It should have been me, rather than Charles Murray, giving that talk at Middlebury.
Because I would have enjoyed it.
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- December 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
Categories
- Aging
- Altitude adaptations
- Amerindians
- Archaic humans
- Ashkenazi Jews
- assortative mating
- Australian Aboriginals
- Book Reviews
- Bushmen
- Cold War
- Denisovans
- Dietary adaptations
- dysgenics
- Economics
- Education
- Eskimo
- European Prehistory
- Evolutionary Medicine
- Genetics
- Genghis -Khan effect
- GGS
- homo erectus
- Homosexuality
- Indo-European
- Linguistics
- Low-hanging Fruit
- Mangani
- Neanderthals
- Pygmies
- Skin color
- Speaking ill of the dead
- sub-Saharan Africans
- Uncategorized
- World War Two
Meta
West Hunter 
And I would have greatly enjoyed seeing you take them on!
Arguing can be fun, but that’s not what I was thinking of.
Filming them? Blowhorning them? Putting waterhose to them? Beating the first row? Dogs? Shooting them?
It looked terrible for Murray.
You mean you would have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I used to box with professor who, when an undergrad, accompanied Chomsky as a bodyguard to these sorts of affairs. Could be fun to get a posse together–kinda like the Gracie train when they used to enter the cage back int he old UFC days. If you do it, count me in
I was hoping you’d be named Ambassador to Germany.
Vox Day had the same response,
“This almost makes me want to do a college speech tour, accompanied by dozens of armed, trained VFM.”
Please do it! But you’ll need bodyguards.
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.
My sense is that guys like Murray would much rather be grudgingly tolerated by the academic establishment than have all the dissident street cred in the world. I think the fact that he’s now an unperson bothers him a great deal.
Murray’s career so far looks to me like that of a guy who says what he thinks is true, even when it costs him respectability, even when it pisses off his own side. That’s something we need more of in the world, not less.
It appears you do not follow him on twitter.
My impression is that Charles Murray is just a “white-bread” conservative of his generation who happened to challenge one (admittedly central) orthodoxy in his political religion.
I’m sure your guess is deeply informed by your ownership of a Motiv-o-Meter that allows you to read minds. All the guys in the bubble who think that “cuck” is an amusing insult seem to possess one.
“Guys like Murray.” and who would those be, exactly?
Murray is at AEI, and hangs out with that sort of people. Toads. I find that hard to understand.
I’m sure his six figure salary has something to do with it.
To quote Murray, “There’s this wonderful thing about @AEI: We often disagree with each other, and none of us sees that as a problem.”
I was once invited to give a talk at AEI. I decided not to, because I hated their guts. I would be a lot more comfortable giving a talk at a whorehouse or an insane asylum.
“Guys like Murray” = Establisment Republicans. Never-Trumpers. Egg McMuffin voters. Get the picture?
This article he wrote for NRO lays it all out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435805/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-why-hillary-is-even-worse-doesnt-cut-it
Now, I don’t begrudge him his establishmentarianism. After all, he was probably born that way, right? Since political attitudes have a fairly high degree of heritability and all. But the idea of Charles Murray being thrilled about what happened to him at Middlebury because it gives him “dissident street cred” strikes me as fairly absurd. He’s not Milo for chrissake.
The next comment I see that both uses “cuck” as an insult and is worth reading will be the first.
You dropped your rattle.
Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Well, they did also point a shotgun at children.
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
What would you have said about race and IQ?
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.
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.
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.
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
That whole trial was more or less choreographed, just like the Rosa Parks case.
I volunteer to be part of your Enforcement Squad. We’ll bring nightsticks and sacks of door knobs
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.
I used to think multiple lines of evidence arriving at the same conclusion was a good thing. Maybe I should stop thinking.
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.
Galileo’s problems had more to do with politics than terrestrial motion.
Quote from your linked article
Does anyone know what these ethnicities were? Even 23andme offers some ethnic history.
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.
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.
Venter got into all sorts of trouble for doing the DNA sequencing on Monica Lewinski’s dress. That’s why he had to share credit with Watson for the genome. Clinton hated him. Maybe he was trying to curry favor. It didn’t help much.
Standard STR analysis, no need to call in Ventner. Never happened.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.”
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.
I’ve read of a study of North Africans that concluded that they are roughly 7% black genetically. Does this seem about right?
It varies quite a bit, something like 30% for Mozabites, zero for some Berbers.
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?
Thanks tough guy!
I’m sure all the liberal free speech advocates will denounce these thugs. Right?
The protesters were prepared to kill Murray. Sorry, Greg, but brains don’t belong in a warzone. We need muscle, not smarts now.
Kursk was a warzone, Berkeley is a bunch of people posturing. I was in tougher fights in junior high. Much tougher, in high school.
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/
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.
eugenics would reduce their genetic advantage
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.
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?
Indeed I can. In case of a breakdown in public order the “right-wing” shock troops will be from the government.
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.
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.
“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
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.
“bad at violence” – Marshal Tukhachevsky they’re not.
“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?
And a fat lot of good it did him at the end.
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)
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.
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.
I don’t really know but my guess is that if you pointed a water pistol at them they would probably run away screaming.
Only if its filled with holy water.
Prof. Cochran with a Louisville Slugger in one hand, a pretty picture to me.
You might be interested in this demonstration of how easy it is to fight off a crowd of anarchists if you come prepared:
A lacrosse stick! I like it.
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?
” it apparently takes only about eight pounds of pressure to partially remove someone’s ear from his head. ”
No, considerably more difficult than that.
The internet is WRONG about something? My faith in humanity is shattered beyond repair.
Probably less difficult if they have ear gauges.
That’s asking for it.
“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.
+1
Life isn’t a movie, and you’re not Jackie Chan.
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
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.
Kursk was a warzone.
HA HA +1
Is that you Melissa? Have you switched sides?
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.
Hahahahah Good one.
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)
“For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.”
(Neal Peart)
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.
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2017/03/05) - Social Matter