Senior educated white male.

Senior educated white male.

A crack in the wall, or “White men correctly perceive American Jews as their enemies?”

The major point of this article by Philip Greenspun is that a) it is written by an American Jew and b) it describes the conflict between liberal Jews and their beliefs and the average white working class American, and their livelihoods. It is astonishing in that it talks about the deeply unmentionable topic of why Jewish political power and attitudes are so often hostile to white people, understood as European-origin Caucasians. [There! I said it]

“But what if a white guy’s perception that American Jews are his enemies is accurate?

“Suppose that a low-to-medium skill white man wants to earn money via working. This article by a Harvard economist says “The total wealth redistribution [due to low-skill immigration] from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year.” What political party promotes the low-skill immigration that will take money away from this white man via lower wages and higher rent and give it to rich Americans (they enjoy paying lower wages for their service workers and receiving higher rents for the apartment buildings that they own)? The Democrats. Although only 71 percent of Jews voted for Hillary Clinton (Wikipedia), groups that claim to be “Jewish” constantly remind Americans that adherence to the modern version of the Jewish faith compels them to vote for Democrats, support immigration, etc. (example: “The Jewish Case for Open Borders”, which notes “Jews have been especially active in this mobilization, driven by their social liberalism, their sense of religious duty, or both. Synagogue networks sprang up to offer aid to refugees, while groups like Jews United for Justice and Jewish Voice for Peace have been a visible presence at protest rallies.” (it would be interesting to run an experiment in which physicians and lawyers from around the globe show up and are immediately eligible to practice medicine/law in NYC, Los Angeles, DC, and Miami, then see whether “religious duty” compels Jews to support open borders!)).”.[snip]

“Suppose that a white man is in between jobs. What political party advocates the continued legality of discrimination in employment such that he will be hired only if no acceptable applicants identifying as “women” or non-white are available? Again, the Democrats and again, publicly supported by people who call themselves “Jews.” (See also, the Anti-Defamation League supporting race-based college admissions; the 2018 “Reform Jewish Movement Condemns Decision to Roll Back Federal Affirmative Action Guidance”; a 2017 article noting that “Most mainstream Jewish organizations still support affirmative action.”)

“American Jews are more likely than non-Jews to benefit from a larger government. Jews are over-represented in medicine by 7X (source, a bit misleading since I don’t think this is adjusted for the fact that median age among Jews is older than the U.S. median and an older person is more likely to have completed medical school). For anyone working in health care, the river of government cash that started flowing in the 1960s (Medicare and Medicaid) has been wonderful. Jews have more years of education than the average American (Pew) and therefore are more likely to get jobs at universities, which have been supported by federal student loan subsidies (and soon, loan forgiveness in Queen Elizabeth Warren’s jubilee year!), tuition grants, and research grants. Jews living in larger cities (that may be 97 percent of us) have benefited from the fact that a big government builds most of its lavish facilities in big cities. I don’t want to take the risk of being lumped in with the Jew-haters by implying that there are Jews who work in finance, but if there are indeed any Jews in this sector of the economy they’ve been advantaged by government policies favoring Wall Street. Jews tend to hold the credentials that qualify them for unionized government work, e.g., school teacher, social worker, etc. So they benefit when government payrolls are fattened and expanded.

“Jewish Democrats will tell you that they’re voting for a bigger government not in order to line their own pockets, but because of their commitment to social justice, which they say may be inspired by their Jewish faith and identity. But what stops a white man who can’t access these rivers of government cash from resenting these Jews and disbelieving their claims of altruism? (When queried, my coastal-dwelling Jewish friends simply dismiss the possibility that there is anyone who could have voted against the Democrats for reasons of rational self-interest; in their view, Trump voters, for example, are stupid and short-sighted, and fail to realize that they are stupidly voting against their own self-interest, e.g., because Planet Earth will be destroyed by climate change without the Democrats in charge of the federal government.)”

Read the rest of the article here.


The cliched phrase “Orwellian” applies to this incident. A former policeman called harry Miller was told he had been cited for a “crime/non-crime”, which incident goes on to a police record. No statute has been passed that he has offended. No crime has been committed, as the police admit. It is purely a police procedure. But it will show up as a hate crime on his record.

As Miller said, this policy of militant suppression of hatecrime follows from the MacPherson Report on racism. England, where everything is policed except the crime, in the words of Mark Steyn.

No evidence is required to have a hate incident. The British are caught in a policy spiral. No laws are needed to generate this mess. I am NOT making this up.

“The higher echelons of the police have completely sold out to Stonewall“, says Harry Miller, the former cop. “They are entirely unaware of the fact that the policy they enforce has no legal basis. They have been ideologically been captured by Stonewall.” – [which is a British pro-gay group]

No questioning of this is allowed within the police, because that constitutes transphobia. I am not making this up.

How did we arrive at this stage? Because we were told we were to forget everything we knew. #nodebate To debate is to hate.

Harry Miller is associated with Fair Cop, a lobby group for sane policing.

Expressing disbelief in gender ideology will become a heresy in the gendered theocracy of the near future. Miller concludes that the rainbow sign has become the new swastika.

Roger Scruton, giant, dead at 75

Sir Roger and family

Roger Scruton said the job of the conservative intellectual was to give reasons why ordinary people should not have to give reasons for their habits, thoughts, and beliefs. I would love him for that idea alone, but he had so many more.

His discussion of the “French nonsense machine” in “Fools. Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left” makes one grateful that he had the industry and fortitude to go through all the immense crap that constitutes French leftist thought and show precisely why it is crap. I can admire but not imitate his devotion to explicating tedious nonsense, but I am the beneficiary of his plumbing the depth of French intellectual sewage.

His output was tremendous. Go to Amazon or any book site and see for yourself. His discussion of Wagner was deeply informed by musical knowledge. His discussion of wine, well, I look forward to it. The drink upon which civilization has been founded, he said.

A summary of quotes is found here, in the Guardian, of all places.

Scruton was a man who wore his greatness humbly.

About half of scientific articles false; more scientific decline expected

I was reminded of the finding by Dr. Richard Horton of Britain’s Lancet magazine that roughly half of articles in science publications are false, only to discover that the article was about five years old. {I am sure that things have improved since then}.

Horton wrote:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” 

For an eminent scientist writing against fake science, in its myriad forms, you may profitably add William S. Briggs Statistician to the Stars, to your list of favourites.

Briggs exposes the “diversity in science education” scam here. The statements required of candidates for academic jobs are called Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE) statements. [He cites an article by a mathematician in the Wall Street Journal and various other sources, so who says what in the paragraphs below is too confused to sort.]

These statements are intended to ensure that “applicants for faculty positions profess their commitment to these social goals, have become required on eight UC campuses and at colleges across the country. These requirements are promoted as fulfilling worthy goals: to help redress the historic exclusion of underrepresented groups, to ensure that candidates from all backgrounds apply for and are given fair consideration for faculty jobs, and to make sure faculty respect and support all students in their teaching and mentoring. “

“A document from the University of California tells us how the system worked in six searches in the life sciences, and I find it a bit disturbing—disturbing because the ideology and social engineering is clear, because candidates, however good in scholarship, were eliminated if their diversity statements fell below a specified cutoff, and disturbing because the only kind of diversity involved was racial and gender diversity. But we know that that is what people mean when they talk about “diversity”. Ideological, class, and background diversity are irrelevant.”

Only 214 of the 893 candidates (24%) passed muster here as having adequate diversity statements. These 214 were then passed on to the appropriate departmental search committees to create a short list for interviewing candidates (these are typically 3-6 candidates per job). In this search and the second one below, candidates were also asked to explain their ideas about diversity during the interviews. The diversity interviews also served to weed out candidates:…

So even at the two last stages of the process, candidates were eliminated because of a perceived insufficient commitment to diversity.

“Coyne rightly points out that the quality of the applicants’ work nowhere was important in this filtering process: only their ability to DIE.”

Thus I conclude that, apart from all the other reasons cited for bad science above, we may expect a wholesale decline of science caused by ethnic, sexual and racial sorting.

Is it any wonder that universities will have to be dis-established?


Issues that don’t matter

Disputes within the Royal family Prince Harry wants another job. Megan Markle wants to live closer to her mother. Vancouver is a habitable compromise. Meh.

The Democratic Party opponent to Donald Trump in the next election (as matters stand today). Loooooser.

String theory. An employment program for physicists.

Who will succeed that weirdo Labour leader in the UK: looooser

The fate of the NDP under Jagmeet Singh: looooser

Anthropogenic global warming – see chart

Image result for ice ages timeline"

A time of social contest

I was talking with my friend Oban last. He is a never-Trumper, a subject we do not actually discuss so much as to check in on our state of disagreement from time to time.

I asked him whether we are living in normal times, or whether we are living in a time of social contest. His reply was well-considered. Oban said that we have not lived in a time where everything – everything – was so contested. The last time we faced so much social friction was the 1930s, when society was faced with choices among fascism, parliamentary democracy, and communism. Those options concerned who (which social class, which race) would run government and society, or whether the tried methods of parliamentary government would prevail. To the surprise of many, parliamentary government emerged the victor from World War 2, along with communism. The latter took another 50 years to collapse.

Today the zones of social contestation seem to be about everything. Economic class is less important to this fissures than it used to be. By contrast, modes of self-identification seems to have generated a large and expanding class of differences about which people are demanding respect and recognition.

Francis Fukuyama has a good deal to say about the issue in his book Identity: the demand for dignity and the politics of resentment. On a smaller range of issues, it is also worthwhile to read Douglas Murray’s The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity

Fukuyama: “By taking on political correctness so frontally, Trump has played a critical role in moving the focus of identity politics from the left, where it was born, to the right, where it is now taking root.” [p119]

“What is notable, however, is that the right has adopted the language and framing of identity from the left: the idea that my particular group is being victimized,that its situation and sufferings are invisible to the rest of society, and that the whole of the social and political structure responsible for this situation (read: the media and the political elites)needs to be smashed. Identity politics is the lens through which most social issues are now seen across the ideological spectrum” [p122]

It is the nation that gives birth to rights, to identity, and to systems of political accountability. No one has found a way to make international institutions accountable or democratic. No one is proposing a return to religion as the basis of the polity. So we are stuck with the nation. Who belongs to it? who may belong to it?

In Canada the French-English divide obscures the issue of national belonging. The French are assured that they are a nation. The English are scolded that they should not think of themselves as a nation, but they manifestly are a nation. However multinational in origin English speaking Canadians have become one in beliefs and aspirations.

I would love to hear a political conservative in Canada talk a language of nationhood and identification with the nation, rather than intersectionality, which is the analysis of everything on the basis of a myriad lesser and divisive self-identifications. Intersectionality, I need hardly state, is the official doctrine that the Liberal government of Canada has imposed on the federal government,

January 7, 2020


  1. Farmers are looking for twenty and thirty year old tractors: simpler, repairable and effective. The curse of computerization is the inability to repair what you own, because you are only leasing software, and you cannot fix it. A tractor free from software is a tractor the farmer can fix.

2. The Gervais Principle: How organizations really operate. This is actually more realistic than the illustration might have you think.


“Back then, Whyte … saw signs that in the struggle for dominance between the Sociopaths (whom he admired as the ones actually making the organization effective despite itself) and the middle-management Organization Man, the latter was winning. He was wrong, but not in the way you’d think. The Sociopaths defeated the Organization Men and turned them into The Clueless not by reforming the organization, but by creating a meta-culture of Darwinism in the economy: one based on job-hopping, mergers, acquisitions, layoffs, cataclysmic reorganizations, outsourcing, unforgiving start-up ecosystems, and brutal corporate raiding. In this terrifying meta-world of the Titans, the Organization Man became the Clueless Man. Today, any time an organization grows too brittle, bureaucratic and disconnected from reality, it is simply killed, torn apart and cannibalized, rather than reformed. The result is the modern creative-destructive life cycle of the firm, which I’ll call the MacLeod Life Cycle.

3. Slate Star Codex – a fascinating blog written by Scott Alexander, a psychiatrist on the US West Coast.  I do not know what to make of it. There is so much to absorb.

4. The nomenklatura takes care of its own. Barry Diller ensures that Chelsea Clinton is well set up. Just short of $900,000 a year. Some keep wondering why Trump won the election.

Gertrude Himmelfarb 1922-2019

I have for a long time been an admirer of the American historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, who died on December 30, 2019 at the age of 97.

A tribute by David Brooks is found in the Atlantic Magazine here.

“Himmelfarb was a great historian, and reported fairly on all sides, but it was always clear which side her heart was on. She grew up working-class and preferred the prosaic bourgeois values that fueled her family’s rise: work, thrift, temperance, self-discipline, cleanliness, moderation, respect for tradition. These are not aristocratic virtues, such as honor, genius, and heroism, but they are sensible virtues available to everyone. In its original definition, a neoconservative was a leftist who broke with the left when, in the 1960s, its leaders rejected bourgeois values for the counterculture. By this definition, she was a neoconservative.

“Himmelfarb shared the Victorian awareness of sin. She detested the snobbery of cultural elites and narcissism in all its forms. She quoted George Eliot with approval: “We are all of us born in moral stupidity, taking the world as an udder to feed our supreme selves.”

From the eulogy in the New York Times-

“In more than a dozen books and many articles and essays, Ms. Himmelfarb melded scholarship of Victorian Britain with barbed reflection on contemporary affairs. Her subjects ranged from the pitfalls of modern approaches to history and philosophy to the moral relativism she perceived, with dismay, in the public’s attitude about the conduct of President Bill Clinton — his lying about a sexual affair — that led to his impeachment in the 1990s.

“Her cause was to imbue today’s social policies with a Victorian moral sense. Conservative politicians cheered. Newt Gingrich, the Republican speaker of the House, cited her in his book “To Renew America” (1995), writing that the time had “come to re-establish shame as a means of enforcing proper behavior.”

Political correctness and the French Class System

A fascinating article in City Journal about the writings of Christophe Guilluy, the French geographer whose observations of French society are equivalent to those of Charles Murray. The article is by the American journalist and author Christopher Caldwell.

“In France, political correctness is more than a ridiculous set of opinions; it’s also—and primarily—a tool of government coercion. Not only does it tilt any political discussion in favor of one set of arguments; it also gives the ruling class a doubt-expelling myth that provides a constant boost to morale and esprit de corps, much as class systems did in the days before democracy. People tend to snicker when the question of political correctness is raised: its practitioners because no one wants to be thought politically correct; and its targets because no one wants to admit to being coerced. But it determines the current polarity in French politics. Where you stand depends largely on whether you believe that antiracism is a sincere response to a genuine upsurge of public hatred or an opportunistic posture for elites seeking to justify their rule.

Guilluy is ambivalent on the question. He sees deep historical and economic processes at work behind the evolution of France’s residential spaces. “There has been no plan to ‘expel the poor,’ no conspiracy,” he writes. “Just a strict application of market principles.” But he is moving toward a more politically engaged view that the rhetoric of an “open society” is “a smokescreen meant to hide the emergence of a closed society, walled off for the benefit of the upper classes.”

I am struck often by how the French get themselves absolutely stuck, where only violence gets attention, and revolution seems the most effective way of changing governments. I see this particularly in the different outcomes in Great Britain and France: how Boris Johnson was able to break through the Brexit impasse, while week after week the French yellow-vests riot and disrupt, to no particular effect.

The link between the riots of the gilets-jaunes and the tight grip the French upper classes hold over dissenting expression was clearly seen in an article in the Guardian by Jon Henley on the work of Christophe Guilluy. Henley writes:

“Guilluy argued that peripheral France should be seen as a bigger concern than the country’s troubled, immigration-heavy banlieues, traditionally seen as its major social problem, because of the sheer numbers of people struggling to make ends meet and their relative isolation from dynamic economic centres. If nothing changed, he warned, the French Socialist party, the historical defender of the underprivileged, would collapse, Le Pen’s far-right Front National – now renamed Rassemblement National (National Rally) – would soar, and France risked a popular uprising the likes of which it had not witnessed in decades, if not centuries….

“It is not so much “big capital” that is to blame for the divide, Guilluy writes, as when “previous generations of the bourgeoisie lusted nakedly after power or money”, but the “laid-back, unostentatious dominance … without hatred or violence” of the “bobo-ised upper classes” in what he calls the “new citadels”. They have “supported the economic policies of the upper class for 30 years now” (policies which only really work for them) and developed “a single way of talking and thinking … that allows the dominant classes to substitute for the reality of a nation subject to severe stress and strain the fable of a kind and welcoming society”. Because hipsters are also hypocrites, Guilluy argues: they denounce globalisation, but never challenge it because it serves them so well; they preach diversity, but send their children to private schools; they love the “authenticity” of living in working-class areas, but contribute to their destruction through rising property prices.

“The revolution is coming, he warns: “The existing order will finally break down not as the result of some decisive event, but as the result of a slow process of social and cultural disaffiliation of the working class.” It has already brought us Brexit in Britain and Trump in the US; “a new form of class conflict” is upon us, and a “modern slave rebellion” is on its way.

A modern slave rebellion?!