrence that the issue is decided by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bans racial discrimination in federally funded programs. I.e. if Harvard wants to take Uncle Sammy's money, iit has to play by Uncle Sammy's rules.
I'm a natural born republican and in a properly functioning republic the productive and responsible men of the nation should set whatever "rules of the road" best help the nation--the nation's people--to survive, reproduce and thrive. I.e. institutions in a nation ultimate have to conform to the direction of the nation's people,
But it is worth noting that a government that delves into and bosses around private people and institutions in their private affairs--in fact the most basic private interest of association with whom they choose, of "who they are"--is being tyrannical. A core element of the American founding is precisely the ideology of keeping the federal government *out* of busybodying the people. Our founders certainly did not think "the Constitution" banned discriminating in one's private affairs on the basis of race nor anything else. At the time of the Founding pretty most all of the colleges were sectarian and none of them were so silly as to be admitting women.
AnotherDad: So you are saying that Harvard can just deny all black student or job applicants simply because they are black. That’s a pretty far out view of the world.