August 26, 2016

Hillary introduces America to the term "alt-right" — the "emerging racist ideology" — and Trump calls Hillary a "bigot."

Do you want to talk about race or do you want to talk about words?

Because we could talk about what "bigot" means. It could mean only those who consciously embrace the idea that some group is despicable, or it could also cover those with unwanted feelings of hate that they are struggling with, or it could include everyone who has even unacknowledged feelings of only slight disgust toward some other group, or it could extend even to people who don't care enough about groups other than their own and have failed to go very far out of their way to do something to help the when they experience misfortune and suffer economic hardship. It's that last thing that Donald Trump is saying about Hillary, so he's making a good point, wrapped within a complicated linguistic issue that might — if people get caught up in it — ultimately work out in his favor. It's the same point as: "What have you got to lose?" Who cares about the tenderness of the hearts of the white people who want black people to vote for them? Shouldn't you vote for the candidate who will help you and your community? Isn't the real bigotry — the bigotry that matters — the bigotry that comes in the form of relegating your community to disorder and depression? We could talk about that.

And we could talk about the political value of saying "alt-right," all right? I mean, who even knew that word until Hillary said it yesterday? Even when you know the word and hear the definition — which she had to provide in the speech since people don't know the term — do you know that this is a real social phenomenon that we need to worry about? Or should we wonder if Hillary is trying to scare us with a bogeyman?

In a 31-minute address, building to a controlled simmer, Mrs. Clinton did everything but call Mr. Trump a racist outright — saying he had promoted “racist lie” after “racist lie,” pushed conspiracy theories with “racist undertones” and heartened racists across the country by submitting to an “emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.” “He is taking hate groups mainstream,” Mrs. Clinton told supporters at a community college here, “and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party.” Mrs. Clinton said that while a racially charged and “paranoid fringe” had always existed in politics, “it’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it and giving it a national megaphone, until now.”
The best indication that the alt-right is real and it's spreading through Trump is that Trump hired Steve Bannon, and Bannon has said openly — about Breitbart.com, where he'd been chairman —  "We're the platform for the alt-right." But that gets us back to the question what is it? That Bannon quote comes from a Mother Jones article by Sarah Posner, who writes:
Exactly who and what defines the alt-right is hotly debated in conservative circles, but its most visible proponents—who tend to be young, white, and male—are united in a belief that traditional movement conservatism has failed. They often criticize immigration policies and a "globalist" agenda as examples of how the deck is stacked in favor of outsiders instead of "real Americans." They bash social conservatives as ineffective sellouts to the GOP establishment, and rail against neo-conservative hawks for their embrace of Israel. They see themselves as a threat to the establishment, far bolder and edgier than Fox News. While often tapping into legitimate economic grievances, their social-media hashtags (such as #altright on Twitter) dredge up torrents of racist, sexist, and xenophobic memes.

Trump's new campaign chief denies that the alt-right is inherently racist. He describes its ideology as "nationalist," though not necessarily white nationalist. Likening its approach to that of European nationalist parties such as France's National Front, he says, "If you look at the identity movements over there in Europe, I think a lot of [them] are really 'Polish identity' or 'German identity,' not racial identity. It's more identity toward a nation-state or their people as a nation." (Never mind that National Front founder Jean Marie Le Pen has been fined in France for "inciting racial hatred.")

Bannon dismisses the alt-right's appeal to racists as happenstance. "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," he says. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements."
Much more at Mother Jones. "Alt-right" is an umbrella term. It serves some interests to have a word and to collect things under it. Some people — Bannon? — may like the term because it gives a feeling of movement and direction to scattered ideas and trends that they think are good or mostly good. Others — such as Hillary — must love the word because they can make it negative and use it to stir up fear and resistance and to distract us from whatever other negatives might otherwise capture our attention. Hillary picked up this word early — before most people had even heard it — so I think she'll succeed in wrecking its positive currency, except among those in the narrowest definition of bigot (see above) who may enjoy the way of Hillary's denouncement enhances their reputation as bad boys.

183 comments:

David said...

Who is the Sexist here? Putting assertive males in the category of racism, fascism etc is inherently sexist.

n.n said...

Sanctimonious hypocrite. Class diversity, selective exclusion, social justice adventurism, trial by sodomy and abortion, female chauvinism, anti-native policies, devaluation of capital and labor, insourcing/outsourcing, green blight, health penalty tax, scientific mysticism, establishment of Pro-Choice Church, selective-child, clinical cannibalism.

eric said...

I've found that, so far, the people on twitter who define the alt right, or who come out as alt right, are assholes. I like Milo, mainly because he makes me laugh. I enjoy watching him attack the left.

But a lot of these other alt right types make me cringe. They are just too dumb to be on the national stage. And they are going to end up defining Republicans. Which sucks. One guy who is a radio personality, is always going off on the polls. And by what he writes you can tell he knows nothing about polling. Yesterday he writes that a poll is wrong because it splits the vote 50/50 between college educated and high school graduates. Then he says everyone knows that 70% of voters are high school graduates without college degrees.

Ok, I ask him, where are you getting this info?

His response, "Google it, it's common knowledge"

And this response was well liked on twitter. I can but roll my eyes.

For all I know, he is right. I tried to google it but couldn't find the answer. But what a dumb response. It means he is just making shit up. And people are eating this stuff up like it's fact.

Ugh.

rhhardin said...

You vote for people who will help the other guy.

The question is whether what's billed as help is help or obstruction.

Evil is offering obstruction as help.

rhhardin said...

Democrats are getting blacks to send in tiny old dimes in exchange for huge shiney new nickels.

Fernandinande said...

"Alt-right" is dog-whistle for "latino":

Latino gang members firebombed black residents to drive them out of Boyle Heights project, prosecutors allege
+
Where are the black leaders locking arms and marching through the streets in defiance? Where are the garment-rending op-eds and monologues from leftist journalists, hosts, and pundits?

rhhardin said...

Trump offers not alt-right but alt-ctrl-delete, much needed.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

David - it's true that the alt-right is mostly men, so your point is a fun one--stop being so sexist, Media!

The larger problem, I think, is that the Left has been calling the Right--the mainstream Right--racist, xenophobic, sexist, and all the rest for decades now. Decades. It doesn't make any sense to now try and say Donald Trump is REALLY bad because he's supported by people who are REALLY racist...they've been saying that regular ol' midddle of the road, suburban, white bread Republicans are really vicious racists who hate women and gays for as long as I've been alive. Do they apologize for that, now, and say "but this time it's different, we were just lying and smearing the goods names of MILLIONS of our fellow Americans all those years?" No, no they don't.

Bob Boyd said...

Fair or not, when I hear the term Alt-Right I immediately think of Laslo's "Nazi girlfriend who is not my girlfriend".

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Not to mention, of course, the ridiculous double standard of the Republican candidate being responsible for any wacky or extreme views any of his supporters happen to hold while the Democratic candidate is never responsible for any of the extreme views--or violent actions!--of her supporters.

People who support Trump say mean, racist things, so the Media says Trump is responsible.
People who support Hillary physically attack Trump supporters, destroy property, burn flags, etc, and the Media...says Trump is responsible.

Fuck the Media.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Mrs. Clinton said that while a racially charged and “paranoid fringe” had always existed in politics, “it’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it and giving it a national megaphone, until now.”

But enough about the Democrats' relationship with Black Lives Matter...

BDNYC said...

The alt right I'm familiar with is nationalistic (not necessarily a bad thing!) and virulently anti-PC (also not a bad thing). They use humor, social media, pop culture references, etc., to engage the issues and spread their message. Probably the most notable alt right personalities are Milo Yiannopoulos and Gavin McInnes ... ironically, neither is American. Milo is a British and devoutly Catholic homosexual who despises modern feminism and constantly jokes about his love for black men. Gavin is an avowed homophobe who loves Milo and french kissed him at a rally. It's all in good fun.

Matthew Blaine said...

The alt-right is two thousand people sending memes over twitter. Did you hear some anon shout PEPE! during her speech? Gets funnier every single time.

hombre said...

Hillary misquoted Trump incessantly during the speech. She simply can't speak for more than a minute without lying.

If we are to define candidates by who supports them, Islamists, Black Nationalists, pedophiles, anti-Semites masquerading as anti-Zionists, the Communists and Wall Street, among others, are all in for Hillary.

Defining them by their recent actions, who damages the country more, Hillary supporters or so-called "white nationalists?

The Clinton's are grifters. America is their mark.

rhhardin said...

Alt right might mean skipping to the right answer without the necessary reasoning.

America is our country. We get to say who can come here and who can't. Immigration policy should be set to benefit Americans, not foreigners.

Those foreigners who also benefit from moving to America under those policies are then free to do so. That's a win/win, which is the only way anything voluntary happens.

Those foreigners who don't benefit don't come.

That's the deal Immigration policy has to benefit us first.

Enter the economists. More trade is always good because it benefits both sides. But that assumes some stuff that isn't true.

If foreign workers are willing to work for less it might be, it is in fact, because their country is not run on voluntary principles. Force is used to limit their choices or they'd be doing fine themselves.

Under the principle no fraud and no force, you can't freely link to their system without violating it in your sustem, and the free trade benefits all argument no longer works.

It doesn't benefit displaced workers.

Maybe you could compensate them, as with a takings clause; but putting it on the budget makes it a cost to all, and that has to be figured into the net benefit of the trade, and it isn't.

So the economist argument, call it correct in steady-state long term frame, is not true in real life.

So: make immigration policy to benefit Americans, not foreigners. Let the foreigners then respond to the policy when it benefits them, as may or may not happen.

eric said...

Do they apologize for that, now, and say "but this time it's different, we were just lying and smearing the goods names of MILLIONS of our fellow Americans all those years?" No, no they don't.

Funny, someone write an article almost exactly like that. The gist was, we've called so many people racist in the past that it doesn't stick anymore. And this time, we have a real racist!

rhhardin said...

Same for amnesty. Does this guy benefit Americans or not? Case by case.

The welfare cases and the gang cases go out fast.

rhhardin said...

You can't run a welfare state without great border controls.

Dave Duffy said...

John Derbyshire, who was kicked off National Review because of an article on race and his alt-right views, is a good place to start if you want to know more the alt-right. He defends his admitted racism with a mild mannered English civility. Takimag.com is a site with alt-right views. Most of the writers are pro-Trump. David Cole and (I think) Steven Sailer, the best two writers at Taki, are not pro Trump. I think they have a conference once a year.

The alt-right is not for me, but I'm so tired of political hysteria I've come to like to read people in their own words.

Tommy Duncan said...

Ann said: "... is a real social phenomenon that we need to worry about?"

Hillary's campaign is now about changing the subject away from her scandals. The alt-right topic gives the media something to obsess about for 3 days, which keeps the Hillary scandals out of the news.

Look, there's a shiny moving object!!!!

traditionalguy said...

Alt-Right means pro National borders and pro lawful Democratically elected authority. You can call me that all day long.

Thanks.

David Begley said...

Hillary has done a great job of sliming Trump as a racist. If the criminal wins, that's how she did it.

She's running to stay out of jail. Desperate.

MayBee said...

I'm on the internet all the time and I've never seen the Alt Right people. I know they get in Tweet wars with other people, but I've not seen it and I'm not a part of it.

So I wonder to whom this speech is supposed to be convincing. And how does the BLM movement fit into this whole dynamic?

Bob Boyd said...

Of course Laslo's Nazi Girlfriend isn't real and neither is this new white nationalist movement she wants her supporters to fear/feel superior to.

Hillary introduces America to the new straw man she will fight.

MayBee said...

I think people deeply involved in Twitter have an warped understanding of both the electorate and humanity.
Someone deeply involved in Twitter convinced Hillary to have this Alt-Right speech.

rhhardin said...

Toady's racists in the literal sense, like Derbyshire and heritable genetics people, actually wish blacks well.

It's part of noticing when obstacles are being offered as help and shouting against it.

Rick said...

I think Hillary's Alzheimer's is flaring up. How can Trump be helping helping racists take over the GOP when they took it over decades ago?

Hagar said...

Newspaper headline from yesterday:

KKK ENDORSES HILLARY!

Someone out on the fringe at least has a sense of humor.

Rick said...

MayBee said...
So I wonder to whom this speech is supposed to be convincing.


Left leaners who don't like Hillary and might be tempted to stay home or vote Stein / Johnson.

rhhardin said...

Econtalk.org has a talk this week with Mike Munger on slavery and the economic and social forces that affected it. Host Russ Robers larded the entire interview with disclaimers that slavery is horrible etc etc.

That's the state of academic work today.

Some nice points though, between disclaimers.

Did you know that reparations came up as payments to slave owners, not slaves?

Hagar said...

There were a number of clips of Hillary! on the news yesterday. Sounded like she is in Blabbermouth Schultz wacko territory to me. Juat makes no sense at all and overshooting the target that badly surely will boomerang on her?

rhhardin said...

Munger said the civil war was necessary, beucase the economic and social system had reached a stable equilibrium that required some kind of force to break it down.

Fernandinande said...

eric said...
I've found that, so far, the people on twitter who define the alt right, or who come out as alt right, are assholes. ...
I tried to google it but couldn't find the answer.


I could, and it was easy. But I'm also an asshole.

About 30% of the population has a college degree (so 70% don't).

About 70% of people with degrees vote, and about 50% of those without degrees vote. (Washington Compost - look it up yourself).

So about 63% of voters don't have a college degree and that other asshole was pretty close to correct.

n.n said...

Redistributive change (i.e. trickle-up poverty). Although, when coupled with a robust abortion policy, the devaluation of capital and labor is limited. Fiscal coverup through progressive debt, immigration replacement (e.g. insource/outsourcing), creative destruction (e.g. social justice adventurism), and anti-native policies (e.g. refugee crises). The environmental lobbies' green, clean blight (i.e. low-density, low reliability, dynamic ecological disruptors). And whatever Planned Parenthood Mengele's division is doing. #CecileTheCannibal

PB said...

Hillary's losing ground in the polls and her advance polling indicates it's worse than the current public polls. She's getting desperate and money is starting to dry up for her.

n.n said...

KKK ENDORSES HILLARY!

The Democrats' militant wing was reincarnated under class diversity schemes (i.e. denial of individual dignity). Class diversity mongers are now considered respectable, even decent members of society... under the State-established Pro-Choice Church (i.e. an organized quasi-religious cult with selective or arbitary principles or "character").

Chuck said...

There is a good way, and a stupid way, to make the basic point on which virtually all Republicans and conservatives agree.

Trump chose the stupid way, resorting to the word "bigot."

The brilliant way to make the same point is demonstrated by a young writer at Michigan's conservative Mackinac Center think-tank. His name is Jarrett Skorup.

I beg of all of you to read this, to see what Trump could have done, but failed.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=10743

hombre said...

Just as Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" put Bill's dick in Monica's mouth and his cigar in her vagina, so too has "Alt-right" concealed her emails on a private server and created the Clinton Foundation to expose her grifting.

Small world, isn't it?

eric said...

About 30% of the population has a college degree (so 70% don't).

Is that 30% of the adult population or total population?

Yancey Ward said...

Eric,

That is the population age 25 and older.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
There is a good way, and a stupid way, to make the basic point on which virtually all Republicans and conservatives agree.

Trump chose the stupid way, resorting to the word "bigot."

The brilliant way to make the same point is demonstrated by a young writer at Michigan's conservative Mackinac Center think-tank. His name is Jarrett Skorup.

I beg of all of you to read this, to see what Trump could have done, but failed.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=10743


Sometimes I think you're just trolling us.

I almost fell asleep reading that.

Yancey Ward said...

I came up with exactly the same calculation that Ferdinande did- about 63%. I actually think turnout among non-college graduates is going to be higher this election than is normal. Normally, this would have been to the benefit of Democrats, but Trump makes this election abnormal, and I don't know who it might benefit.

Yancey Ward said...

The racism card is losing its potency. People are starting to see through the tactic and are starting to not care at all. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a parable for a good reason. I think, at best, Clinton's speech might juice her turnout a tiny bit, but it might well be overwhelmed by the people who are increasingly tired of being called racists for no good reason- people who probably haven't even voted before.

Virgil Hilts said...

I think one intellectual movement (or at least discussion) related to the alt right - which movement some call the Dark Enlightenment -- is pretty interesting and provocative. It is impossible to sum it up briefly but one of its presumptions is that republican democracy, as currently practiced, is failing and, by its structure, is doomed to fail. $20 trillion in debt and no politician even wants to talk about what is going to happen. At some point a majority of the people on the bottom (Romney's 47% / typically the less intelligent and less productive) will just start voting reflexively for the party or politician that promises the most free stuff. The response to Trump's "what do you have to lose" is, if the Dems were honest, "all of the new welfare, Obamaphones and expanded food stamp benefits that we are fighting to get for you to keep you happy." Those who think in terms of the Dark Enlightenment have no doubt that the current system is going to collapse (and was always going to collapse). The more interesting question is not "how do we reverse [or slow] the decline" (you cannot reverse it), but what comes after? What is the next stage in human civilization going to look like?

eric said...

Blogger Yancey Ward said...
I came up with exactly the same calculation that Ferdinande did- about 63%. I actually think turnout among non-college graduates is going to be higher this election than is normal. Normally, this would have been to the benefit of Democrats, but Trump makes this election abnormal, and I don't know who it might benefit.


Even if the turn out isn't higher than 63%, a poll showing 50/50 would seem to be an inaccurate poll.

AlbertAnonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jdniner said...

Alt Right are the conservatives who have left the Bush legacy in the garbage heap of history and moved on to a productive Trump. You can find them by following the NRO losers and naive nevertrumpers running after them screaming "WTH?"

And I supported Bush, but his methods here in this current election reveal him to be the small minded person. The libs were right there, I was wrong. Mea Culpa.

Fernandinande said...

Here's a racist white-supremacist alt-right kinda thing to say:

About 0.26% of Jews, 1% of Asians, 2% of whites, and 16% of blacks qualify for Social Security (intellectual) Disability.

Dan Truitt said...

I find Trump interesting, but my vote for him, as it will be for millions of others, is really a vote against uber-odious Hillary Clinton. Trump's a bit of an ignoramus about this stuff, which includes the alt-right. That makes it hard for me to fault him here. He just wants to do what works. Trump's ignorant, but he has common sense, knows the difference between right and wrong, and far, far less insidious and dangerous than those Clinton snakes.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The gist was, we've called so many people racist in the past that it doesn't stick anymore."

-- Which is what I thought alt-right meant for the last few days. It's the really-racist racists, not just the we-don't-like-your-politics racist racist.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Someone deeply involved in Twitter convinced Hillary to have this Alt-Right speech."

-- It's good politics to get your two or five minute hate in.

Unknown said...

"Because we could talk about what "bigot" means...or it could also cover those with unwanted feelings of hate that they are struggling with"

You bring up some good points which remind me of a couple of events in the news a few years ago; the firing of Shirley Sherrod by th USDA and the firing of Juan Williams by npr. I don't recall anyone mentioning the similarity of the two events. But it's there. Ms. Sherrod described an event where a white farmer was applying for aid and her instinct was to dismiss him as unworthy of it, but she realized that her feeling was due to personal prejudice and she had to fight to overcome it. That should have been the lesson of her story, i was certainly the point she was trying to make and Breitbart really failed on this one. Juan Williams related how uncomfortable he felt when a middle eastern gent on his airplane flight shortly after 9-11 got up to use the restroom. Williams wasn't condemning middle eastern people, he was reacting naturally and making the point that he had to temper his reaction with objectivity. NPR dismissed Williams for other reasons, I believe, using his anecdote as a pretext and obviating an important question and discussion. Sherrod's case is an example of reaction to an incompletely reported story which deserved more reflection.

Chuck said...

eric; I recognize that there are a lot of low-information voters whose attention span doesn't reach too far beyond two syllables.

You'll wake up, however, if and when Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office as the 45th President of the United States and starts nominating federal judges.

At that point, I am going to be looking for anyone who voted for Trump in a primary to scream at them.

EDH said...

I thought alt-right just meant right-wing Althouse commenters.

Fernandinande said...

AlbertAnonymous said...
30% have a degree, and 70% of them vote? That's .3 x .7 = .21 (21%)
and 70% have no degree and 50% of them vote? That's .7 x .5 = .35 (35%)
21% + 35% = 56% right? Not 63%?


That means 56% of the population votes.

Of that 56% who vote, 63% don't have degrees: 35% is 63% of 56%. (actually 62.5%, but none of the numbers have 3-digit accuracy). 63 is a little past half-way between 50% and 70%, so the other asshole was a little more than half-right.

Total voter output varies a lot, depending on who's running for what, etc., and I wouldn't doubt that the % of each category also varies.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...At that point, I am going to be looking for anyone who voted for Trump in a primary to scream at them.

Scream at them now, Chuck. What help do you think that will be?

You can blame people who voted for Trump in the primaries, but you can equally blame people who didn't do enough to get anyone else elected in the primaries in Trump's place. You can blame the people who actually ran for not winning and for having records and positions that made them unpopular enough to not win. You can blame the party organization itself...you can blame donors and state-level campaign organizers...there is plenty of blame to go around.
That includes, I think, enough blame to cover people who put more energy into attacking Trump (AFTER he was nominated, mind you) than they do attacking Hillary.
Lots of blame.

Peter said...

Why do Clinton's warnings about an "alt right" threat sound so like Joe McCarthy's accusations that communists were lurking everywhere, and that his opponents were "fellow travelers" who were surreptitiously supported by them?

How much different is finding communists under every bed from finding alt-rightists under Trump's bed?

Nonapod said...

Yeah... I feel like I started seeing that "alt-right" phrase being used about a month or two back. And most often it seems to be used in a derogatory way, describing racism. I had know idea that it was a neologism invented at or around Breitbart as a way of grouping populist and nationalist ideas and tropes that are espoused by Trump supporters.

I've never fully understood the need to give every idea or movement a snappy name. It seems more problematic that beneficial. By creating a catch-all descriptor for your ideas, you're essentially a nice target for your opponents. We saw it happen with the "Tea Party", now we're seeing it happen with "alt-right". Labels can be used to unite, but more often they're used to segregate and separate.

Chuck said...

Hoodlum; my only gripe with the Republican Party is that we didn't have a super delegate system to prevent the nomination of the nutball candidate of the year. The Democrats handled that problem a lot more efficiently. Grudging kudos to them on that.

Matthew Blaine said...

Hillary omitted one of the foundational beliefs of the alt-right. Human biodiversity.

traditionalguy said...

Interestingly, the Horrors mentioned by Hillary in Britebart are all attention catching Headlines from by Milo the gay man contributor that contrasts the reality we live in to politically correct fantasies. The articles under those headlines are all proper as can be.

The paranoid wing lives over in Roger Stone and Alex Jones, but not in Britebart.

But then Hillary always lies, and then she lies, and then she lies.

Yancey Ward said...

Eric,

I have no idea which poll that is. There may well have been confusion about the difference between "college grad" and "some college". However, lets assume it was meant to be "college grad"- the pollsters would then have rebalanced the poll to reflect past elections. Romney won college grads by a small margin in 2012, though Republicans have done better in the past in that regard except in 2008 when Obama won that demographic.

So, maybe such a poll is wrongly balanced, but I am not sure how to even interpret it, and even less sure in this cycle which is very abnormal.

Nonapod said...

You can blame people who voted for Trump in the primaries, but you can equally blame people who didn't do enough to get anyone else elected in the primaries in Trump's place. You can blame the people who actually ran for not winning and for having records and positions that made them unpopular enough to not win. You can blame the party organization itself...you can blame donors and state-level campaign organizers...there is plenty of blame to go around.
That includes, I think, enough blame to cover people who put more energy into attacking Trump (AFTER he was nominated, mind you) than they do attacking Hillary.
Lots of blame.


All this is true. There will be plenty of blaming and anger in November, and conversely I suspect nobody will own up to any mistakes they may have made. This is why the Republican party will fall apart. No one will forgive. No one will ever let anything go. There will be a lot of yelling and blaming and no pulling together.

Hagar said...

Shirley Sherrod got fired for attracting attention to the Pigford scam, not for being a racist.
Which she isn't really, though having ample reasons to be, if she was. Shirley Sherrod has seen her neighbors lynched and had a cross burned on her lawn. And it wasn't a joke.

EDH said...

I always though of bigotry could encompass more than invidious hatred ("racism'), but also an aversion to a group based on a perception of risk based the actions of a few in one's own experience or knowledge. It may be bigoted not to walk in certain neighborhoods, but I don't think that belief, stereotype or prejudice, whether unfounded or not, is tantamount to racism. For example:

A black man attacked by a group of whites might be bigoted against all whites.

A raped woman might be bigoted against all men, or men of a particular race.

A police officer might be bigoted against a group based on her experience working in an ethnic or racial community, based on either an accurate or inaccurate perception of risk.

Chuck said...

Nonapod; since the Republican Party owns majorities in both houses of Congress, most of the nation's statehouses, with supermajorities and "trifecta" (legislature, governor, state supreme courts) majorities in many states, I don't see any likelihood of any retrenchment for Republicans. I see a Republican wave in 2020 and even more Republican-favoring redistricting after that.

buwaya said...

The Alt-Right is, as noted above, quite a complex animal.
Its got all sorts of facets as the "right" usually does, as Russell Kirk pointed out.
The political right is hardly ever one thing but a loose coalition of quite disparate things, the politics of non-politics.

The root, ur-Alt-Right was the old paleo-Right, as in Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot.

The general pessimism, the dark tone, is also a big deal, and it also comes out of the paleo-right. Ross Perot was fond of his flip charts of trends, and the darkness is just the ultimate outcome of many of his chart-based forecasts. Its simply that, mathematically, there is no way out of the current socio-economic-demographic trap without some sort of traumatic crisis. The public face of the conventional left and right is of whistling past the graveyard.

The other part of the Alt-Right is the general acceptance of racism in general - the big hidden trend in social memes is the nature of intelligence and genetics and its real-life consequences. I find that this is something that a huge lot of people are beginning to take for granted, in the left as well as the right. It certainly drives a lot of elite left-wing expressions, about the yokels on the right being by nature too stupid to live. Unspoken though perfectly well understood is its other implication.

Also, the struggle against its expression in human society, that of uplifting the underperforming (through school reform for instance), is exhausted - its been exhausted for a very long time, on both the left and right, neither side is bothering to promise anything (when pressed privately) but nibbling along the edges. Murray and Herrnsteins "The Bell Curve", in its every prediction, is now universal conventional wisdom, but very few want to admit it. Its just an emperors new clothes situation that prevents it coming into the open.

Taki and Unz have some of the more polite Alt-Right, more paleo. Rather less so are people like Vox Day and Cernovich and the various online characters.

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck,

The blame, should Trump lose, should fall in three areas:

(1) Trump himself. He is probably positioned correctly to win, but if he loses, a large amount of the blame will rest with his own personality deficiencies, and how they are viewed by the people who would otherwise have supported him, but did not because of them.

(2) The other candidates in the primaries who failed to position themselves correctly in the first place. Trump won the nomination because he was in the right place with the electorate that voted in them.

(3) People who can't vote for Trump because of his personality, but would otherwise have supported his ideas, and Republicans who like neither positions or personality and don't vote.

On, (3), this of course is related to (1), and I think Trump should have made a better effort right at the convention to mend the breach his victory caused with some Republicans and those that lean that way, but in the end, one still bears responsibility for letting, or actively supporting, Clinton's victory. If she wins, and you didn't support Trump or even voted for Clinton, you don't have the right to complain about the result- it belongs to you, not the people who voted for Trump in the primaries and not to the people who voted for him in the general.

Sydney said...

Trump offers not alt-right but alt-ctrl-delete, much needed.

Exactly. And I just want to say, Hillary is way too divisive to be President.

buwaya said...

"Yeah... I feel like I started seeing that "alt-right" phrase being used about a month or two back. "

Its been current for about two years or so, but not in the mass media. It may have been coined by Cernovitch.

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck,

If Clinton wins, two things will happen:

I think the Republicans will lose the Senate and the House in this election. There won't be this big ticket splitting miracle a lot of NeverTrumpers envision, however, even worse, with SCOTUS behind her, the next redistricting cycle will turn against the Republicans via judicial order- those state houses won't mean a thing- that is how the Democrats play the game, and they are smart to do so having lost control over the gerrymanders via legislation.

And, by implementing amnesty, by 2020, she will have 10 million voters in her camp that wouldn't have been there otherwise. The Democrats will have achieved their goal in getting a new electorate.

Chuck said...

It's off topic; I'm sorry about that. But right now, Rush Limbaugh is lying to his audience and saying that Obama-birtherism originated with the 2008 Clinton campaign, and indeed with Mrs. Clinton herself. It is a lie of, well, Clintonian proportions.

I expect that somebody might want to challenge me on the details. Have at it. But beyond the basic essential facts, I am curious about whether, in Rush's cosmology, birtherism is a good thing or a bad thing. Because we know that Trump was up to his eyeballs in the Birther movement. So if Mrs. Clinton was wrong to have "started" it, was Trump wrong to have continued it? Or was Trump right/justified to be an unapologetic birther? In which case, wasn't Mrs. Clinton also correct?

I mostly like Rush; it pains me when he commits his most blatant errors.

buwaya said...

"Trump should have made a better effort right at the convention to mend the breach his victory caused with some Republicans"

Part of the economic situation, and the major issues this year, lead to a fundamental conflict of interest between the funders of much of the institutional right (the Kochs say, who fund Cato and a host of others) and the "little people", the mass of erstwhile Republican voters. Many of their interests no longer coincide.

buwaya said...

Yancey,

And besides all that, the US will be in an economic death-spiral without precedent, as regulatory growth will proceed without legislative or judicial constraints that have applied previously, serving to slow it down somewhat. I don't see how anyone could predict economic growth ever again, without cooking the books.

Also, I predict far more extensive cooking of the books. You have reasonably accurate economic and social statistics still available, now, if you bother to look beneath the surface, but I suspect these will in the future be much more thoroughly filtered.

Anthony said...

Not to mention, of course, the ridiculous double standard of the Republican candidate being responsible for any wacky or extreme views any of his supporters happen to hold while the Democratic candidate is never responsible for any of the extreme views--or violent actions!--of her supporters.

People who support Trump say mean, racist things, so the Media says Trump is responsible.
People who support Hillary physically attack Trump supporters, destroy property, burn flags, etc, and the Media...says Trump is responsible.

Fuck the Media.


Bingo. You can blather all you want about "what Trump really meant" or what have you, but what will influence the election -- as it has for decades now -- is how Big Media portrays it.

Chuck said...

Yancey; I am willing to bet you'll be wrong about all of your predictions.

Fivethirtyeight still has the Republicans holding (barely) the Senate. Even with Trump's tumbling poll numbers. NOBODY has the Republicans losing the House.

The only judicially-influenced way that Dems can dislodge the Republican-gerrymandered House is by using the Arizona case from last year, and get the critical states to pass redistricting commissions. But that's not happening. Because each swing/red state will fight it.

And Hillary can legalize the status of illegals, but she can't confer citizenship without the House. You need citizenship to vote.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
eric; I recognize that there are a lot of low-information voters whose attention span doesn't reach too far beyond two syllables.


How is it you recognize this but think Trump should have followed your advice in selling Hillary is a bigot?

buwaya said...

"But that's not happening. Because each swing/red state will fight it."

All they need is the Supreme Court, who will make a decision based on some ham sandwich. And that will be that.

Chuck said...

Because, eric, the polls seem to indicate that Trump thrills about 35% of the populace, and nauseates about 65%. That is not a winning formula.

buwaya said...

Also - much more specific predictions - these may affect your retirement portfolio, among other things -

Four years from now -

- Electricity prices will be up nationally, by 50% at least in places other than California and NY and a few already high-price states.
- Fracking for natural gas will be far reduced due to regulatory impediments already waiting in the wings, and natural gas prices will be way up.
- US petroleum production will be way down, and international oil prices will be much higher.

Mac McConnell said...

Chuck
It's long been established that the origins of the Obama birther movement was the 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign. The 2008 campaign also is the origins of the Obamas in Keynian garb photos and the rumor that Obama was a drug dealer. The KKK endorse Hillary in 2008, anyone remember if she publicly denounced it, she didn't. The list goes on.

Trump never questioned Obama's citizenship, only whether Obama was a natural born citizen. Who could blame him, considering Obama listed himself as a Keynian in his book promotional literature and probably his college apps.( we'll never know). Trump asked for Obama's birth certificate, we got it after much Obama administration's habitual stonewalling.

buwaya said...

Chuck,

You seem to long for a nation gone to shit.
I don't know why, but there you are.
There is no recovery from this you know, no way out, other than one desperate hail-Mary pass, which is Trump. He is your only hope, little though it may be.

Otherwise you may as well have your cemetery plot laid out and your headstone pre-engraved, as conditions by that time may make such niceties impractical.

Rick said...

Chuck said...
It's off topic; I'm sorry about that. But right now, Rush Limbaugh is lying to his audience and saying that Obama-birtherism originated with the 2008 Clinton campaign, and indeed with Mrs. Clinton herself. It is a lie of, well, Clintonian proportions.

I expect that somebody might want to challenge me on the details. Have at it. But beyond the basic essential facts, I am curious about whether, in Rush's cosmology, birtherism is a good thing or a bad thing. Because we know that Trump was up to his eyeballs in the Birther movement. So if Mrs. Clinton was wrong to have "started" it, was Trump wrong to have continued it? Or was Trump right/justified to be an unapologetic birther? In which case, wasn't Mrs. Clinton also correct?

I mostly like Rush; it pains me when he commits his most blatant errors.


The Clinton campaign was the first to use birtherism in the Presidential elections. Chuck is trying to bait people because technically it was raised by local gadflies in his House / Senate terms. The reveal here though is why catching people not knowing this irrelevant detail justifies the allegation they are liars of "Clintonian proportions". Obviously when people say she used the issue first they mean among Obama's presidential campaign opponents.

So if Mrs. Clinton was wrong to have "started" it,

Saying someone "started it" is not a condemnation. It's noting the people who claim it is clearly racist of Trump do not make that accusation about Clinton. This simple fact shows the charge is simple partisanship. So I wonder why Chuck so naturally internalizes Democratic partisanship? It's kind of strange someone would get so bent out of shape over nothing.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...But right now, Rush Limbaugh is lying to his audience and saying that Obama-birtherism originated with the 2008 Clinton campaign, and indeed with Mrs. Clinton herself.

Politifact Trump's Claim that Obama Birther Started w/Clinton: False

It’s an interesting bit of history that the birther movement appears to have begun with Democrats supporting Clinton and opposing Obama. But Trump, and others who have made this claim, neglect to mention that there is no direct tie to Clinton or her 2008 campaign.

The story appears to have started with supporters of Clinton, an important distinction.


See how the Media works for Democrats! Chuck agrees--sure, Obama birtherism started with Clinton supporters (Democrats who opposed Obama), but that fact should in NO WAY tarnish Clinton herself, nor her campaign (which included supporters, some of whom bought into the birtherism...).
Total free pass. "Clinton didn't start it herself, there's no "smoking gun" tying it back to a campaign worker, it just happened to be that some of her supporters did it, so it's not her fault."

That's, somehow, the standard for Dems--you have to have absolute proof of wrongdoing, a video tape, and sworn documents in triplicate (notarized and witnessed). Anything less and it's "just some rumor, just rightwing kookery" and nice people like Chuck make sure we stick only to what can be proven in court. They're doing the same thing with the Clinton Foundation and the obvious corruption of of the State Dept--there is not an email of Clinton herself saying "Yes, I will trade the influence of the government for $x donation in order to enrich you and line my own pocket" so the Media sticks to the "nothing to see here" line.

For the Republicans, though...any ol' rumor will do. Remember the NYTimes's FRONT PAGE stories insinuating that that rake John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist? Just some rumor, just some loose talk...front fucking page.

But yeah, Chuck, you busted Rush, you make sure to hold his feet to the fire, bro. Full credit to Chuck.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...And Hillary can legalize the status of illegals, but she can't confer citizenship without the House. You need citizenship to vote.

How shortsighted people can be! You don't need to be a citizen to bring in tons of family members--you just need legal status (in order to do that). Those family members don't have to be citizens in order to have kids who are citizens. Those kids, who will be legal citizens, will vote.
Multiply the number you legalize here by some factor for chain migration, multiply that by the birthrate of the cohort in question, and add 18 years. Add some relatively large number for the groups the majority-Dem appointed S. Court will find a way to extend suffrage to.

But hey, the Republicans will definitely hold the House, so stop all the unproductive hand wringing already!

Roughcoat said...

Redistributive change (i.e. trickle-up poverty). Although, when coupled with a robust abortion policy, the devaluation of capital and labor is limited. Fiscal coverup through progressive debt, immigration replacement (e.g. insource/outsourcing), creative destruction (e.g. social justice adventurism), and anti-native policies (e.g. refugee crises). The environmental lobbies' green, clean blight (i.e. low-density, low reliability, dynamic ecological disruptors). And whatever Planned Parenthood Mengele's division is doing.

Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again
Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock
Begin, Reagan, Palestine, Terror on the airline
Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan
Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law
Rock and Roller Cola wars, I can't take it anymore

Roughcoat said...

Sanctimonious hypocrite. Class diversity, selective exclusion, social justice adventurism, trial by sodomy and abortion, female chauvinism, anti-native policies, devaluation of capital and labor, insourcing/outsourcing, green blight, health penalty tax, scientific mysticism, establishment of Pro-Choice Church, selective-child, clinical cannibalism.

Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac
Sputnik, Chou En-Lai, Bridge On The River Kwai
Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle, California baseball
Starkweather, Homicide, Children of Thalidomide...
Buddy Holly, Ben-Hur, Space Monkey, Mafia
Hula Hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go
U-2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy
Chubby Checker, Psycho, Belgians in the Congo!

Roughcoat said...

Virgil Hilts @11:30 a.m.:

See Plato's argument against Democracy. Aristotle too, if I'm not mistaken.

MayBee said...

You don't need citizenship to vote. You just need a social security number and a state that doesn't check it out. You know, like they don't for people working here illegally.

buwaya said...

If you want to see what is killing the US, here is the sort of bullet that is riddling the corpse of this economy -

https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/2016-08-ghg-hd-final-rule-phase2-preamble.pdf
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2"

This one just fired yesterday by that firing squad, the agents of your personal execution, your killers, your Democrat-owned Federal bureaucracy, which I believe is beloved of both HRC and our friend Chuck.

Very specific isn't it? "medium and heavy duty vehicles" - Thats because this is just one tiny bit of a mass of regulation that is already beyond human comprehension, even institutional comprehension. And, note, that this is just the beginning, the core of the trouble. Just as a bullet fired into a body causes a wound channel larger than the bullet, plus damage from hydrostatic shock, you get more damage from infections (when the judiciary gets involved, and also all the consultant tribes) and often also from immune responses. That wound is a LOT more complex than the bullet that caused it.

This cannot be fixed bit by bit, through intelligent counter-regulation (even if you get the bureaucracy back on side) or counter-legislation. There is simply too much of it, the information cost itself (that of the effort of understanding the problem), and of all the consequential political complications and associated iron rice bowls. Regulation is easy to create, but impossible to remove. Regulation is forever, until the system falls apart completely.

I count 1174 uses, in this 1690 page document, of the word "compliance". Get used to it, this will be your entire life from this point. Compliance will be the only object of economic activity, the only justification of business investment.

khesanh0802 said...

Yancey ward @12:22 Well said! Regardless of what people may say we have a binary choice: a guy who may do okay and will certainly provide "better" supreme court nominees; or a sleazy, unethical crook who will sell out to the highest bidder. Not really a much to debate.

Kate said...

During Hillary's speech the alt-right on twitter was ecstatic: huge google hits, high profile speech, and that Pepe-shouting guy! in the audience. This was a win and Hillary was trolled to even discuss it.

Although the alt-right spans many permutations, here's the gist: D. C. McAllister at the Federalist just spent a huge, tl;dr column explaining how Republicans aren't racist. The alt-right couldn't give a rat if you call us racist. Please do. The way Lefties currently use the word is ridiculous. And guess what? After hearing how whites are to blame for everything, we really are racists now. We're going to stick up for the white race. If you squirm at that statement, consider the decades of brainwashing necessary to produce a feeling of shame about your skin pigment.

Hillary is right to fear the alt-right. Her name-calling -- all she has -- no longer holds power.

buwaya said...

To add to the analogy of the bullet-wound caused by regulation, these bullets fragment, sending slashing bits in all directions, most of them not anticipated in the original language (though some inklings probably lay in the minds of their writers I think, with malice aforethought). Consider for instance Sarbanes-Oxley, which has ended up creating business processes to deal with its consequences and emanations far removed from its (relatively) simple language.

buwaya said...

I am reminded of Bill Joy's (founder of Sun Micro) famous article in Wired -
"Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us"
http://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/

He warned that technology was likely to destroy humanity, through robots or engineered plagues, or "grey goo" of out of control nanomachines.

It was a theoretical sort of worry in 2000, but it was plausible. I no longer worry about this sort of thing, because human society, in this most advanced society on earth, is very effectively creating such a social "grey goo" of its own, in the form of a choking bureaucracy, that its very unlikely that technology will advance enough to be a danger.

Chuck said...

khesanh0802 said...
Yancey ward @12:22 Well said! Regardless of what people may say we have a binary choice: a guy who may do okay and will certainly provide "better" supreme court nominees; or a sleazy, unethical crook who will sell out to the highest bidder. Not really a much to debate.


You see, I don't have to disagree with any of that. And I don't. I sort of wish that Hillary could be bought. If that were the case, I might have more hope that people with conservative leanings would just pay up and buy her. I think a Hillary administration will be worse than any of that.

You don't need to do much, to convince me that Trump is the lesser of two evils. But there is also nothing you could do, to sway me from the view that Trump is a dumb, oafish clown of a candidate who is likely to lose and that some terrible blame needs to be laid on the people who helped get him the nomination in what should have been a winnable year for Republicans versus this wretched hag of a Democrat.

eric said...

some terrible blame needs to be laid on the people who helped get him the nomination in what should have been a winnable year for Republicans versus this wretched hag of a Democrat.

I said the same thing when McCain and Romney lost to Obama.

eric said...

Blogger Kate said...
During Hillary's speech the alt-right on twitter was ecstatic: huge google hits, high profile speech, and that Pepe-shouting guy! in the audience. This was a win and Hillary was trolled to even discuss it.


Oddly enough, on my Twitter, a lot of hot chicks are also alt right.

Hot chicks never hurt a movement.

Chuck said...

eric said...
"some terrible blame needs to be laid on the people who helped get him the nomination in what should have been a winnable year for Republicans versus this wretched hag of a Democrat."

I said the same thing when McCain and Romney lost to Obama.


People keep saying that. And I keep replying, "Who? Who would have been a better, more electable candidate? And who could have beaten the Obama-124%-turnout-machine?"

Rusty said...

And buwaya is an optimist.

Martin said...

For someone whom the media assure me has it all wrapped up, Clinton going down this path is passing strange.

Methinks she knows she is in the early stages of a dogfight.

JaimeRoberto said...

"Alt-right" is the new "neocon". Few people know what it really means, and they will use it as an epithet against anyone they don't like.

Martin said...

Chuck said...
eric said...
"some terrible blame needs to be laid on the people who helped get him the nomination in what should have been a winnable year for Republicans versus this wretched hag of a Democrat."

I said the same thing when McCain and Romney lost to Obama.

People keep saying that. And I keep replying, "Who? Who would have been a better, more electable candidate? And who could have beaten the Obama-124%-turnout-machine?"
*************************
I agree with Chuck. A year ago everyone was on about what a great field of candidates the GOP had--but when you actually looked at them one-by-one, none of them were all that wonderful. It was a BIG field, but not a GOOD field: what counts is producing one outstanding candidate, not going through 17 mopes. Not saying Trump was necessarily the best choice, but it's not as if he displaced the next Reagan, and it's not as if his beating the rest of them was such a stupendous upset.

eric said...

People keep saying that. And I keep replying, "Who? Who would have been a better, more electable candidate? And who could have beaten the Obama-124%-turnout-machine?"

Everyone who ran against them in the primaries. Even Romney would have been better in 08 than McCain.

Anglelyne said...

Watching old media farts, baffled liberals, and sputtering cuckservatives pontificating about the alt-right is *the* most highly entertaining aspect of the most highly entertaining political season of my lifetime.

Pepe!

Chuck said...

The basic Republican field in 2008: McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Fred Thompson.

The basic Republican field in 2012: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Herman Cain, Ron Paul.

And you think McCain and Romney were the weakest and least-electable candidates?

buwaya said...

" It was a BIG field, but not a GOOD field:"

It was a very good field by previous standards. There were plenty of successful executives, Governors and proven leaders, most of them good if not brilliant speakers.
There were no Ronald Reagan's but there were people there entirely fit to replace nearly any President since 1945, and each one came with a coterie of sound professionals to run the executive.
The really huge problem was that they all absolutely failed to adapt to what the public wanted. It was a gross political error. This amazed me and still does. This is almost certainly due to the fact that they were tied to funding sources that could not be moved to concede some of their interests to that of the general public.
The one man to divine and adapt his message to the public will was the one man that truly could ignore the concerns of the funders.

Anglelyne said...

eric: Sometimes I think you're just trolling us.

Chuck is trolling himself.

The ability to auto-troll is a rare and marvelous state of being, so much more than mere self-deception.

Appreciate this sport of nature while you can.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I imagine that when the alt-right and alt-left are not out working their separate plots to take over America and the world, they sit around together listening to Uncle Tupelo, Wilco, The White Stripes, and The Killers. Come to think of it, Mitt Romney said he was a fan of The Killers.

Static Ping said...

The word "bigot" is one of those words that more or less means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. It also has the magical ability to apply to persons the speaker does not like while not apply to persons the does like when they act the same. Sometimes the speaker is a "bigot" by his or her own definition, yet thinks this only applies to others. Alas, it is becoming like the word "racism" but at least "racism" has a theoretical objective definition which "bigot" sorely lacks.

I suppose my definition of "bigot" is someone who holds an opinion that they refuse to reconsider regardless of evidence. Someone who holds an opinion, honestly re-evaluates it when new evidence is provided, and sticks to the same opinion is not a bigot. Bigotry requires willful ignorance, an unquestioning fanaticism. I also never considered malice to be necessary. Then again, that's just me.

buwaya said...

The only better qualified Presidents, since 1945, than the several good choices in the Republican 2016 primary field were Eisenhower, Reagan, and arguably Nixon - and Nixon only because of his intellectual capacity, not his prior experience or accomplishments.

No Democrat since 1945 would have been particularly impressive.

Unknown said...

Is "heartened" even a word? Is it like gruntled?

YoungHegelian said...

The "Alt-Right" is the appearance in Anglo-American politics of the post-modernist Right. We hear about the post-modernist Left all the time. The Left nowadays essentially is post-modernist. But, the post-modernist Right has existed in continental theology & philosophy for quite some time now.

What the post-modern Right & Left share is a radical critique of the Enlightenment & its Classical Liberal heritage. To my mind, they seek to restore a sense of community, political & otherwise, around something more atavistic than individual rights & obligations. What that atavistic foundation is --- faith, race, gender, ethnicity, etc, is wherein lies the rub.

A slightly whimsical introduction to the American Alt-right is here. A much longer winded (actually truly windy) & scarier version is here.

People wonder why I've taken to reading up on Italian Fascism. It's because it's all coming back --- both on the Left & the Right!

buwaya said...

"People wonder why I've taken to reading up on Italian Fascism."
"they seek to restore a sense of community, political & otherwise"

Italian fascism very interesting actually. A new thing in several ways.
Most of the atavistic nationalism though is NOT fascist as such. The fascists took it from much older Italian nationalism (Italia irredenta), 19th century-pre-WWI, which could also be very extreme and fanatical.

And neither fascism nor Italian nationalism was originally racist either.

The other places to look as far as official development of a national identity is the French Third Republic, which worked hard through schools and propaganda to turn all its local peoples into Frenchmen after 1870. A lot of people have a misunderstanding of French liberalism.

And of course there is Germany, 1866-19xx (its still going in many ways).
Another official nationalist ideology meant to create a unified national consciousness out of what were distinct nations.

The US was no slouch here, the enlightenment notwithstanding. There was a definite nationalist ideology being pushed in US schools and media from the 19th century until the 1970's or so, when it was rousted out by multiculturalism. I got the side-swipe of this in Philippine schools many decades ago. I too learned Longfellows "Paul Revere's Ride" and many similar pieces in school. I was interested to learn, when our kids were in school, that US schools no longer teach this.

Sammy Finkelman said...

A transcript pf the entire speech is included here: (after 3 paragraphs of excerpts and 5 of summary)

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/25/12647810/hillary-clinton-speech-alt-right

Sammy Finkelman said...

Of course Hillary Clinton always lies, even when she’d probably have a good argument with the truth.

According to Hillary Clinton:

....He says that children born in America to undocumented parents are, quote, “anchor babies” and should be deported.

Millions of them.


When did he say that? And she's saying that's his position now.

Maybe it is on his website, who knows? But even then it would be a distortion.

Bob Loblaw said...

This woman is going to be an absolutely horrible president. We'll be lucky to get out of it without a civil war.

wildswan said...

Hagar said:
"Shirley Sherrod has seen her neighbors lynched..."

Shirley Sherrod discussed the case of one man, Mr. Screw, a distant relative, who was beaten to death by police in 1940. She was born in 1948. She had not seen "her neighbors lynched".

http://spectator.org/39186_sherrod-story-false/

Balfegor said...

Alt-Right is kind of an artificial term -- I think the point is to create a category, define it by the most repellent members who could conceivably be part of that category, and then do one's level best to toss all one's opponents into that category. We saw a bit of this nonsense with the Orlando massacre, in which people who opposed marriage certificates for homosexual marriages were told they couldn't be complaining when gays were massacred, because of course, opposing a novelty like gay marriage is the moral equivalent of wanting gays to be massacred at a nightclub.

Here, I think the idea is to toss everyone who has reservations about unlimited immigration (or who opposes illegal immigration) into this "Alt-Right" category and call us all White Supremacists.

Anglelyne said...

YoungHegelian: The "Alt-Right" is the appearance in Anglo-American politics of the post-modernist Right. We hear about the post-modernist Left all the time. The Left nowadays essentially is post-modernist. But, the post-modernist Right has existed in continental theology & philosophy for quite some time now.

What the post-modern Right & Left share is a radical critique of the Enlightenment & its Classical Liberal heritage. To my mind, they seek to restore a sense of community, political & otherwise, around something more atavistic than individual rights & obligations.


Wouldn't it be a wonderful irony if the agent for introducing an awareness of "post-modernist right" thought into the American mainstream was...Hillary Clinton?

wildswan said...

Hillary Clinton is an alt-right operative from a certain point of view - what they want is for her to be elected and the existing trends which she supports will cause irreversible decline among the blacks.

The eugenics or heritability of intelligence or alt right position is that blacks have an average IQ of 85 and are not up to the demands of functioning in a technological civilization. For this reason the eugenicists worked hard to make abortion and contraception freely available to blacks, especially through Planned Parenthood in hope of establishing a differential birth rate which would ultimately wipe out the blacks. And they have succeeded; the black birth rate is now below replacement level. Various initiatives by Obama supported by Hillary Clinton have increased the number of blacks being aborted. They are 12% OF THE POPULATION AND 34% OF ABORTIONS.

However, the statistics on IQ used by the alt right were challenged at the time and do not have to be accepted. The essence of the argument against them was that all the IQ researchers from Audrey Shuey on were funded by a group called the Pioneer Fund. And all the researchers - Jensen, Eysenck - until 1983 accepted the work done by Cyril Burt from 1940 on which was shown to be fraud in that year. Since they all used that work all the IQ research was compromised. But the brave little IQ train went on: "I think, they can't; I think, they can't", it said. In other words, the Pioneer Fund sponsored more research which was gathered up into a book called The Bell Curve in the Nineties. There were questions about the researchers - Eysenck had published a book showing that astrology was correct and the stars influenced our lives - he used, he said, the same techniques as in his IQ research. And Chris Brand, another Pioneer Fund star, supported pedophilia. But some IQ guys were academics centered at the University of Minnesota where eugenicists had been clustered like bats ever since Charles Dight, a Hitler supporter, founded the Dight Institute there. http://chgs.umn.edu/histories/letterHitler.pdf
TJ Bouchard, a eugenic society member and the largest Pioneer Fund grantee led these studies. His work was disputed on the grounds that he did not publish the raw data so that the way he developed his statistics could not be evaluated. And questions were raised about what it seemed that he had done to massage data. It was also well understood by then that he was asserting that 50% of blacks have an IQ below 85 -such an IQ is defined as intellectually disabled. Blacks are poorly educated and often excluded - they are not stupid as a group. The Bell Curve called for lots of contraception for blacks because of the IQ differential. The IQ argument was rejected but, as I say, Hillary has undertaken to supply the alt-right with the desired differential. - by supporting Planned Parenthood she is committing genocide against the blacks. All pro-lifers now know this. But who listens to us?




Terry said...

"Balfegor said...
Alt-Right is kind of an artificial term -- I think the point is to create a category, define it by the most repellent members who could conceivably be part of that category, and then do one's level best to toss all one's opponents into that category."

This is what was done with the traditionalist 'sad puppies' faction of SF fans. The Left SF fans found a loud mouth with some repulsive attitudes on race an sex (Theodore Beale, aka "Vox Day'), and smeared the sad puppies with his views.

Fernandinande said...

wildswan said...
And they have succeeded; the black birth rate is now below replacement level.


Black birth rate is higher than white or Asian birthrate. Here, for one. Pew says black fertility is at replacement rate, others except "Hispanics" below it.

However, the statistics on IQ used by the alt right were challenged at the time and do not have to be accepted.

They IQ stats are not really rejected by anyone. Very liberal APA, very liberal Flynn (of the "effect"), etc, etc, agree. The only disagreement is how much of the difference is due to genetic vs crappy environment.

And Chris Brand, another Pioneer Fund star, supported pedophilia.

Not really. He said he was molested by priests and it was no big deal, and that many other "victims" were making a big about not much for civil court purposes.

The Bell Curve called for lots of contraception for blacks because of the IQ differential.

No they didn't. You can search "The Bell Curve" right here to see that you're ...not just incorrect, but sort of living in a fantasy world about these issue. Almost all your statements are either false or completely irrelevant.

Anglelyne said...

wildswan: shorter version: "Hitler! Pioneer Fund! Cyril Burt! And Chris Brand is a pervert!"

However, the statistics on IQ used by the alt right were challenged at the time and do not have to be accepted.

Well, nobody is required to believe anything they don't want to believe, but it's not as if research into intelligence and genetics stopped at some time in the past (um, it's going on even as we speak), and that criticism of "the statistics used by the alt right" (whatever that means), at some fuzzy point in the past, mark the definitive refutation of the idea that "intelligence" is heritable, quantifiable, and not distributed equally among human groups.

May I gently suggest that if you're still flogging Cyril Burt's name as somehow dispositive of something, you might want to expand and update your acquaintance with the subject?

buwaya said...

"in hope of establishing a differential birth rate which would ultimately wipe out the blacks."

That was true, at the time. However the white birth rate is even worse these days, abortion notwithstanding.

"the Pioneer Fund sponsored more research which was gathered up into a book called The Bell Curve in the Nineties."

No it wasn't. The Pioneer fund did not produce IQ survey data, or very little of it. All these people used data from independent, usually published educational statistics and academic sources. There was plenty of official data, such as the huge database of ASVAB Armed Forces survey data, in "The Bell Curve' - you should actually read "The Bell Curve".

"The Bell Curve called for lots of contraception for blacks"

No it didn't.

"The IQ argument was rejected "

No it wasn't - its the conventional wisdom now, though few want to admit it. The IQ differentials are seen mirrored (down to accurate predictions of standard deviation offsets) in every sort of academic and workforce aptitude and achievement test. Many of these are enormous in scope such as the SAT/ACT, as well as state schools testing programs.
Its the biggest problem in US education and nobody has a clue what to do about it.

Chuck said...

Isn't there a group of commenters here at Althouse, who qualify as "alt-right"? It's that cohort of commenters who long for the complete destruction of the Republican Party. Who voted for Donald Trump in a primary, because the nomination of Trump would massively piss off all the right people. Who have a newfound pleasure in calling out "cuckservatives."

I would think that the "alt-right" would be happy to identify themselves voluntarily, and that there wouldn't be any struggle on the part of third parties to define them.

buwaya said...

I am old-right - very old-right, so that might be "Alt".
I am a Catholic monarchist and I believe that you all would be better off acknowledging the King of Spain as your sovereign, as history was meant to turn out. There is still time to repair this unfortunate situation.
And, of course, the restoration of the Spanish Empire as a whole.
And the acknowledgement of the nation as a Catholic one, dedicated to its service as the sovereigns Ferdinand and Isabella set it up.
I only vote in Spanish and Philippine elections.
There you go Chuck.

YoungHegelian said...

@Chuck,

Isn't there a group of commenters here at Althouse, who qualify as "alt-right"?

No. The things you listed don't really put one into the category of "Alt-Right". Loathing the present Republican hierarchy simply makes one a conservative who loathes the Republican hierarchy.

There's no one here who's that racial or nationalistic in his/her thought. There's no one here who thinks that the Enlightenment & the Founding Fathers were full of shit from the git-go. All of us here are fans of the great American political experiment & wish it to succeed, the only question is how. This is also a strongly religious group, with a plurality of Catholics of various levels of observance. The Alt-Right is often not a comfortable place for people of faith.

Paco Wové said...

The alt-right that can be identified is not the real alt-right
The twitter meme that can be named is not the true twitter meme

YoungHegelian said...

All of us here are fans of the great American political experiment & wish it to succeed, the only question is how.

Well, with the possible exception of one slightly whack Pinoy.

wildswan said...

Fernandinande said...
wildswan said...
And they have succeeded; the black birth rate is now below replacement level.

Black birth rate is higher than white or Asian birthrate. Here, for one. Pew says black fertility is at replacement rate, others except "Hispanics" below it."

The Pew statistics were from a report published in 2010 so gathered earlier and do not reflect the impact of the Great Recession.
"Economic uncertainly has always made people more cautious about starting a family or having more children, but the depth, length and complexity of the Great Recession has had a particularly damaging effect on African-American birthrates.

African-American birth rates have fallen below what is known as “the replacement level.” The replacement number is how many children per woman a community needs in order to replace people who die from natural or unnatural causes. In the United States, that magic number is 2.1. The black community has dropped below that threshold, from 2.5 to 2.0 in the latter years of the recession, the only ethnic group in which this has occurred." http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/11/birth_rates_and_the_recession_has_a_black_generation_been_wiped_out/

And don't forget that the number 2.1 is not replacement level when a group has a high level of deaths before five as the blacks do.


wildswan said...

Wild Swan:'However, the statistics on IQ used by the alt right were challenged at the time and do not have to be accepted.'

"Ferdinande: They IQ stats are not really rejected by anyone. Very liberal APA, very liberal Flynn (of the "effect"), etc, etc, agree. The only disagreement is how much of the difference is due to genetic vs crappy environment."

I should have the "the statistics on the heritability of IQ".

buwaya said...

"I should have the "the statistics on the heritability of IQ"."

This is highly heritable and that is too is generally acknowledged, as also, which you are getting at, the racial gap. This is seen elsewhere - everywhere where there is an intellectual test of any sort, and is often described as the most robust phenomenon in social science.

buwaya said...

"The Pew statistics were from a report published in 2010"

This is from 2015, and its the CDC, not Pew. I.e. official statistics.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_06.pdf

Fernandinande said...

Anglelyne said...
auto-troll


Welcome to Autotrol Corporation
Serving the World's AC & DC Gear Motor Needs Since 1964

wildswan said...

Wild Swan" And Chris Brand, another Pioneer Fund star, supported pedophilia.

Ferdinande: "Not really. He said he was molested by priests and it was no big deal, and that many other "victims" were making a big about not much for civil court purposes.

Chris Brand:
"Academic studies and my own experience suggest that non-violent paedophilia with a consenting partner over age 12 does no harm so long as the paedophiles and their partners are of above-average IQ and educational level." from Chris brand's website http://www.cycad.com/site/Brand/paedo.html

buwaya said...

"Welcome to Autotrol Corporation
Serving the World's AC & DC Gear Motor Needs Since 1964"

Made in the USA !

buwaya said...

"And Chris Brand, another Pioneer Fund star, supported pedophilia. "

That he did.

Fernandinande said...

buwaya said...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_06.pdf


This one
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db216.pdf
is clearer about fertility rate:
Order, high to low: "Hispanic", black, Asian, white, Amerindian.

I'm surprised by the Amerindian value - I've seen elsewhere that they average > 4 kids/woman, vs around 2 for everyone else, and the higher value better matches what I saw on the Navajo res - there are guys with > 20 kids, a lot of women with 10 to 14 kids, etc.

Biff said...

I kind of miss the old days, when "arch-conservatives" were the worst people in the world.

Anglelyne said...

Chuck: Who have a newfound pleasure in calling out "cuckservatives."

"Newfound"? Nah. I at least have been enjoying this for a while now.

wildswan said...

Wild Swan: The Bell Curve called for lots of contraception for blacks because of the IQ differential.

Ferdinande:No they didn't. You can search "The Bell Curve" right here to see that you're ...not just incorrect, but sort of living in a fantasy world about these issue. Almost all your statements are either false or completely irrelevant.

The Bell Curve link mentioned above goes to a preview of the book so naturally a lot is missing. Like this: " The technically precise description of America's fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution. ... the extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies be ended ...[and also] make it easy for women to make good on their prior committment not to get pregnant by making available birth control mechanisms that are ... foolproof, inexpensive". Bell Curve p. 548 This is in the policy prescription section.

Chuck said...

Biff I really appreciate your citation of "arch-conservatives." It fell by the wayside out of pure shame on the part of the liberal media when they had no answer for why there were never any "arch-leftists."

wildswan said...

Angelyne: May I gently suggest that if you're still flogging Cyril Burt's name as somehow dispositive of something, you might want to expand and update your acquaintance with the subject?

Actually I went past Cyril Burt 1980's to TJ Bouchard and The Bell Curve controversy 1990's. The present group discussing these issues in 2016 uses a gene-environment interaction model and assumes many genes being involved. It is a very different argument. The one being presented here is to my mind old-fashioned and does not take into account radical changes in envisioning the impact of genes which followed the completion of the Human Genome Project.

wildswan said...

Buwaya said:
Wild Swan: "in hope of establishing a differential birth rate which would ultimately wipe out the blacks."

Buwaya: "That was true, at the time. However the white birth rate is even worse these days, abortion notwithstanding."

The white birth rate fell to 1.8 in 1973 and has fluctuated about that point in a fairly straight line. The black birth rate fell much more slowly but it is an arrow pointed down. The statistics on the black family breakdown clearly show that the downward trend will continue.

Chuck said...

Anglelyne; exactly how long will it take, after November, for you and all your ilk to die off? Like so many Dodos, or Mastodons...

buwaya said...

" The present group discussing these issues in 2016 uses a gene-environment interaction model and assumes many genes being involved."

No doubt, but heritability is an observed characteristic. It doesn't explain why it is heritable, just that it is. No doubt there are a lot of genes involved, and much else to (the wonder-explainer for all ill-understood matters these days is epigenetics).

The phenomenon regarding racial gaps (in ed-speak they have been calling it "THE GAP" for forty years at least, as the same differential shows up everywhere) is likewise observed phenomenon which does not imply an explanation. The complete failure of every sort of technique, supplement or environmental intervention since the 1960's (and just about everything has been tried, there have been thousands of experiments) to close "the gap" does show that whatever the cause, it is remarkably intractable. This has been the holy grail of educational research and policy.

wildswan said...

Wild Swan: "the Pioneer Fund sponsored more research which was gathered up into a book called The Bell Curve in the Nineties."

Buwaya: No it wasn't. The Pioneer fund did not produce IQ survey data, or very little of it. All these people used data from independent, usually published educational statistics and academic sources. There was plenty of official data, such as the huge database of ASVAB Armed Forces survey data, in "The Bell Curve' - you should actually read "The Bell Curve".

Wild Swan: "The Pioneer Fund sponsored more research in the heritability of IQ which was etc."

Two chief sources of The Bell Curve were The Minnesota twin Study run by TJ Bouchard and the Texas Adoption Study run by JM Horn. Both were eugenics society members and both were funded by the Pioneer Fund. Other contributors to the Bell Curve who were eugenic society members in England or America and Pioneer Fund grantees were Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, and Hans Eysenck.

In the bell Curve Murray specifically stated that his sympathies lay with the tradition he called "classical" p.19, the one that began with Galton, and ran through Spearman. Cyril Burt, Arthur Jensen, Chris Brand are all carrying on this tadition and Murray uses or discusses them. Murray does not say but it is the case that this tradition is based on the work of of eugenic society members.

I was involved in Bell Curve battles in the 1990's. And the arguments used then are not acceptable in the GxE era. I answer them because I am well aware that they are still circulating. But they are not at all acceptable as framed since the end of the Human Genome Project.

wildswan said...


Wild Swan: "The Pew statistics were from a report published in 2010"

Buwaya: This is from 2015, and its the CDC, not Pew. I.e. official statistics.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_06.pdf

I can't find the TFR in that report and the report does say:"Population estimates by age, sex, and race and Hispanic origin for 2014 at the national and state levels were not available as of the preparation of this report. Accordingly, birth and fertility rates by race and Hispanic origin and fertility rates by state could not be shown here."

So published in 2015 but using 2014 stats but not the ones we are looking for - the replacement rate, It does show low birth weight stats. "LBW levels were essentially unchanged in 2014 from 2013 for the three largest race and Hispanic origin groups: nonHispanic white (6.96% in 2014), non-Hispanic black (13.16%), and Hispanic (7.05%)." So Black LBW 13.16% was about twice that of whites 6.9% which means these infants are more likely to die. Hence the actual black replacement rate is not 2.1

Anglelyne said...

wildswan: Actually I went past Cyril Burt 1980's to TJ Bouchard and The Bell Curve controversy 1990's.

How does alleging to follow a controversy about a book you didn't read let you off the hook for serving up very dusty and irrelevant ad hominem "refutations"?

The present group discussing these issues in 2016 uses a gene-environment interaction model and assumes many genes being involved. It is a very different argument. The one being presented here is to my mind old-fashioned and does not take into account radical changes in envisioning the impact of genes which followed the completion of the Human Genome Project.

This is pure bafflegab. It's not a "very different argument". Nothing anybody has presented here excludes environmental factors in intelligence or "many genes being involved". I dare say you've heard about epigenetics, too.

Fernandinande said...

"The data indicate that the fertility of Navajo women was very high, reaching the completed fertility rate of 9.2 children for women aged 45-49 years as compared with that of 2.4 children and 2.8 children for white and non-white women in the United States in 1960 respectively."

So I feel better. This is old data, but I was looking at older people with reproduction-age children and sometimes grandchildren.

buwaya puti said...

Observations are observations, regardless, and the mass of data used by Herrnstein and Murray wasn't Pioneer. And it doesn't matter the provenance thereof, especially not the twin studies as these were oriented to the nature vs nurture question, not "the gap", which is present in every data set. The twin studies were conducted correctly and the data and methods were correctly disclosed. There must have been thousands of papers citing them. If you like, consider them like data from Nazis about rocket experiments. Anyway, it does matter hugely even in the age of genetics because it simply is. It does not require an explanation to matter. It does matter that there doesn't seem to be any remediation or any prospect of one.

buwaya puti said...

I pulled the wrong pdf, see Fernandinande above. The birthrate for 15-44 is there, and it's the basis for the TFR.

wildswan said...

buwaya
There is a black-white gap in educational achievement. I have no fixed explanation.

There's a lot of useless educational theory and a lot of iron rice bowls out there.
Trigger warnings and safe spaces and all-black residences at colleges will just hold blacks back.
Headstart is useless.

But yet, in terms of Milwaukee there are things that can be done. There are private and charter schools in Milwaukee which draw from the worst zip codes and send most of their graduates to college. For that reason I know we could do better at MPS. There are charter schools in Milwaukee which do as badly as the worst public schools. If DPI would close them as it has the power to do and allow new charter schools to open then scores like the NAEF scores would look much better. So scores can be manipulated by the foes of educational choice - a thing to keep in mind.

If you know blacks even a bit, doesn't it seem obvious that they aren't putting their best foot forward in the schools as a group?

Anglelyne said...

Chuck: Anglelyne; exactly how long will it take, after November, for you and all your ilk to die off? Like so many Dodos, or Mastodons...

Well, I'm no spring chicken, but still, probably longer than you'd like. Sorry.

wildswan said...

Angelyne

Sweetie,

I have read the Bell Curve.

The epigenetic argument is not the G factor or the QTL argument.

And I'm sorry I confused you and my words became bafflegab. I would never deny that intelligence, whatever it is, wherever it comes from is a reality and there isn't as much of it around as people think. Can you understand that?

Fernandinande said...

wildswan said...
The Bell Curve link mentioned above goes to a preview of the book


A preview with over 851 pages.

so naturally a lot is missing. Like this: "The technically precise description of America's fertility policy..."

IOW, blacks not mentioned.

buwaya said...
No doubt there are a lot of genes involved,


One can deduce that from the fact that most non-trivial genetic diseases have a negative effect on cognition (and sometimes distinctive weird personalities).

wildswan said...
Two chief sources of The Bell Curve were The Minnesota twin Study


Run by the University of Minnesota, a quasi-socialist organization and therefore all their research is wrong and there's no need to refute it because it's wrong because they're socialists. Or something like that. Or the inverse.

And Chris Brand, another Pioneer Fund star

Brand says
"For the kind of wilfully ignorant criticism mounted by the UK 'Anti-Nazi League'..."Brand is part of an international academic network ...These reborn Nazis get big bucks from the Nazi Pioneer Fund and from New Money foundations such as the Bradley Foundation." (In fact, Brand – a psychology lecturer and personality theorist -- never requested or received any such funding.)"

But that is obviously irrelevant. See University of Minnesota, above.

buwaya said...
This is seen elsewhere - everywhere where there is an intellectual test of any sort, and is often described as the most robust phenomenon in social science.


It's pretty amazing that so many tests involving cognition show that same .9 to 1.1 stddev difference (when they also supply the stddevs, which isn't common enough), even on tests with non-random samples and a cutoff, like the LSAT and MCAT.

Linda Gottfriedson, from the University of Delaware's Department of Racist Nazi Studies, has some great papers on the public and academic resistance to IQ research.

Fernandinande said...

wildswan said...
There are private and charter schools in Milwaukee which draw from the worst zip codes and send most of their graduates to college.


Need a cite on that zinger.

wildswan said...

I think that the argument is drifting away from the assertion that the average black IQ is 85 into assertions about how often this has been said in how many places by how many different people. The key point is that the assertion is that the average black IQ is 85. That means that 50% are below that, below 85. That most of the blacks you meet are stupid, really stupid. That just isn't so.

buwaya puti said...

Both public and private remediations, including vouchers and charters, have been repeatedly evaluated. There have been far more intense remediations tried too, including boarding kids with middle class families, etc., to remove all social variables that could be removed.
Nothing shows more than a marginal effect, other than in K-5. There are several things that do have an effect, the best is straight curriculum reform and highly structured instruction, the best sustained performance I have seen is the Inglewood school district, LA county, which has come close to closing "the gap". But the improvements all fade away by the 8th grade no matter what system is used.
It got so that Diane Ravitch, who was formerly a big exponent of vouchers and charters, flipped on them because the sustained improvements were marginal, over a multitude of cases. They show improvements, but marginal ones. She went too far IMHO. Such is the effect though of the general frustration and demoralization about "the gap".

wildswan said...

wildswan said...
There are private and charter schools in Milwaukee which draw from the worst zip codes and send most of their graduates to college.

Need a cite on that zinger.

Carmen is a charter school and Guadeloupe (united Community Center) is a private school.

buwaya puti said...

The 1 sd is also seen in the California STAR 2-11 tests (taken by most CA public/charter school kids ) which I have been independently tracking and analyzing for almost 20 years. Yes I have some odd hobbies.
It freaked me out to see the 1sd there also.

wildswan said...

The Mark Belling show ran a series on MPS which included a terrible story about a second grade boy who injured two of his teachers. The second woman was not told why a new teacher was needed in the middle of the year nor was she warned that she had a very violent little boy to handle. When he injured her foot and she found out his past history she refused to go back to the classroom. So these second graders got another substitute teacher. And how do you suppose they did on their academic work that year? Was there a gap widening out between them and kids over in St. Francis? I think so. We could do better if we put 25 second graders ahead of one disturbed boy. That wouldn't be educationally PC but then standard PC isn't working for the MPS kids from bad zip codes. Why don't the teachers challenge the regime?

Jonathan Graehl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Graehl said...

buwaya - inglewood unified has been a disgrace for decades. looted by incompetents.

if they're improving it's because demographics shifted, or because they cheated.

although some of the corrupt embezzlers retired and they're in state receivership. so maybe some regression-to-mean improvement is likely.

buwaya puti said...

Its not that hard to choose a good performing sample out of an underperforming population, even with self - selection. This is a good thing to do anyway, because it does serve to rescue a minority from the "peer effects" of the mass, which is a significant factor in suppressing performance of "the talented tenth" or so. Hoxby did some interesting work on this at Harvard. This also has been much studied.
Kipp (the charter school outfit) does some of the best work with this. But its not going to fix most of the problem.

wildswan said...

Buwaya
I'm not saying that one std doesn't occur. I'm saying: look around you. Do blacks in real life come across as having an IQ of 85 on average. No. So it isn't intelligence that is being measured but something else somewhat like it. Perhaps like how European are the facts in your memory, how has your imagination been trained, what are you focusing on in the scene in front of you. But this is just speculation.

buwaya puti said...

Inglewood unified had some of the best school reform performance (improvement for poor black kids) ever seen in the CA STAR tests, that was sustained for 20 years. This is K-5.
Look up Nancy Ichinaga.
The current scores for black kids at Bennet-Kew and Kelso (two Inglewood schools reformed by Ichinaga) are nearly 1sd better than black kids generally in CA.
The problem is it fades away, not just in this case.

buwaya puti said...

This has been noted. It is speculation to explain it, but it is a fact. There are many explanations, one being of course that IQ isnt everything. It measures a certain class of abilities, not all of them. But these are very valuable abilities.

cyrus83 said...

Politically, I think Hillary mentioning the term "alt-right" is a mistake. To exploit the existence of such a thing, it's much better to let the right fight out the internecine war (which they've been doing a bang up job at so far) and leave it as a term to be debated by those on the right.

By introducing it into the mainstream and also making it a point of emphasis that she's fighting the alt-right, she implicitly legitimizes the other part of the right (because otherwise, she should just keep hammering away at the right and not make the distinction - it's not like low-info voters who don't vote Republican are going to be aware of the split). That may not matter much in the Presidential election, but there are a lot of House/Senate/State elections going on, and if the only thing casual observers take away is that Trump is some alt-right guy who is very different from mainstream Republicans, they may be more inclined to vote Republican down-ticket.

The only way this makes any sense politically is if it motivates Republicans to abandon Trump for a candidate on the right who isn't part of the alt-right. The problem she has is that the two main alternatives, Johnson and Stein, are both more left than right.

Anglelyne said...

wildswan: The epigenetic argument is not the G factor or the QTL argument.

No shit, wildswan. If you actually understood that, you wouldn't be making claims that arguments from psychometric data were "old fashioned" or superseded by information from the Human Genome Project. I put "very different argument" in quotes advisedly, because most people don't use that phrase to mean "new stuff that has replaced or disproved that other stuff you're talking about".

You were claiming it was a "very different argument" by virtue of its assuming environmental influences and multiple gene interaction, but that is neither here nor there regarding statistical psychometric arguments. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that there is no extant "epigenetic argument" that "disproves" inferences from psychometric data. "Epigenetics" fulfills no such function.

buwaya puti said...

I see Inglewoods K-5 schools faded out badly from 2012-2013 and are as poor as one can expect these days.
But they kicked ass from 1999-2012.
Sic transit gloria.

buwaya puti said...

In re Inglewood, I was depending on my spreadsheet and I hadnt updated these since 2012. The Inglewood district looks like has gone to pot.

buwaya puti said...

An example of what can be done, and an example of the fadeout - Sample Inglewood schools, black students for 2007 -
K-5 Inglewood 790 CA 691 (white CA K-5 841) sd @140
7-8 Inglewood 644 CA 629 (white CA 7-8 807)

This is not typical, but is more or less a best case for every sort of school reform - the improvement of K-5 scores in this case was much greater than usual in situations where there was no selection.

buwaya puti said...

One interesting case where IQ data simply doesnt work - where there simply isnt enough data.
Filipinos in the US. There are very old IQ surveys showing IQs in the 85-86 range, about with CA "Hispanic". Other US testing statistics hid them under "Asian", so everyone assumed they were some of the low-performing Asians, the overall scores being bumped up by the Chinese, etc.
However, once the CA testing regime started breaking out Filipinos, it turned out they had identical 2-11 scores as CA whites, or a bit better. Still not up to the Chinese though.

2013 STAR API all grades (its easier to use the old test series values, there is a different system since 2014).

Asian - 906 (Largely Chinese, but also Indian, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese)
Filipino - 867
White - 852
Hispanic - 743
Black - 707

So the IQ values were off in this case because of a lack of data. But thats not the case for black IQs, thats one of the most studied groups in psychometry.

Friedrich Engels' Barber said...

Alt Right: Another one of those, literally, meaningless category words that are so popular with Marxists and other reality-challenged leftists and that make nominalism look so appealing. Although I suppose there is a family resemblance between Alt Rights and shiny Onix Pokemon.

Rusty said...

Chuck said...
Anglelyne; exactly how long will it take, after November, for you and all your ilk to die off? Like so many Dodos, or Mastodons...

What a wonderfully thoughtless thing to say. Sadly, for me, I will probably not be around long. Take heart, However! Your children will be serving mine for many years to come.

Michael Edward McNeil said...

exactly how long will it take, after November, for you and all your ilk to die off? Like so many Dodos, or Mastodons…

Both dodos and mastodons (certainly, in the case of the former, highly likely for the latter) were done in by human hunters, so it isn't as if folks just waited around for them to die. With high probability both (along with dozens of genera of other animals) would still be around today, but for that. Is that a lesson for how to deal with Angelyne's “ilk”?

Fernandinande said...

wildswan said...
Carmen is a charter school and


Why yes, yes it is.

And a very crummy one at that: academic rating 2/10, which is a typical, perhaps lower than typical, NAM school. 99% "Hispanic".

Guadeloupe (united Community Center) is a private school.

"site:greatschools.org "Guadeloupe" "Milwaukee" - did not match any documents."

You are really full of shit, over and over again, wildswan.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Thanks, buwaya. What I said about Inglewood is generally true (based on my discussion with people who work in admin and teachers) but I'm glad there was a bright spot for a few years in K-5.

We also shouldn't forget that Inglewood has also become somewhat safer and more expensive (though not extremely gentrified) over the past decades.

wildswan said...

wildswan said: Carmen is a charter school and

Ferdiande said: Why yes, yes it is. And a very crummy one at that: academic rating 2/10, which is a typical, perhaps lower than typical, NAM school. 99% "Hispanic".

Wild Swan said: That 2/10 rating is number of students accepted into the school vs. number who apply.http://www.greatschools.org/wisconsin/milwaukee/3617-Carmen-High-School-Of-Science-And-Technology-South-Campus/

Students who go to college after Carmen:

"Carmen is a college prep high school that prepares all students for college. The average ACT score for the class of 2014 was 20. Carmen graduates earned more college scholarship dollars per senior than any other high school in Milwaukee Public Schools. 84% of Carmen's graduates in 2014 passed at least one Advanced Placement (AP) exam while in high school. 100% of graduates in the class of 2014 were accepted to college and 81% enrolled in college in Fall 2014." from http://www.greatschools.org/wisconsin/milwaukee/3617-Carmen-High-School-Of-Science-And-Technology-South-Campus/


Ferdinande said: Guadeloupe school does not exist.
Wild Swan said: The school is listed as Bruce-Guadeloupe school. I've always heard it called Guadeloupe school. It prepares students so well that from there they are able to go through high school elsewhere and still those students fo to college in great numbers. http://www.bgcsedu.org/BGCS.htm

wildswan said...

Angelyne

The discussion on this post is about heritability of IQ. The new insights from the Human Genome Project did alter the validity of all previous discussions about heritability. And epigenetics is part of this new discussion.

The rest of your "arguments" are Huffenpoop personalities typical of sense of style,

Anglelyne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anglelyne said...

wildswan: The discussion on this post is about heritability of IQ. The new insights from the Human Genome Project did alter the validity of all previous discussions about heritability. And epigenetics is part of this new discussion.

...which has not, contrary to what you're desperately trying to imply without having to come right out and own it, proved that group differences in intelligence do not have a heritable genetic basis, or that psychometrics is all a bunch of discredited bunk.

Epigenetics in itself is merely the study of how external factors affect gene expression. Very interesting stuff, btw. Unfortunately, "epigenetics" is also currently being used as the latest crucifix-against-vampires by people who really, really, want to believe that the latest science "proves" that things they don't want to be true aren't true. It doesn't. Sorry.

Continually re-asserting nebulous claims about "epigenetics" doesn't do anything but consolidate the impression that you don't know what you're talking about and are merely bleating this year's "science for dummies" consolatory talking points. (Continually re-asserting, I note, without ever betraying any knowledge of the subject beyond a dim apprehension that environmental influences are somehow involved. See, environment! So, QED, racists!)