– C. Van Carter on the mainstream conservative view of race and politics:

“He held that in fact human affairs were carried on after a most irrational fashion, but that the remedy was quite simple and easy, since we all we had to do was to carry them on rationally.”

– Mangan on the Dark Enlightenment:

Politics and the state, for the alt right, have not only become almost completely and dangerously separated from any sort of realism about human nature, but also conceal, from both themselves and others, that they are all about Who? Whom?, as (all? maybe that’s too sweeping) politics and states are.

As such, the Dark Enlightenment offers a comprehensive counter to The Enlightenment, and provides a theoretical backing to what we have come to call the alt right, or dissident right.

Sailer reviews Wolfe. If that’s not self-recommending, I don’t know what is.

– “If there is any substantial heritability of merit . . . then mobility ought to turn classes into hereditary castes surprisingly rapidly.”

– Is there a relationship between immigration and crime?

– Jayman on who’s having children.

– Ron Unz has an incredibly long (seriously, it’s like 25,000 words) piece in The American Conservative making the points that college admissions discriminate against Asians and in favor of Jews. Everyone who has been paying attention is duly unsurprised. Weirdest comment on the piece so far goes to Tyler Cowen, who notes that he’s uncomfortable with the religious, ethnic and racial counting methods in the piece. My dark corner of the internet talks about race a fair amount, but we’ve got nothing on college admissions officers. If that makes Professor Cowen uncomfortable, shouldn’t he be uncomfortable working in academia?

– Don’t get stuck in the middle.

Ah, democracy.

– Yglesias sees Amazon issuing debt for no reason and thinks more of this would help the economy. When I see debt being issued for no reason, I see a bubble.


4 Responses to Randoms

  1. lelnet says:

    I’ll miss vdare.com. Didn’t always agree with them, but they were always interesting.

  2. Nikolas Lloyd did a similar piece to Isegoria’s here:

  3. Handle says:

    1. Charles Murray had done all the work necessary to explain the divergence and forecast the “fluid class into rigid castes” social transition. When you combine any degree of heritability and assortative marriage for any characteristic, you’ll get the potential for rapid divergence. When that factor is also the most correlated with income, family stability, low crime, elite influence, and the various life-success metrics, then it’s bound to occur. And when it’s also combined with spontaneous (and hypocritical) local segregation, self-collection into cognitive-concentrator cities, and sorting mechanisms at mate-finding periods, like university admissions, then it will create castes with not only vastly different lifestyles, but with vastly different conceptions on the nature of human reality itself.

    Anyway, the problem with “social mobility” is just like the problem with judging teachers by the absolute performance of their students on standardized tests – they’re not really measuring the right thing because, naturally, they’re making their classic false assumption about equal capabilities. And the night never ends.

    2. The zerohedge chart is harrowing, however, keep in mind that “equivalent disposable income in-kind after taxes” doesn’t do much to capture one’s actual quality of life, pne of the most important components of which (as Sailer has often pointed out) is the character of your community of neighbors. The whole point about the single mom being “better off” based on this measure alone doesn’t ring quite true, does it?

    3. Corporations simply don’t issue debt for “no reason”. At the very least, and almost certainly in Amazon’s case, it’s for the option and rate insurance values.

    4. I was disappointed both by Back to Blood and Sailer’s review. I wonder if Sailer’s usually fine critical eye was blinded by his reverence.

    I got the impression that Wolfe had, alas, entered his, “The Lion in Winter,” phase. Maybe it would be more charitable of me to pin this on Wolfe’s impression of his audience, than on the laziness of the author himself. The book’s language, style and annoying repetitions make me think it should have been in the “Young Adult” section of the library. Everything seems remarkably spoon-fed, telegraphed, and over-explicit. Some inner monologue is ok, but there is never any doubt or mystery whatsoever as to what anybody is thinking with the overuse of the multi-colon technique. The one-dimensional characters, for example, are not just clearly archetypes, but Wolfe, leaving nothing to chance or interpretation, just comes out at the very beginning and tells you things like, for example, “Edward Topping IV is the WASP archetype.”

    i just don’t think non-fiction is Wolfe’s strength. Having once lived there, I would have preferred to have seen a modern Miami version of “Radical Chic” and “Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers”. But, probably, not even Wolfe could get away with that anymore.

  4. Toddy Cat says:

    Is it my imagination, or is Tyler Cowan turning into a slightly less deranged Bryan Caplan?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: