Open thread….

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

People have bugged me about the “open thread” for a while, so by popular demand, it’s back. It will be to the right indefinitely, though I’ll purge it of old/tardish comments regularly. Please place interesting links/sites, etc. (this includes items of interest to young straight males, *hint*, *hint*).



  1. I’ve started using this personal 
    knowledge management / personal information management software in 
    order to keep notes and projects in a centralized system that’s easily 
    navigable via a nested table of contents, search, bookmarks, and 
    I was looking for something like this for some time. Anybody have any 
    other programs they use for this purpose? 

  2. Wealthy men give women more orgasms 
    This study seems controdicting some previous study like this one. 
    Again, it is about what kind of women are selected for study.  
    Women of high SES background or long-civilization are more likey to produce former findings. 
    Women of working class background or recent tribal society are more likey to favor looks over wealth. 
    In tribal society, muscle and aggression matter since wealth is not protected by law. 
    In civilized society, money can do any thing even go above the law.

  3. The Telegraph has an article indicating that the non-paternity rate in the U.K. is

  4. That’s strange. My previous post was truncated. 
    In any case, the Telegraph has an article reporting on a recent finding that the non-paternity rate is

  5. This post is about neuroendrocrinology & the effects of testosterone on the fusion of skull plates(aromitization) and neuron growth? 
    What are the effects of testosterone on:  
    1)Final Brain Size, after the brain has completed maturity 
    2)Neuron Growth 
    3)Final Skull Size(aromatization of T to estrogen) 
    1)There is research showing that the cerebral cortex of those higher in IQ starts off with a relatively thinner cortex @ 7, thickening slower compared 2 the people lower in IQ, and than thins more rapidly in adolescence. 
    2)The effects of anabolic steroids such as T may increase Brain size? 
    3)There was also some researching showing apotosis(programmed cell death) of T on neurons in vitro.  
    Thanks in advance for answering! :)

  6. “Promoting science “is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient,” Obama said.” 
    We’ll see…

  7. More pap on increasing IQ and large environmental impacts on IQ: 
    Can we increase our intelligence?

  8. Am a student of Linguistics and am looking for any studies linking race with linguistic acquisition and development and patterns in the use of language. 
    Many thanks.

  9. Thought this was pretty cool. Oldest human religious megaliths from the time and place of the beginning of agriculture.

  10. Are IQ tests reliable at this age?

  11. “Are IQ tests reliable at this age?” 
    Not very. Almost certainly this kid (like any other kid with a very high early IQ measurement) will have a lower IQ later on. 
    Most of the articles about this case (and other stories about ‘child prodigies’) show a misunderstanding of what childhood IQ means. Intelligence, as measured by standardised tests, increases fairly steadily up to the age of 16 or so. IQ norms take account of this. A child with an IQ of 150 at age 2 (say) has a performance roughly equivalent to an average child of age 3, but lower than an average child of age 5, let alone an intelligent adult. As the same child grows up, its intellectual performance will improve, but its IQ, measured against norms for its age, will probably decline. All together, shout “regression towards the mean…”

  12. David B, 
    That’s pretty much sums up what I thought too. 
    A few years ago I dated a very bright woman – actually a niece of Isaac Asimov – and she boasted an IQ of 170. However based on conversations with her, I would have estimated her maximum IQ as not more than 135 (sd=15). It later turned out that her IQ was measured at age 9 – so that might account for the discrepancy? 
    What’s the potential fall-off in adult IQ from that measured at age 17?

  13. Artificial ovary matures human eggs 
    Interesting possibilities…

  14. Here is a comment on the comments I’ve read on 
    genome research regarding the Jewish people. 
    1.Many are sincere and really understand the 
    research is not all that accurate. 
    2.The minority of posters are hateful arabs 
    who use this site as a form for their biased 
    and twisted neo-nazi ideology.(how do you  
    allow this as it is offensive to all who are 
    sincerely fascinated by the history of the  
    Jewish peoples. I think there is great envy 
    on the part of the above haters that studies 
    are so concentrated on the Jews. Who would 
    be fascinated by lebanese-Syrian haters? Who 
    cares where they come from? 
    I find them offensive and unscientific and superfluous to any rational discusssion. they 
    have no credibility.By the way, why is every- 
    one so interested in those who may have Jew- 
    ish heritage? I got on this site to learn  
    about Armenians yet I can’t escape from 
    this Jewish obsession. Buzz off!

  15. I just put up a new post that is too long. What magic html do I need to add to get the 
    Read full post…. 
    break to work? Thanks.

  16. emailed u.

  17. Israeli team dates 18,000-year-old pottery in China 
    Garfinkel said Wednesday that the significance of the dating of this 18,000year-old bowl lay in the question of when pottery started. It is generally accepted that Israeli pottery is 8,000 years old, Syrian pottery is 9,000 years old and Japanese pottery – which used to be considered the oldest – is 12,000 years old. But now, it appears that Chinese pottery is even older.

  18. A while back, before the 2008 election, I defended Obama primarily on foreign policy grounds. I’d like to point out that if McCain was in office now, he would be taking political advice on the Iranian situation from Robert Kagan, Max Boot, and John Bolton among other neocons. 
    Here is Robert Kagan’s recent editorial on Iran:Whatever [Obama's] personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government’s efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition’s efforts to prolong the crisis. Kagan is suggesting that Obama openly and actively support the opposition. This is completely idiotic. Association with the United States would only weaken the Iranian opposition. 
    It’s times like these that I’m very happy that Obama, not McCain, won the election.

  19. Some actual wisdom coming from the American Psychological Association regarding the recession’s effect on evolutionarily static gender roles:  
    FatherÂ’s Day: Evolutionary Psychologist Weighs In On EconomyÂ’s Effect On Men

  20. The Clash between Reproductive Physiology and Our Culture 
    As child bearing is postponed to late twenties and into thirties in developed societies, divorce in mid-forties and beyond increases the numbers of still-dependent children affected by it. Can their number be reduced and pain lessened? 
    Obviously, there are myriad reasons for matrimonial fiasco. Statistics – as reported in mass media available to all – show the leading causes to be children, money and sex. Incidentally, all the arguments in this discussion are statistical, not while vs. lack statements. 
    Disagreements concerning children are difficult to resolve: most parents will not compromise on what he/she believes to be best for the child. Money, one can hope, will become less of a problem as more women have satisfying careers. 
    That leaves sex. The purpose of this discussion is to stimulate a general conversation about sex in middle age and on. Our libido is driven by the instinct to preserve the species. Logic would then suggest that when we can no longer have children due to normal biological circumstances, our libido would fall off. 
    Normal physiological facts are that men can father health children till the cows come home, whereas women can no longer have children around age fifty. The incidence of children born with problems starts rising when mothers hit age thirty-seven and increases exponentially in the next three years: one in forty children born to women age forty have DownÂ’s Syndrome. 
    Studies show that some women – and the females of one other species which I canÂ’t remember – “lose interest in their mates” when they have had the number of children they decided they want.  
    In divorces that make the news, for every woman who complains that her husband has lost interest in her, there are several men who say the same of their wives. In middle-aged couples, some of these complaints could be due to the fundamental incompatibility between the reproductive physiology of men and women. Until relatively recently, childbirth created many widowers, wives were much younger than husbands and men died at a much younger age than they do today. All in all, there were fewer couples of the same age reaching middle- and old-age together. So perhaps discrepancy in libido did not develop too often. 
    Our schools do not teach all “the facts of life”. Consequently, husbands and wives do not know why they are becoming estranged, they accuse each other of sins of omission and commission, real and imaginary, wives condemn their husbands to “matrimonial celibacy”, and paradoxically succeed in pushing them into another womanÂ’s arms. The reverse also happens, but more rarely. 
    The end is divorce and distraught children. There are crimeless victims here. Our culture is monogamous and this mind-set is strengthened by words such as “adultery”, “betrayal”, “cheating” and “infidelity”. Yet by middle-age it should be obvious that homo sapiens is not monogamous, and signing a piece of paper will not suddenly change that till death do us part. 
    Nonetheless, monogamy seems the best system we have devised to date for having and raising children, to lessen the possibility of inadvertent incest. Ideally we would have a legal requirement for each person to have children with just one other in a lifetime, no matter the number of marriages. Pie in the sky. 
    There is, then, a clash between our biology and our culture. What can be done to prevent husbands from becoming murderous and wives unhinged as a result of this clash, and in the process, reduce the divorce rate? 
    We cannot change our biology, but we can tweak our culture. For this to happen, we can start by teaching all the facts of human reproductive physiology in high school. If and when the time comes, it would come naturally to couples to separate the purely physical aspect of marriage from affection, companionship, friendship, mutual caring and family life. We should legalize prostitution to lessen the incidence of affairs. In an “open marriage” like this, furtive behavior would become unnecessary and the added attraction of danger would disappear. And if an affair did develop into love, divorce would be more amicable for the sake of the children and the parents, and everyone would move on. 
    Honest education is the key. 
    We have an ancient template for open marriages that we can adapt for our time: “The patriarch, his wife and concubines”. Most probably, the wife aged with the patriarch, while there was a parade of ever-new concubines of child-bearing age. 
    Anyone wishing to publish a meta-study on this topic will find a great deal of data in the files of social workers, ministers, marriage and divorce counselors and lawyers, psychologists and physicians. A call could be put out on the internet for this data in the form of tables showing the proportion of marital problems ascribed to sexual incompatibility in a series of age brackets, and the ration of men to women voicing this complaint in each bracket. No client/patient names would appear on the tables. All contributors would be acknowledged by name, provided they agree. 
    If the data did show a statistically significant difference between the libido of middle-aged men and women, the question would arise as to its evolutionary advantage. The answer is that children with congenital defects died before they could contribute to the survival of the species.

  21. David Shenk is blogging about genetics over at the correspondentsÂ’ area of The Atlantic website. Just fyi.

  22. Is Haloscan searchable in any way?

  23. Here’s a fairly new open-content atlas for cold hard bio facts. Damn great idea. Finding or nailing down facts like these is sometimes easy, sometimes maddening. 
    In August 2008, twenty highly motivated Harvard graduate students and post-docs were given the QBioChallenge – a set of six basic questions in quantitative biology. 
    For example: How many mRNAs are in a yeast cell? (a)~10,000 (b)~100,000 (c)~1,000,000 or (d)~10,000,000 
    After an hour of searching the internet and Harvard’s collection of electronic journals, they got fewer than half of the questions right. Following this frustrating effort they were given a tip: use bioNumbers ( Using bioNumbers they found the answers to most questions and had full references within 10 minutes.

  24. “Wars we know” comments continued here.

  25. New fossils shake up role of Africa in humanoid evolution: here, here, and here.

  26. I watched the new two-hour Darwin biopic by NOVA (a dramatization, not a documentary). Predictably I didn’t learn anything really new, having already read the short autobio and a few letters and other short materials. But it was better than tolerable as art – certainly no cheezey piece of junk – and very interesting as history… for me, rather worthwhile overall. It doesn’t hurt that Emma Darwin, as portrayed, is a very fair sight if you like Virginia Woolfish english looks. 

  27. PPP (purchase power parity)GPD is quite inaccurate. PPP GPD per capita indicates China as very poor. Well, at least, the quality of Chinese janiter life style is not bad even though he has a low end of blue collar job.

  28. I apologize for moving your conversation off topic. But as someone who follows HBD I have concerns over a certain “HBD” blogger. I would like to share my thoughts with GNXP commenters for their opinion. 
    A Mr. “Richard Hoste” has been representing himself as a graduate student in anthropology. He writes for a number of webzines such as Takimag, The Occidental Quarterly, and the Occidental Observer. He also claims to have a scientific background in anthropology. 
    According to his Takimag profile: 
    About the Author 
    Richard Hoste is a graduate student in anthropology. He blogs at HBD Books.  
    I have read this individual’s blog. His blog entries do not demonstrate any scientific knowledge beyond what he has read in “Pop-Sci” books such as 10000 Year Explosion and similar.  
    Could someone confirm if this individual is truthfully a graduate anthropology student or if he lies about his academic background? 
    If he is an anthro student I have no problem. 
    But I am very doubtful he is genuine.

  29. observer, why do you care? ignore him. and there’s a wide variance among those in anthropology graduate school. if you’re a white nationalist, read white nationalist weblogs. you’re not, don’t. unless you have an anthropological interest in that sort of thing.

  30. ignore him. 
    The problem is he is giving other HBD bloggers who are serious a bad name by associating with HBD (even though he appears to be a typical WN crank.) 
    It might be prudent for websites such as GNXP to think about distancing themselves from him in order to avoid confusion. 
    But this is your website so I will obey your wishes and not bring the subject up here again.

  31. If Hoste claims to be an “authority” in both anthropology and HBD then he will cause damage to sociobiology. 
    That was my concern.

  32. observer, there’s no point engaging with the netnazisphere, or refuting it. that’s been tried before, and all it does is attract netnazis to the blog like flies to shit. if you see us linking to netnazis feel free to email me (perhaps we don’t know the background?), it is a standing policy to exclude netnazis from this weblog. they’re one reason i turned on moderation. 
    in any case, as for giving “HBD a bad name,” it turns out that a lot of netnazis and their fellow travelers really dig this stuff. not because they’re really interested in science, but they perceive the science as serving their interests (which explains their general sloppiness in regards to the science, as the details are irrelevant, they know their conclusions). unless you police comments the same set of semi-sentient netnazis and fellow travelers will crop up and infest forums. you know who i’m talking about, i don’t read the “HBD blogs” unless there’s a link coming in (excluding steve and inductivist) but it’s clear the same people read all the blogs and parrot the info they find in them (though sometimes i do take notes as to who to ban and keep a close eye on). 
    if you want to forward the spread of knowledge unhooked to ideological blinders, do it in your private life through research, communication, etc. or start a blog where you can put your own thoughts up. or make yourself known in comment forms. though i would write off any forum where the netnazis feel comfortable, as you’ll never be able to dislodge them unless the mods want to clean house. the combination of stupidity and perception that one has access to secret knowledge makes a lot of the comments of HBD related blogs pretty depressing.

  33. “If Hoste claims to be an “authority” in both anthropology and HBD then he will cause damage to sociobiology.” 
    I’m not sure that Hoste is making claims to being an authority. I thought his blog began quite well when it was solely focussed on book reviews and interviews (interviewees included the likes of Richard Lynn & Richard Nisbett).

  34. if you see us linking to netnazis feel free to email me 
    A lot of folks (myself included) would definitely put La Griffe du Lion in that category. Of course, it’s your blog, so I guess “a lot of folks” (myself included) can just – how do you say – “suck it”.

  35. I forget if you reacted to that Sharon Begley article pooh-poohing sociobiology, or just left it to Steve. Anyway, she recently wrote that Neandertals lost out to modern homo sapiens because of bad luck.

  36. Ha ha. This is the new high water mark in left-creationism. Quick, someone alert PZ Meyers. He’ll probably want to do an all-week seven-post special series. Unfortunately for these folks’ fellow travelers, this is going to be virtually impossible to top.

  37. I think you’re pretty alone in seeing La Griffe that way. He’s added a couple of pretty mild editorial comments to what was more than 99% objective investigation. If he’s really snarked at anyone, it’s the French. I don’t really know why it’s fun to slam the French, but it sort of is. Their intellectual output (minus literature) over the last century and particularly the last 50 years was almost all pretty contemptible, but so was everyone else’s.  
    Well, here it is. Unlike the Germans and “us” Anglos (I’m not really ethnically english myself), they seem to really enjoy things — which creates envy.

  38. razib, 
    An excellent policy, I must say. But do you have a definition of “netnazi?” For many, including myself, it includes only Jew-haters (and all Jew-haters).  
    I haven’t seen Hoste hating on the Jews – at least, not any more than Sailer. At most he submits to publications that publish Jew-haters, which I must say is a rather McCarthyist way of defining “netnazi.” Thus I rather hate to see this thread staining his rep, if only by association. 
    Of course, if you mean “everyone to the right of John McCain,” that is your semantic prerogative as well. Keep in mind, though, that by this definition just about everyone 100 years ago was a “netnazi,” albeit without the “net.”  
    Also, to have a principled policy of not associating with white nationalists (of the non-Judeophobic variety), you need a principled policy of not associating with black nationalists as well, which means you can’t link to Harvard or the NYT. Which would be a little silly, n’est ce pas?  
    Of course, there are excellent practical reasons not to associate with white nationalists, racists, etc. It is just hard to derive them from any abstract principle, which may or not be a concern. What makes the Jew-haters different, at least for me, is that they are genuinely paranoid – ie, afraid of a conspiracy that does not exist. If there is a line, I feel it should be the line between sanity and insanity. If you find white nationalism insane, so be it – I certainly don’t find it sensible. But it is hard to find white nationalism insane without also finding other forms of ethnic nationalism insane, and that quickly gets you into calling many entire populations insane…

  39. I think I’ll have to side with Dylan Hales (and implicitly Jesse Walker) on black nationalism. Nationalism may have been a leftist ideology back in the days when republicanism was as well, but now it’s reactionary. The NYT and Harvard are establishment liberal institutions, and can be relied on to marginalize black nationalism in favor of multicultural managerial liberalism. That’s why Martin Luther King has received a secular beatification and Malcolm X is at best appreciated for his “road to Damascus” moment after Mecca when he adopted a more universalist islam. Within the black community Africanist ideology & islam are the acceptable forms of pronomian culture exempt from charges of “acting white”. Not completely exempt from antipathy, though: Randall Collins writes in “Violence” of repeated attacks on girls in headscarves in black schools as punishment for (correctly) thinking they’re better than their thoroughly lumpen peers. 
    It’s not helpful to draw a line on “insanity” when the concept itself is so dubious (I’ll refrain from quoting Szasz for now). It doesn’t take a whole lot to convert your writings into rather standard anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Rather than saying what’s sane and insane, I’ll just note that politics is the mind-killer and promote the mantra of Hopefully Anonymous.

  40. TGGP, 
    Sorry, but nothing corrupt, criminal or mendacious can be described as reactionary. I agree that the institutional structure of the permanent revolution is an unlovely and sclerotic beast, having lost its supple sable youth (I too once much enjoyed “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” whoever wrote it and whatever its percentage of truth), but you are simply describing the lifecycle of leftism.  
    You might as well describe Brezhnev’s Russia as “reactionary.” It is simply making an insult of the term. The English language already contains quite enough political insults, especially as directed toward the right. 
    The gap between “responsible” and “irresponsible” black nationalism is a complete invention. If you actually read MLK’s speeches (not the speeches he wrote, but those he read, for he was merely a political reality-show actor – his speeches were written by his Communist handlers) what he’s saying is: I deplore violence. Give me money, or I’ll have to burn your cities down.  
    Arguing eloquently against violence, as so many of these terrorist front groups in 20th-century history do, is simply a way to imply and thus enable a violent fringe. When you argue, you must be arguing with someone. What we are looking at here in the Great Leader is simply the normal tactics of 20th-century criminal government, spread with a rich layer of personality cult. 
    The result of the entire movement: massive permanent money drain, cities made uninhabitable by ideologically-motivated crime, complete moral degradation of the majority of the population. All this was well known to the movement’s opposition at the time, who are now derided by all and sundry. (Razib, have you ever read Carleton Putnam? I’ll bet you $10 that if you read Carleton Putnam, you’ll change your mind about Carleton Putnam.) 
    If I’m responsible for everything that can be done to my posts with a search-and-replace, I’m responsible for everything indeed! Just call me the universal thought-criminal.

  41. What makes the Jew-haters different, at least for me, is that they are genuinely paranoid – ie, afraid of a conspiracy that does not exist. 
    There are anti-Semitic WNs who aren’t paranoid (at least about Jews anyway) and don’t believe in/aren’t afraid of some kind of Jewish conspiracy.

  42. Sorry for any repeat posts.

  43. (This is the post that wasn’t going through) 
    That’s certainly true.  
    Not all antisemites are crazy. 
    Unfortunately, the sane ones tend to be bald faced liars and fifth rate snake oil salesmen:  
    3. In sum, the passage offers not a shred of evidence that, as MacDonald 
    would have it, “Jewish males enjoyed disproportionate sexual access to 
    gentile females.” It offers evidence only that not even David Irving is 
    exempted from Kevin MacDonald’s capricious misuse of his sources, and, in 
    conjunction with that, that whatever the aspirations that motivate 
    MacDonald’s writings about Jews, the production of sound research that 
    deserves to win acceptance within the scholarly community is not among 

  44. fyi, not following this discussion really. you guys are free to talk about WNism or whatever, but it’s about as interesting to me as a discussion about dungeons & dragons.

  45. It’s interesting to see how easy (and prudent) it is to fear the political implications of HBD. If HBD is an evil lie, as the government requires everyone to believe, “affirmative action” is one thing. If HBD is true, it is quite another. 
    Not that I give a rat’s ass about “affirmative action.” By the standards of 20th-century criminal government, it is not really all that criminal. The sad thing is that, if you are unwilling to examine the political consequences of HBD, there is no way to get past the mere present and understand the historical consequences. 
    The consequence of this kind of thinking is that the bandwagon of the public intellectual goes in one direction, and reality goes in another. Very reminiscent of the late Roman Empire – at least if Peter Frost is right.

    That’s certainly true. 
    Not all antisemites are crazy. 
    Unfortunately, the sane ones tend to be bald faced liars and fifth rate snake oil salesmen:
    Well you’re just basically saying that they’re all crazy. Also, those people in your links actually do believe in some sort of conspiracy and are paranoid to a certain extent. Anyway, I was talking about WNs who are anti-Semitic and don’t believe in a conspiracy/aren’t paranoid. They dislike Jews just as they dislike everybody else. 
    but it’s about as interesting to me as a discussion about dungeons & dragons. 
    This is funny because it seems that a lot of WNs view the world as a real life version of D&D, with themselves as knights or something.

  47. Observer, 
    I recall a commenter over at Half Sigma’s asked Hoste of HBD Books about whether he was really a student or not. Hoste never answered and just left the thread.

  48. Sorry, but nothing corrupt, criminal or mendacious can be described as reactionary. 
    That’s odd, before you explicitly rejected Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s “Right is right and left is wrong” formula in arguing that Hitler belongs on the right (and he was certainly no Burkean conservative, so in your formulation a reactionary). I don’t object when righties place nazism/fascism on the left because I don’t regard left/right as all that meaningful. Batista was regarded as an upstart thug by middle class Cubans, part of why I thought he actually served as a counter-example to your caste-politics narrative. With the dominance of Universalim in America, reactionary dictatorships are only found in the third world, where they tend to be quite corrupt, criminal and mendacious (which is still a hell of a lot better than communist). Though, really, that describes pretty much every government to have ever existed, putting reactionary governance in the same category as unicorns and sober Irishmen. 
    You might as well describe Brezhnev’s Russia as “reactionary.” It is simply making an insult of the term. 
    You yourself called Deng a great reactionary, and I reacted by saying it was absurd to say that of someone who willingly joined the communist party long before it was in power. Why just one communist rather than the other? 
    This is funny because it seems that a lot of WNs view the world as a real life version of D&D, with themselves as knights or something. 
    That reminds me of a hilarious cartoon I saw a commenter at Majority Rights put up. It said “Be a white warrior!” and featured a knight fighting a jew-dragon. Either the image itself or the commenter said victory is assured because they’re white (maybe another cartoon explains why the haven’t won already, perhaps with reference to false consciousness). Murray Rothbard said something similar, but I don’t think he actually believed it. 
    If you want an anti-semitic blog to read, check out n/a’s race/history/evolution notes (abbreviated as “racehist”, perhaps punningly). “White nationalism” is too universalist for him, nordics only! He’s an asshole (I first heard of him when he gave me an award for idiocy and he refers to Auster & Mangan’s behavior he doesn’t approve of as “faggotry”) but from my perspective bested Peter Frost & Guy White intellectually. He should be proud as a special olympics winner. Far superior to tanstaafl’s Age of Treason (which Mencius promoted before). I think he might be a grad student based on his frequent citations to academic literature, but Jason Malloy is similar in that respect.

  49. TGGP, 
    I agree that the Mafia state is more right-wing than government by Kumbaya, because it relies on a strict if informal command hierarchy. It’s just not right-wing enough. I just don’t think the Mafia (or Hitler) gets all the way to “reactionary.”  
    “Reactionary” was a curse-word for the Nazis – check out the Horst Wessel Song. “Reactionaries and the Red Front.” By the former is meant figures like Fritz Reck-Malleczewen, Ernst von Salomon, and in general the whole Tom Cruise Junker crowd. 
    There’s a goddamn big difference between Deng and Brezhnev. Brezhnev was a buffoon. Deng was a genius. 
    I know I should read the Jew-haters, but they hate me so compulsively that I always find better things to do. I prefer dead Jew-haters, like Henry Adams – many of whose letters read like Julius Streicher woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I exaggerate. Slightly.

  50. “check out n/a’s race/history/evolution notes (abbreviated as “racehist”, perhaps punningly). “White nationalism” is too universalist for him, nordics only” 
    That sounds similar to the view of Richard McCulloch who sees nordics as particularly endangered. He doesn’t associate with anti-semites though.

  51. If you want an anti-semitic blog to read, check out n/a’s race/history/evolution notes (abbreviated as “racehist”, perhaps punningly). 
    That blog has some decent posts. And you’re right that he has bested Frost and Guy White intellectually before. He’s also provided useful fact checks and made some good criticisms of Mencius Moldbug. 
    Though he does seem to have an obsession with trying to refute one aspect of the Rushtonian racial pattern/continuum, namely the penis size differential between blacks and whites. He frequently argues at his own blog and at others that white average penis size is larger than that of blacks. Make of it what you will, I guess.

  52. It’s just not right-wing enough 
    And existing communism wasn’t left-wing enough. 
    Horst Wessel Lied was cited by one of your commenters a while back who was arguing that the Nazis were progressive. For some values of “progressive” I’d say he’s right, but like I said I don’t find it that meaningful. I think by “reaction” they actually meant the Weimar authorities. Not too many brownshirts were killed by aristocrats in the streets. 
    Brezhnev was a buffoon. Deng was a genius. 
    Right is right and left is wrong, eh? There are no reactionary buffoons or progressive geniuses. 
    A site that might be more to your liking is The Last Ditch, which more gingerly steps over the line (and is also more “literary” than n/a) of acceptable paleo discourse. The contributor who seems to have the jew-thing is Stephen Sniegoski, who I think could have been a reasonably successful historian otherwise. He’s also contributed to the Occidental Quarterly, which I didn’t realize had a blog until Cowen & Sailer linked to it. A while back I said I’d read MacDonald after I read Slezkine, but now I’ve got his trilogy on pdf which the outside view suggests means I’ll never get around to reading them. Supposedly the earlier entries weren’t as anti-semitic as the later ones, and MacDonald acknowledged that his perspective changed over the course of writing them.

  53. Mencius, 
    It’s just not right-wing enough. I just don’t think the Mafia (or Hitler) gets all the way to “reactionary.” 
    Can you provide some real world examples of “reactionary”? As contemporary as possible (I know you love history). Or is this just a “No True Scotsman” argument? 
    “Reactionary” was a curse-word for the Nazis 
    Well, “reactionary” in this case was the old German aristocracy – an aristocracy the Nazis wished to replace with their own vision of a military/technocratic elite. So to what extent is the Nazi hostility towards the reactionaries informed by substantive ideological opposition, rather than simply wanting to rule, be on top, take over, win, etc.?  
    The Nazis wanted a socially conservative, hierarchical, technocratic, orderly, pagan, sexist, nationalist, racially pure, anti-communist, non-capitalist and anti-Semitic society. The “reactionary” old German aristocrats weren’t technocratic nor pagan. They were capitalist to a certain extent, but certainly weren’t a bunch of libertarian free marketeers, and they would’ve sympathized with the Nazis’ social/cultural anti-capitalism. And the reactionaries may have been less fervently nationalist (they would probably say “patriotic” or something), racialist, anti-Semitic, etc. How different were they really, in form? And even on substance, were they that different, or was it mostly a difference of degree and ardor? 
    If they wanted to take the “reactionary” order and maintain the form, more or less, while intensifying some of its substance, what exactly makes it fall short of “reactionary”?

  54. Brezhnev was a buffoon. Deng was a genius. 
    Wasn’t the major difference between the two political circumstance and expediency, rather than genius or talent? 
    Was Deng that great? Are the mandarins running the show right now that great?  
    Mencius, I know you have a generally favorable view of the Chinese regime and its political form, but I wonder if you’ve considered more skeptical views.  
    Gordon Tullock, one of the founders of public choice theory and someone with whom you might have some intellectual common ground (Tullock said that after reading von Mises’s Human Action in his spare time, he later found himself better trained than his contemporaries with Econ PhD’s), is more skeptical of the contemporary regime. He’s also somewhat critical of the idea that the mandarins were historically successful at maintaining stability and order (two of your paramount concerns).

  55. There are plenty of progressive geniuses. There are few reactionary buffoons, because all the buffoons are progressive these days. In other, better, ages, you will find no shortage of them.  
    This is a unique benefit enjoyed by reactionaries alone. Furthermore, there are almost no living reactionary intellectuals. This scholarly niche is entirely virgin – and not at all small. No grants, however, are available! 
    Reaction is the reconstruction or restoration of the civilized mind, through political power, from any form of progressive or revolutionary degradation. In order to be a great reactionary leader, you have to have made your subjects more sane through the exercise of force – probably through the drastic, but effective, method of curing them entirely of politics. 
    The quality of reaction is measured by (a) the number of brainworms removed, and (b) the number of brainworms introduced. For true reaction, (a) is very high, (b) is very low. 
    Augustus succeeds under this metric. So does Lee Kuan Yew. So does Deng – consider the starting position. Both men were of course Communists in their youth – the Singaporean ruling party is still named the “People’s Action Party.” Similarly, Caesar, whose plan Augustus more or less carried out, was a figure of the populares. Reaction is more often a result of this process than of straight-out counterrevolution, Sulla style. 
    Reaction is rare in our period, but the true feeling of it is conveyed by this Foreign Service Officer’s memoir. Search for Raja’iyah. You may compare the tone to Daniel Defoe’s Shortest-Way With the Dissenters

  56. Waggoner, 
    Well you’re just basically saying that they’re all crazy. 
    Not at all.  
    In order to lie well, you have to be sane enough to have a decent understanding of what is true. If you are too delusional to grasp basic facts then you can’t distort the truth as convincingly. Most compulsive liars (such as Kevin MacDonald) are reasonably rational.  
    If you want an anti-semitic blog to read, check out n/a’s race/history/evolution notes (abbreviated as “racehist”, perhaps punningly). “White nationalism” is too universalist for him, nordics only! 
    Why does he only favor Nordics? Does Mr. N/A have some sort of axe to grind with Spaniards and Sicilians?

  57. Not at all. 
    In order to lie well, you have to be sane enough to have a decent understanding of what is true. If you are too delusional to grasp basic facts then you can’t distort the truth as convincingly.
    Well, that’s what I meant. They’re all crazy, mendacious, mean, evil, etc. 
    Most compulsive liars (such as Kevin MacDonald) are reasonably rational.  
    I don’t really want to have a debate about MacDonald. It’s an emotional and visceral subject for many people. 
    I don’t really agree with MacDonald’s major claims, but I do think he has some interesting things to say. It’d be unfair and hyperbolic to call him a “compulsive liar.”

  58. macdonald is now an activist. if you would call him a compulsive liar, then you’d have to call all activists compulsive liars, right? if you judged him purely as a scholar casting such an aspersion might be appropriate, but i don’t think one could call him an objective scholar anymore, as he was claiming circa 2000 when he came onto the scene testifying at the irving trial. he’s a race man, just like black studies professors are (or, to be frank, jews who get interested in jewish studies, muslims who get interested in muslim studies, etc.).

  59. There are few reactionary buffoons, because all the buffoons are progressive these days. 
    A change apparently from the time when Mill said not all conservatives were stupid, but all stupid men were conservative. Plenty of modern righties echo him today with their reference to “the Stupid Party”. I think you’ll agree that the netnazis are buffoonish. You’re now saying that Nazism is not reactionary, but are you now saying its progressive? 
    you have to have made your subjects more sane 
    I’m with Converse: the general public does not have any ideology and cannot be taught one. A responsible ruler is like a responsible farmer: he tries to avoid situations in which the animals’ stupidity can do much harm rather than trying to improve them. 
    through the exercise of force 
    And what is the Brezhnev doctrine other than force assuring that politics be restricted to the top? 
    Both men were of course Communists in their youth 
    No. The PAP members were middle-class bourgeois educated in Britain. They were badly defeated by the Worker’s Party in their first election. The Malayan Communist Party was banned but had many working-class Chinese supporters, so they formed a marriage of convenience with the PAP with a common platform of independence from Britain. After Singapore attained independence and the PAP gained power, Lee sought to join Singapore to the anti-communist government of Malaysia and suppressed the communists in Operation Cold Store. 
    consider the starting position 
    Singapore has good policies, but they had them before Lee came on the scene when they were a British colony, making him more of a conservative than reactionary. Lee acknowledged that colonial Hong Kong actually was better run than independent Singapore was, and could only justify his alliance with communists for independence based on nationalism. Given their nationalism it should be no more surprising they used the word “People’s” than that the Nazis went on about “Volk”. Hell, the Nazis and Spanish syndicalists were at least specific enough to reference left-wing ideologies in their names. “People’s” is about as vague and inoffensive as “freedom”. 
    Why does he only favor Nordics? Does Mr. N/A have some sort of axe to grind with Spaniards and Sicilians? 
    If Meds live with Nordics there will inevitably be interbreeding and they won’t be able to keep their genepool pure. Basically the same motivation as some animal conservationists. Also, he has a low opinion of Meds.

  60. Both men were of course Communists in their youth – the Singaporean ruling party is still named the “People’s Action Party.” 
    Like TGGP notes above, Lee and the PAP weren’t Communist. Early on they did form strategic alliances with communists for political purposes, and Lee was influenced by Fabian socialism as a young man. But Lee and the PAP were also influenced by fascism, namely Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Even the PAP logo is almost identical to the BUF logo. 
    It’s inaccurate and excessive to label Lee a Communist and lump him together with someone like Deng.

  61. Like TGGP notes above, Lee and the PAP weren’t Communist 
    even someone with a knowledge of international politics as cursory as mine knows this to be true :-) though i guess one can always redefine “communism” to include lee in the plausible set.

  62. “Influenced by” is a bit weak (and waggoner sensibly didn’t try to put more weight on it than can be borne). Hugo Chavez was influenced by Carlyle, is he a reactionary? Not a reactionary like the Duke of Alba, but Lee wasn’t a Communist like Deng was a Communist. 
    I think we should be very thankful that Deng succeeded Mao, but for a counter-narrative to that of Deng causing a top-down change there’s Scott Sumner’s A Tale of Two Provinces. He married a Chinese, so he must know something! I’ve heard contradictory things about whether the Tiananmen protesters were for or against more neoliberal economic policies. He’s got others on Denmark as the Singapore of liberalism. But in certain respects Singapore isn’t that far from liberalism. It’s got extensive social insurance, just managed more sensibly. Its macroeconomics is Keynesian, but I guess it would be too much to ask for otherwise.

  63. I’m sorry – I of course didn’t mean the PAP were Communist in the strict sense, ie, officially part of the Comintern. Any party in this class in the English-speaking world will have the word “Communist” in its name, rendering it easily distinguishable!  
    I just meant the PAP were originally a leftist party of fellow-travelers, as their name clearly demonstrates. La Wik: 
    Initially adopting a traditionalist Leninist party organization together with a vanguard cadre from its communist-leaning faction in 1958, the PAP Executive later expelled the leftist faction, bringing the ideological basis of the party into the centre, and later in the 1960s, moving further to the right. 
    And considering that the PAP was founded in 1954, any influence from the British Union of Fascists would be very unusual! You might find a few members with Subhas Chandra Bose type backgrounds, however. Fascism was not unpopular as an anticolonial ideology in the ’30s. Mind follows power. And since mind follows power, anyone who was a fan of Oswald Mosley in 1954 was keeping it deep in his trousers. 
    National Socialism proper, as opposed to the buffoonish neo-nazis, was a very unique phenomenon which could exist only in an environment containing large undigested pieces of the Wihelmine ancien regime. It was considerably assisted in its rise to power by many of those pieces, who saw it as the lesser evil compared to democracy. 
    However, the core political base for the Nazis was by no means the old aristocracy. Rather, the NSDAP under Weimar was a party of the petit bourgeoisie. This is exactly why Sarah Palin reminds so many people of Hitler – they are thinking, quite sensibly, on a Leninist “who – whom” basis.

  64. I sometimes wonder if McDonald would consider a pro-Jew piece if I submitted one to TOQ. Something about Moshe Feiglin, perhaps – my own personal favorite Jewish Nazi. (Seriously, Feiglin is my favorite working politician.) Is it worth wondering? Who knows…

  65. You meant to show that you blather endlessly about things you don’t know a damn thing about. 
    Which is not exactly news.

  66. I would consider members of the Fourth International to be communists, even if they were excluded from comintern. Social democratic parties are another story (the SPD worked with Bismarck during the second reich and as the “social fascists” under Weimar used the freikorps against communists). As I stated earlier, the PAP did not originally contain communists. It let them in after its poor performance on the ballot to gain some numbers, but after it achieved power it clamped down on them. As to the Leninist organization, Murray Rothbard advocated that as well. The John Birch Society also used a cell organization borrowed from communists. 
    I don’t think there were enough aristocrats to form the core of a major political party. 
    I think allowing some mediterraneans to argue for inclusion against the nordicists is about as far as MacDonald would be willing to go, even if it wasn’t an article stumping for a man who praised Jonathan Pollard. From browsing his Wikipedia article, I don’t see why you think Feiglin is so special. Non-violent disobedience? That’s just the sort of thing you hate. A number of his policies make sense, like freeing up the airwaves, but that’s normal by the standards of liberal democracy. Electing Supreme Court justices on the other hand strikes me as too democratic, restricting their power/jurisdiction is more sensible. Paying people to leave is also popular elsewhere these days.

  67. And considering that the PAP was founded in 1954, any influence from the British Union of Fascists would be very unusual! 
    Lee and the PAP are unusual – that is after all a major reason you admire Singapore. 
    Fascism was not unpopular as an anticolonial ideology in the ’30s. Mind follows power. And since mind follows power, anyone who was a fan of Oswald Mosley in 1954 was keeping it deep in his trousers. 
    Just because fascism had become unfashionable among anticolonialists after the ’30s doesn’t mean it had no influence on the PAP. There certainly were some anticolonialist ideologues among them. But they were by no means wholly comprised of them. Following the war the British made it clear that they would be leaving and gradually transferred power. They were generally more concerned with governing following the transition, not necessarily with being anticolonialist/anti-British.

  68. I sometimes wonder if McDonald would consider a pro-Jew piece if I submitted one to TOQ. Something about Moshe Feiglin, perhaps – my own personal favorite Jewish Nazi. 
    I think it would be pointless to try to engage him.  
    He basically believes that everything Jews do or promote (whether they realize it or not), from secularism/liberalism to right wing Jewish nationalism, is to advance Jewish interests (real or imaginery), often to the expense of other groups’ interests. I don’t think the example of a hardcore, anti-Arab Jewish Nazi who called Jonathan Pollard a “hero” would undermine his basic conviction. He’d probably argue that Feiglin serves as evidence for his basic belief.

  69. waggoner, 
    What is astonishing to me is that the likes of McDonald, who has devoted his life to Jewology, cannot recognize the sectarian difference between an actual, tribal Jew like Moshe Feiglin and an assimilated post-Semite like “Punch” Sulzberger, or imagines that they are somehow in cahoots.  
    His thesis is that tribal Jew behavior is the root of all evils. He then traces these evils, quite accurately, to the most detribalized of Jews. And not only are assimilated Jews nontribal – they tend to be actively anti-tribal. For of course to succeed they assimilated the cultural tropes of America’s highest status caste – the Boston Brahmins, basically. For every “Punch” Sulzberger, there is an Alger Hiss. No, he was not born “Hissjewsky.” 
    On Lee Kuan Yew, you seem to speak like a man who knows something, but you’re not telling me what it is! Do you have a reference for this weird inspiration from the BUF to the PAP? I will believe anything I see, but only if I see it. 
    The idea that there is any daylight to be found between a Fabian socialist and an outright Stalinist is a nonsensical hallucination of the anti-McCarthyist period. The difference is entirely a matter of geography. Who, pray tell, were Stalin’s biggest boosters in the West? Not the pitiful and marginalized CPUSA, but the likes of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Harold Laski, Harry Hopkins – in short, the Fabians and the New Dealers. These were not Stalin’s clients – but his patrons. The “liberals.” Slippery as the liberal is, there is no way for him to escape from this great crime. 
    For instance: if you’ve never read the Webbs’ essay Is Stalin a Dictator?, from their epic Soviet Communism: A New Civilization, you are definitely missing out!

  70. gcochran, 
    Nice to chat with you as always. What’s the last pre-1914 book you read? Any recommendations?

  71. ok, let’s stop talking about nutzis. starting to attract flies which i’m swatting down in the moderation threads.

  72. Ok..since most ppl are alarmed about chinese due to their high IQ. Here’s more scary stuff! 
    Eugenics through DNA testing in China

  73. I could have sworn Razib had a post discussing this very idea a while back, but I can’t remember enough about it to find it now:

  74. I thought I would draw your attention via Steve Sailer to a new paper defending race and a low-intensity debate on today’s Talk of the Nation about race. 
    Self-described race “agnostic” Dr. Esteban Burchard debated Pilar Ossorio and Alan Goodman (whom Sesardic quotes in the paper). 
    Also, I mentioned in my new blog and video a new study about testosterone spikes in people with fewer CAG repeats (like African Americans), which, along with increased receptor transactivation, addresses the paradox of why black people do not seem to have significantly higher serum testosterone levels despite seeming to many to be more masculine than most whites and Asians. 

  75. fyi. Lynn & Meisenberg comment on the Wicherts review of sub saharan scores. Wicherts found an overall average of 82. Lynn & Meisenberg conclude:  
    “The three IQ data sets show that studies of acceptably representative samples on tests other than the Progressive Matrices give a sub-Saharan Africa IQ of 69; studies of the most satisfactory representative samples on the Standard Progressive Matrices and on the Colored Progressive Matrices give IQs of 66 and 71. These results are corroborated by the international studies of math, science, and reading that give an IQ of 72.4, adjusted down to 66 because these studies are based mainly on high school samples in the more advanced African countries. The average of the four data sets gives an IQ of 68 and should be regarded as the best reading of the IQ in sub-Saharan Africa.”  
    Intelligence Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 2010, Pages 21-29

  76. That’s race/IQ *connoisseur*, not race/IQ fanatic, you commie bastard! 
    OK, that was totally random, but there are some people I wish I could have said that to (in a tongue-and-cheek way) 
    As an aside, I would like to make some posts, especially relating to Derbyshire’s biologian/culturist/religionist trichotomy, and how these three groups can be brought together. 
    Short version 
    To tame a biologian: play on the desire for social/sexual acceptance (cf. Party slogan “freedom is slavery”) 
    To tame a culturist: play on desire to be perceived as open-minded and modern (cf. Party propaganda as pro-democracy) 
    To tame a religionist: play on religious leaders’ emphasis of forgiveness; also on the ignorance of most strong religionists (cf. the Party’s slogan of “ignorance is strength”) See also Vaillant’s “Spiritual Evolution”

  77. Dark Age Mightly Whitey 
    Here is an English perspective on this post. 
    There is an intriguing hint of a very dark age Mighty Whitey ancestor of the British royal family. When the last remaining Imperial soldiers were withdrawn from the Roman province of Britannia in 410 AD they left behind in the south of the province a Romanised population of British Celtic descent. Over the next two centuries the Angles and Saxons – German pirates turned settlers – seized control of most of Britannia and established a number of Germanic mini-kingdoms. The Saxons were”Knifemen” named after the distinctive knife they carried- the seaxe. The Romano-British did not go without a long struggle. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that the last last Roman cities in the west of the former province were not conquered by the the Angles until 597. 
    The most notable of these German mini-kingdoms was the Kingdom of the West Saxons – Wessex. Again according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the founder of Wessex who waded ashore from a pirate boat in Southampton Water in 495 to carve out his kingdom had a Celtic name Cerdic. Nothing is known of Cerdic’s possible Romano/Celtic roots but his Celtic name is highly unusual. There is no record whatsoever of any other Saxon or Angle with a Celtic name in the centuries following the fall of Roman Britain so some historians have considered it possible that he may have been a literate Latin speaking Romano/Briton who – seeing which way the tide was running – decided to exchange the comforts of Roman civliisation for a barbarian kingdom. 
    Cerdics ancestors- the Cerdingas- went on to establish the unified Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of England and the current royal family are his lineal ancestors so Queen Elizabeth II is a Cerdinga as well.