Middlebury Talk

It should have been me, rather than Charles Murray, giving that talk at Middlebury.

Because I would have enjoyed it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

96 Responses to Middlebury Talk

  1. Frau Katze says:

    And I would have greatly enjoyed seeing you take them on!

  2. curri says:

    I was hoping you’d be named Ambassador to Germany.

  3. Cloudswrest says:

    Vox Day had the same response,

    “This almost makes me want to do a college speech tour, accompanied by dozens of armed, trained VFM.”

  4. BB753 says:

    Please do it! But you’ll need bodyguards.

  5. The Z Blog says:

    My guess is Murray is thrilled by this result. It gives him street cred in the bubble. The rest of the cuck-o-sphere is now jealous. Official Conservatism™ is looking for a way to insert itself at the head of the parade that has so far left them on the sidelines. Look for guys like Murray to start mewing about how they are speaking for “respectable” elements of the Dissident Right.

  6. Paul says:

    You know, Greg, since my professional reputation is already thoroughly rekt, once I’m done with my leave of absence I’m gonna arrange somehow to have you give a lunchtime talk on controversial medical genetics purely for the lulz.

    Also because my classmates need to hear this stuff.

    • gcochran9 says:

      You know, someone on the faculty [med school] of that University already had me give a talk years ago – there was no controversy at all.

      • Pincher Martin says:

        …there was no controversy at all.

        Two reasons.

        Trump’s election has ignited the left and put the spotlight on anything that is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as supportive of Trump’s agenda. Out here in California there are large-scale protests and demonstrations almost daily. Berkeley’s had a couple of riots in just the last month. If the student newspaper is anything to judge by (and it may not be – “Violence as Self-Defense”), many in the student population condone the violence as a necessary means to combatting what they see as hate speech.

        And you’re not as well-known as Murray.

  7. AppSocRes says:

    Believe me, Professor Cochrane: Many share your feelings.

    SJW snowflakes like these rely on establishment protection when they stage their temper tantrums, assaults, arsons, riots, murders (I’m sure there will eventually be some), and other attacks on reason and order. If these pathetic scum were dealt with appropriately – as I myself often fantasize happening – they would cower and whimper for protection. But then the establishment would rush to their aid with brutal police and judicial suppression and attacks from the fake news MSM, suggesting that violent, right-wing, racists like Murray, Cochrane, etc., be sent to re-education camps or quietly recycled into Soylent Green.

    I see no immediate solution to the problem. Right now continuing the intellectual struggle while fantasizing more condign responses is probably the best option

    • Cloudswrest says:

      Indeed. Just look at the recent news. Some flag waving yahoos got 20 years for “intimidating” a black birthday party. Seems somewhat disproportionate when murderers and rapists get less.

      • kot says:

        Well, they did also point a shotgun at children.

        • TWS says:

          Knew a guy who got eighteen months for two counts of attempted murder. He spent longer on previous pot convictions. They were also tied to violent crime but they weren’t attempted murder.

          He actually shot them in the back twice then the legs twice each so that they would suffer before dying. He shot about as well as he thought though because the victims lived.

          You’ll get more time if you are not a frequent flyer or one of the protected classes. Pour encourager les autres

  8. roger tyk says:

    What would you have said about race and IQ?

  9. Dave chamberlin says:

    Off Topic but a great story. I attended the best public lecture ever given at a disgusting rich kid college. The great poet Charles Bukowski was scheduled to give a reading at Northwestern University in Evanston Illinois. He comes stumbling out to the podium and the minute he starts talking it is apparent he is full blown drunk. He didn’t read one poem. Instead he goes on this rambling story about how a girl scout came to his door and he invited her in and proceeded to fuck the hell out of her. I think this was late 1970’s. Most of the audience had no clue that Bukowski was just trying to disgust them as best he could. The minority like myself that knew more about the brilliant but sneering Bukowski loved every minute of the performance. The audience was either full blown disgusted or grinning ear to ear.

    Fuck em if they can’t take a joke and joke em if they can’t take a fuck.

  10. j says:

    Do you think John T. Scopes enjoyed being tried for teaching Darwin’s theory? If so, it could be arranged to have a rerun with you as the villain.

    • Jim says:

      The Scopes trial is one of the most overblown events in history. Scopes was fined $100 but most people seem to think he was burned at the stake.

    • ziel says:

      I’m pretty sure he had a blast – everyone there had a blast. I believe on the last day of the trial, one of the pool reporters had to leave the night before, so Scopes filled in for him at his typewriter filing his copy for him. The last thing anyone involved in the trial was concerned about was whether the “defendant” wasn’t actually present

    • cloudswrest says:

      That whole trial was more or less choreographed, just like the Rosa Parks case.

  11. hronrade says:

    I volunteer to be part of your Enforcement Squad. We’ll bring nightsticks and sacks of door knobs

  12. MawBTS says:

    Has anyone seen Razib’s latest media appearance?

    https://undark.org/article/race-science-razib-khan-racism/?replytocom=5715#

    It’s actually a bit better than the URL would imply. They let Razib speak for himself, and most of the facts seem correct. It’s filled with ominous and scary language, of course, and no less than three references to Trump. But you have to read for a bit before you find the word “Nazi”, so it’s not all bad.

    “There’s a long history in the West of trying to use biological data to claim that there are such things as a handful of discrete races,” she said. But “whether the ostensibly impartial data are blood types, like they would have been a century ago, or genes today, or skull sizes,” the results are familiar: “It’s always about reproducing the same hierarchy.”

    I used to think multiple lines of evidence arriving at the same conclusion was a good thing. Maybe I should stop thinking.

    • Frau Katze says:

      It’s similar to the Catholic Church and Galileo. I’m sure the “deniers” think science is on their side but psychologically it’s the same.

      It’s threatening their entire outlook on life.

    • Frau Katze says:

      Quote from your linked article

      Seventeen years ago, when scientists announced the first full sequencing of the human genome, it was heralded as a breakthrough that would quash scientific racism. At a White House press conference, Craig Venter, the head of Celera Genomics, announced that one goal of the work was “to help illustrate that the concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.” In the five genomes they sequenced, Venter said, “there is no way to tell one ethnicity from the other.”

      Does anyone know what these ethnicities were? Even 23andme offers some ethnic history.

      • Xenophon Hendrix says:

        23andMe guesses that I’m 71% British and Irish and 13% French and German, with the rest being Northwestern European. From what I know about my family history, that’s darn accurate. Given how precise they can get within Europe, telling the various social constructs apart must be easy for them.

        • Frau Katze says:

          Is Venter lying or what? The only way to deal with these people is to attack them on their statements. Or perhaps all samples were the same ethnicity.

          Or, more likely, geneticists have become better at determining ethnicity.

      • MawBTS says:

        Was this an unreasonable thing to say 2000?

        “Race” is the frequencies of various alleles. Sounds like it’d be hard/impossible to figure out from a sample size of five genomes.

        • gcochran9 says:

          Saying that it didn’t exist, from what he knew, was nothing but a lie. A fair number of well-known geneticists have lied about race: some never do anything else.

          On the other hand, some simply don’t know much. Certainly a lot of geneticists don’t know anything about psychometrics. I used to think that it was practically impossible to be unaware of all the blank spots in the map of accomplishment – the peoples that have very few intellectual achievements – but I found that that kind of ignorance was in fact quite common, even in fairly rarefied circles.

          Generally speaking, anything that seems obvious from the point of view of someone with broad general knowledge of a subject is not obvious at all.

          • dearieme says:

            “Nothing but a lie”: harsh! Perhaps “speaking like a lawyer” would be nearer the mark. As when Clinton claimed he hadn’t had sex with that woman, or Obama claimed that he hadn’t bugged Trump.

          • whyteablog says:

            If I remember right, somebody confronted Venter on that “99.9% the same” disingenuous horsecrap, and he didn’t say a single damned thing in response.

            That’s the behavior of someone who doesn’t enjoy flat-out lying, but is doing it anyway. Guys like Lewontin- people who take a perverse, sadistic pleasure out of obfuscating every useful truth they can- would gleefully lie further, spinning an increasingly creative yarn for as long as the conversation went on.

            Can you imagine the dirty feeling Venter had when he told that lie?

      • ursiform says:

        Looking only at the five genomes his statement was probably true. But it was made with blinders on. It takes statistics or other genetic information to separate races. If you just look at a genome there isn’t going to be an ASCII string saying “I’m black” or “I’m white.”

        • gcochran9 says:

          Call a spade a spade: Venter was lying. Now someone like Adam Rutherford might just be an idiot: I want to be fair.

          Look, geneticists can come out with papers that assume that Ancient Egyptians were black, or that the Aryans replaced Old Europe because of their sexual magnetism. Between narrow specialization, fashionable radicalism, and good, old-fashioned stupidity, little is beyond them.

    • RCB says:

      Seems to me that the response is always about obfuscation and straw-manning. The racial issues that most people care about are pretty simple questions: they don’t have anything to do with global genomic variation. The classic obsession is “are black people inherently (genetically) less intelligent than white people?” We could belabor this with precision: “are Americans who identify as black genetically less intelligent than people who identify as white?” Other alternatives: are Asians more conformist? Are blacks more athletic?

      Answering this question does not require proving that the races as we typically define them are somehow natural or essential genomic categories or clusters. Yet this is what all the obfuscators focus on. Consider the Graves quote:
      “There’s no unambiguous way to cluster individuals and say where one cluster begins and another one ends. It’s dependent upon the dataset you have. It’s dependent upon the genetic markers you look at. But the best models of human population show that we’re a continuous cline.”
      Thanks for the distraction, Graves, but this has no bearing on the question we’re asking.

      The result of this is that we get bogged down in semantic arguments about what race means. Who fucking cares?

  13. TD says:

    Thanks tough guy!

  14. jason says:

    I’m sure all the liberal free speech advocates will denounce these thugs. Right?

  15. anon@gmail.com says:

    The protesters were prepared to kill Murray. Sorry, Greg, but brains don’t belong in a warzone. We need muscle, not smarts now.

    • gcochran9 says:

      Kursk was a warzone, Berkeley is a bunch of people posturing. I was in tougher fights in junior high. Much tougher, in high school.

      • BB753 says:

        The whole ordeal in Murray’s own words. It seems to me they meant business.
        http://www.aei.org/publication/reflections-on-the-revolution-in-middlebury/

        • jason says:

          I am sure they think they mean business. But look at this video:

          They are spoiled children used to throwing a tantrum and getting their way. I am sure they would do great harm to anyone they could. But I doubt any of them have taken a serious punch in life.

        • albatross says:

          I wonder what happens when either:

          a. People on the right use the same tactics to shut down speakers they don’t like.

          b. Some controversial speaker has approximately the same number of thugs in favor of him speaking as opposed to him speaking, and instead of a rout, it turns into a fight.

          Either of these could get very ugly, in different ways.

          • TWS says:

            It won’t happen. The institutional left the ‘respectable’ left, protects and nurtures these scum. Bombers get invited to the white house or have popular broadway plays dedicated to them. The right doesn’t support shock troops never has. It doubt it ever will.

            Can you imagine anyone in officialdom supporting rightwing shock troops?

            • James Richard says:

              Indeed I can. In case of a breakdown in public order the “right-wing” shock troops will be from the government.

              • albatross says:

                Perhaps, but not necessarily. We could have a rather abrupt change in our society from “the left does this, the right doesn’t” to “the left and right both do this.” That would be entertaining to watch in the sense that it would be fun to watch folks on the left suddenly change their minds about the moral acceptability of these tactics, but I don’t think it would be very good for the country. Though one possible positive outcome would be a widespread acceptance of the idea that this sort of thing ought not to be tolerated–protesters disrupting a speech get arrested for disturbing the peace and spend the night in jail; rioters busting heads get arrested for assault and find themselves in jail for awhile.

              • James Richard says:

                Albatross wrote: We could have a rather abrupt change in our society from “the left does this, the right doesn’t” to “the left and right both do this.”

                It will happen in exactly the opposite manner. Here is a recent vid of the protesters in oh-so-liberal Portland, OR blocking traffic during the evening rush hour. The cops move in as the bystanders cheer them on.

            • Greying Wanderer says:

              “It won’t happen.”

              it’s guaranteed to happen imo – not in 90% SJW zones of course but they’ll push their luck out to somewhere it’s 50/50

        • David Pinsen says:

          Greg has a point about Berkeley in particular. A saving grace of today’s radical left is that they’re bad at violence. That’s why there have been relatively few serious injuries despite their rioting.

          With time, or if they become leavened with rougher elements of the Democrats’ base, that may change.

          • gcochran9 says:

            “bad at violence” – Marshal Tukhachevsky they’re not.

            • Toddy Cat says:

              “Marshal Tukhachevsky they’re not.”

              Yes, say what you will, the Old Left was good at violence – you don’t end up killing 60-100 million people without having a certain aptitude for it (admittedly, most of their victims were unarmed, but still. And the Wehrmacht was certainly not unarmed). The New Left – not so much.

              Of course, if the Right simply surrenders without a fight, it doesn’t make much difference, does it?

            • James Richard says:

              And a fat lot of good it did him at the end.

            • gyddyn says:

              Sorry, but American Left sucks at it. A dozen guys from the ghetto are better at it than scores of “heroes of college Revolution”. Amateurs 🙂
              They couldn’t even crush the car 🙂

              (I understand all the idiocy of what happend and support the victims, by the way)

      • albatross says:

        I’m not sure playing tough guy is actually all that helpful against a mob of guys who mean you harm. Once the numbers get stacked against you badly enough, you’re screwed.

        • gcochran9 says:

          Not if you’re driving a car. Not if you have a .45. More generally, these are students at a liberal arts college, one aimed at kids that aren’t particularly smart. Sure, they might could swarm you – but they are not very good at physical violence. Remember the SDS: when they made bombs, they killed more of their own members than than their targets [Greenwich Village townhouse explosion].

          Any kind of physical competence is increasingly looked down upon in the United States, but the trend is especially strong in these circles. As for skills in physical violence – it is to laugh.

        • Bill Joyce says:

          Overwhelming superiority of numbers, plus clear intent to commit violent harm in a closed space where you can’t easily retreat? That’s justification for lethal force, baby. Even if campus policy forbids you your trusty Colt or Bowie knife (Vermont does not restrict concealed weapons outside of schools and courtrooms), are these precious Middlebury SJWs ready to watch their friend lose his eyeballs, suffer a crushed trachea, or have his skull cracked open right in front of them? Head wounds bleed a lot, and it apparently takes only about eight pounds of pressure to partially remove someone’s ear from his head. There’s always an outside chance they get doubly enraged and stomp you to death, but there’s a level of brutality that makes even tough guys think about running- are a bunch of 140-pound Queer Studies majors ready to charge a guy who just tried to castrate someone with his bare hands?

          • gcochran9 says:

            ” it apparently takes only about eight pounds of pressure to partially remove someone’s ear from his head. ”

            No, considerably more difficult than that.

          • David Smith says:

            “watch their friend lose his eyeballs, suffer a crushed trachea, or have his skull cracked open right in front of them”

            Uh huh. Word to the wise: when confronted by multiple attackers the best “martial art” to practice is the ancient art of Track and Field. Or Glock Fu.

            • albatross says:

              +1

              Life isn’t a movie, and you’re not Jackie Chan.

            • Greying Wanderer says:

              this is true but if you have no choice then get your back to a wall and you can do surprisingly okay (as the number of people who are prepared to go first is limited)

              it’s like males fighting in nature programs – they’re wired to fight but also wired to not want to get seriously hurt

              • David Smith says:

                All this stuff is very easy to talk about on the internet and very hard to pull off in real life against flailing/resisting opponents, especially for physically unimpressive people like this blog’s author and (I imagine) most of the commenters. Even a gun may not be enough; Baruch Goldstein had a rifle and he was still overcome. I’ll reiterate my advice to avoid mobs under all circumstances.

      • athEIst says:

        Kursk was a warzone.
        HA HA +1

    • iffen says:

      Is that you Melissa? Have you switched sides?

  16. Sir Charles Pipkins says:

    Charles Murray is ignorant. He deserves his ostracism. Science tells us everyone is just as smart as anyone else. So by definition he is mis-using evidence to prove some races are smarter.

  17. Mike Byrne says:

    The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the Law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of Agents of the United States Handicapper General.

    (Kurt Vonnegut)

  18. st says:

    What are you going to talk about at Middlebury, Cochran? You are late. They are all gone now. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Pied_Piper2.jpg).
    “When the town of Hamelin was suffering from a rat infestation, a piper with a magic pipe appeard, claiming to be a rat-catcher. He promised the mayor he will mesmerize the rats and walk them out of town. The piper played his pipe to lure the rats into the Weser River, where all but one drowned…..
    On Saint John and Paul’s day the piper returned playing his pipe. In so doing, he mesmerised the town’s children. All town’s children followed him as if they were blind or hypnotized .. and he made them walk into the river, never to be seen again.”
    It is late for talking. Someone else did it.

  19. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2017/03/05) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s