ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, December 18, 2017

The best they've got

The increasing irrelevance of the conservative is exemplified beautifully by this list of "The 40 Best Conservative Columnists of 2017" by Right Wing News, particularly the top ten.
  1. Ben Shapiro
  2. Jonah Goldberg
  3. Matt Walsh
  4. Kurt Schlichter
  5. David French
  6. Matt Lewis
  7. Kevin Williamson
  8. David Limbaugh
  9. Ashe Schow
  10. Victor Davis Hanson
Cucks, cowards, and clowns, for the most part. That's what the political posers who call themselves conservatives are. They conserve nothing. They accomplish nothing. They literally stand for nothing.

Imagine a debate between the five best minds of the Alt-West and the top five conservatives listed there. Is there any doubt as to which side would come out easily on top? Is there any serious question as to why these top conservatives run like frightened little bitches from debate with anyone to the right of them?

They know they have no substantive case that will hold up to scrutiny. That's why they only dare to snipe from safety.

Labels:

161 Comments:

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky December 18, 2017 1:05 PM  

VDH is a Democrat still, right? A jaded disillusioned Democrat and the rare one who can still make some kind of sense. And he's the best conservative on that list.

Blogger Azimus December 18, 2017 1:07 PM  

The problem with conservatism is the problem with Christianity - everybody expects someone else to be doing the legwork. I was talking to a pastor friend of mine and I said "if all the paid pastors of this county spent 1 day a week evangelizing, this county would be 100% converted in 2 years." He replied that he was willing to help organize, but other people should be doing the evangelizing. We talked further, and it seems this was the consensus among most pastors in my area: they are too busy organizing Guitar Hero tournaments, men's prayer breakfasts, and fundraisers to go out and talk to someone about Christ. Let somebody else do that.

Conservatives - same thing. Plenty of people good at talking and wowing the allied-audiences. Nobody on the street preaching the gospel.

Blogger Pax_Romana December 18, 2017 1:12 PM  

Glad Crowder isn't on this list, as that would put him in bad company. Though he's a little weak on some points, he at least does take major risks by doing undercover journalism that exposes SJWs and Muslims to the light of day.

Anonymous E Deploribus Unum December 18, 2017 1:12 PM  

if all the paid pastors

Wait, I'm no fan of paid pastors, but how is evangelism the PASTORS' job? Witnessing is every Christian's job. And no "organizing" is required.

Anonymous markonius December 18, 2017 1:13 PM  

Left LOVES Shapiro because he makes it easy on them. See: https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

Blogger Almodavar December 18, 2017 1:13 PM  

VDH wrote Mexifornia.

Blogger VD December 18, 2017 1:15 PM  

Conservatives - same thing. Plenty of people good at talking and wowing the allied-audiences. Nobody on the street preaching the gospel.

That's not true. There is no conservative equivalent to the Gospel. They have no philosophers and no ideology. The more you read up on "conservative thought", the more it becomes apparent that there simply isn't any.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 18, 2017 1:15 PM  

@2 Azimus

Paying Good Time/Effort/Energy into Bad Structure. In the case of the Church, it's to maintain buildings; in the case of "Conservatives", it's to maintain the invite to the cool kids parties. But both assume the Tide and just want to ride with it.

Both groups also have little understanding that their enemies have designed all of their attacks against the way they operate, which is why they fail so much.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr December 18, 2017 1:17 PM  

I'm surprised they included Hanson. He's got brains, guts, and common sense.

Anonymous Amstel Light December 18, 2017 1:18 PM  

Ben Shapiro, a Provocative ‘Gladiator,’ Battles to Win Young Conservatives

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/ben-shapiro-conservative.html?_r=0

“(((Mr. Shapiro))), conservative thinker, entertainer, trash talker and destroyer of weak arguments, has been called the voice of the conservative millennial movement. He represents the tastes of an emerging political class: If Rush Limbaugh is someone your dad listens to on his car radio, Mr. Shapiro, 33, a graduate of Harvard Law School, is the cool kid’s philosopher, dissecting arguments with a lawyer’s skill and references to Aristotle. He exists in places that young people inhabit — podcasts, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. His podcast, The Ben Shapiro Show, is downloaded 10 million times every month. Seventy percent of his audience is under the age of 40.”

Anonymous Looking Glass December 18, 2017 1:19 PM  

Though I would give some credit to Ashe Schow and the work she's done on the "Rape Culture" destruction on college campuses. She can show actual results for the work she's done, which is actually lacking in pretty much everyone else on that list.

Blogger Chesapean December 18, 2017 1:20 PM  

I object to suggesting Victor Davis Hanson is a cuck, coward and clown.

As I read them, his views better represent Alt-right thinking than the views of the never-Trumpers he hangs around with at National Review. As a classicist, Hanson routinely discovers the same lessons of history the Alt-right seeks to recover.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr December 18, 2017 1:21 PM  

The Old "Conservatives" stand for nothing...except possibly greed. Their definition of "conservative" is "wants to make money". They just don't get the social issues - or think they can buy a place on a lifeboat after the Left runs the ship of state into an iceberg.

Blogger Koanic December 18, 2017 1:24 PM  

How many of those are kikeservatives? Fake opposition is successful subversion.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents December 18, 2017 1:26 PM  

Matt Lewis
Ashe Schow

Who? Who are these guys?

Victor Davis Hanson

Proof that a 60's liberal who doesn't change any ideas becomes a conservative 50 years later.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2017 1:27 PM  

The only worthwhile names on the list are Schlichter and Hansen. David Limbaugh? How near the bottom of the barrel are you getting when you have to list Rush's little brother to get a recognizable name? He may be good for all I know, but the odds are against it.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 18, 2017 1:28 PM  

@12 Chesapean

As a classicist, Hanson routinely discovers the same lessons of history the Alt-right seeks to recover.

---

I really enjoy some of his historical books.

And Kurt Schlichter is slowly evolving into a shit lord.

I think there is hope for these two.

The rest, not so much.

Blogger Sam Lively December 18, 2017 1:32 PM  

VDH is unfortunately much more passionate about neocon apologia than his worthier hobby horses.

Shapiro is massively ambitious and that gives him a form of bravery, but not the right kind.

Schlichter wants to win more than anyone else on this list. Walsh has a little bit of that fighting gene, but he routes it all into emotionalist diary-ea.

French gets off on surrendering high ground and using that to justify retreat. The most useless guy on there.

Goldberg and Williamson are both smug elitists.

Haven't read any of the other guys.

Blogger Michael December 18, 2017 1:34 PM  

I like Matt Walsh. He was egregiously wrong about Trump, but when it comes to moral issues he's spot on. And I doubt he'll ever be popular with the cool kids.

Anonymous Ike December 18, 2017 1:36 PM  

1. (((Talmud)))
2. (((#NeverTrump)))
3. Judeo-Churchian
4. Decent dude
5. Muh wife black’s son!
6. Who?
7. Death to Working Class Whites
8. Nepotism
9. Who?
10. Israel First

Anonymous Reenay December 18, 2017 1:37 PM  

Why are at least half these names Jewish? How proportionate is that to the overall U.S. conservative population?

Blogger Pax_Romana December 18, 2017 1:39 PM  

@21 About as proportionate as the ones here in Hollywood are to America at large.

Blogger Tom December 18, 2017 1:39 PM  

Not that you need my approval Vox, but I think this is EXACTLY the right front to be fighting on. These are the people we want to be engaging, not the know nothing emotional projectionists of the far left. Let's see a Derbyshire-Goldberg debate. One I keep hoping to see is a Jared Taylor-Charles Murray debate. If the names above really believe we're all a bunch of troglodytes who dream of camps and ovens, let them prove it. They can show us all what imbeciles we are and finally take control of the narrative and put it back where they think it belongs.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 18, 2017 1:40 PM  

It amazes me what passes for conservative these days after growing up in the 1980's in a JBS household.

Blogger Nate Winchester December 18, 2017 1:40 PM  

Shapiro actually took on ugyer at politicon so why not set up a debate? I'm sure next year's convention would love another explosive show.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 18, 2017 1:42 PM  

None on that list the least bit skeptical of the modern sins of isms, ists and phobias, hence any blue haired, nose ringed white trash SJW can bend them over like the Gimp. (and that is friggin sad)

Blogger tuberman December 18, 2017 1:44 PM  

Koanic,

I would put it this way: How many are CRIMINALS? As in real Clowns, lately being redefined as Mockingbird Operatives? Getting their pay from the CIA.

Perhaps some are just fools, but the lies and disinfo they put out are textbook operative material. Watch the patterns they use, as they push things to material that does not effect real changes, while apparently saying Right oriented stuff... false trails. Then they attack anyone trying to do anything really effective. This all takes some minimal training, but the people involved have to be fully conscious of what they are doing. Thus, not just cucks, but full on traitors to everything. They are Globalists/NWO people, and the Left/Right split has lost meaning. Or at least at this point, a person who is a conscious cuck, is also consciously a traitor to all of Western Civilization. Not necessarily true many years ago, but it is now.

Anonymous Nike December 18, 2017 1:44 PM  

Conservatism is an inherently nihilistic and loser philosophy. At it's worst, it's empty virtue signalling from perpetual losers in every single battle of the culture war. At it's best, it's a scam by (((money-changers))) and (((globohomo))) to milk old white Boomers of their money and influence.

Blogger Al December 18, 2017 1:49 PM  

To begin understand the perfidy of the likes of the "conservatives" (((Shapiro))) and (((Goldberg))), pitiful cuckservatives need to read this:

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History, by E. Michael Jones

Get it directly on the culturewars/Fidelity Press site, as Amazon usually radically jacks up the price of this book.

“In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of those disposed toward evil is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigor of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the Prophet Zachary did in spirit (Zach. 13:6a): 'What are those wounds in the midst of Thy hands?' The answer would not be doubtful: '...With these I was wounded in the house of them that loved me (Zach. 13:6b). I was wounded by my friends, who did nothing to defend me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries. And this reproach can be leveled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries.'"

-Pope St. Pius X, at the beatification of Joan of Arc (Dec. 13, 1908)

Blogger Matthew December 18, 2017 1:50 PM  

Nine out of the Top Ten Conservatives will face the Day of the Rope with quivering lips and weak limbs. The other will still be complaining about his raisins.

Anonymous VFM #6306 December 18, 2017 1:51 PM  

How proportionate is that to the overall U.S. conservative population?

6 million.

Blogger VD December 18, 2017 1:57 PM  

Shapiro actually took on ugyer at politicon so why not set up a debate? I'm sure next year's convention would love another explosive show.

Because both Shapiro and Walsh have run from debate with me despite being called out by more than a few of their own followers.

Like I said, cucks and cowards.

Anonymous Ryan G December 18, 2017 1:59 PM  

I have a question. It's an honest one, and not an attack on the Alt-right. It's this: what facts support the assertion that Western Civilization is tied to genetics? I understand that there are broad behavioral traits that have a genetic basis. However, I don't see a proven connection between that and complex social organization, especially in light of history. Concepts such as the rule-of-law, democracy, private property rights, etc weren't widespread in Europe until relatively recently. They certainly existed here and there and for varying lengths of time, but they were by no means endemic.

I'm asking this because it was pointed out by Ben Shapiro in one his Daily Wire episodes. His assertion is that is primarily the culture which shapes countries and there is no proven link between culture and genetics. I agree with Ben, for the most part, but I also agree with all but points 9 and 13 of The 16 Points.

Anonymous Gen. Kong December 18, 2017 2:01 PM  

The more you read up on "conservative thought", the more it becomes apparent that there simply isn't any.

Like wymyn voters, they're unencumbered by the thought process. Just the other day, NRO's Kevin Williamson, who wants all whites dead, penned a loving Kwanzaa miracle of Wal-Mart. (Click on the link to the original article from OD's takedown at your own risk).

Anonymous FP December 18, 2017 2:01 PM  

Anyone see the trailer for the movie "The Post"? Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, directed by Spielberg telling the story of WAPO against Nixon over the pentagon papers.

Bezos and the CIA are looking to improve their image for some reason.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2017 2:02 PM  

> ...and there is no proven link between culture and genetics.

Then why do different genetic groups have different cultures?

Blogger VD December 18, 2017 2:09 PM  

His assertion is that is primarily the culture which shapes countries and there is no proven link between culture and genetics.

Shapiro is a shameless liar. Not only is there a strong link between culture and genetics, which are mutually intertwined, it has been demonstrated that the single most important societal determinant is the AVERAGE IQ of a society. And IQ is mostly determined by genetics.

It’s a well-known fact that intelligence corresponds to various kinds of life outcomes at the individual level, such as income, education, drug abuse, criminality etc. A little less known is the fact that national average IQs correspond to similar outcomes on the national level. This has been shown by among others psychologists Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, who have found staggering correlations between national IQ and things like health, education, income, crime, corruption, democracy. To give you a rough idea, here are some of the findings,

Educational measures like TIMSS and PISA correlate 0.79-0.92

Number of scientists and engineers correlate 0.61

Measures of per capita national income (GDP, GNP, GNI) correlate 0.51-0.89

Poverty and unemployment: -0.63 and -0.76 respectively

Crime in the form of homicide, assault and rape: -0.21 to -0.82 with distinctly higher correlations for the more accurate measure of homicide

Corruption: -0.27 to -0.68, all but one study above -0.54

Democracy: 20 of 22 measures show correlations around 0.60

Life expectancy: 0.51-0.82.... Anyway, you get the picture. All the basic requirements for modern civilization – democracy, education, wealth, health and (lack of) crime and corruption – are strongly related to national IQs.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents December 18, 2017 2:11 PM  

@33
I'm asking this because it was pointed out by Ben Shapiro in one his Daily Wire episodes. His assertion is that is primarily the culture which shapes countries and there is no proven link between culture and genetics.

Could there be something about (((Ben Shapiro))), something in his (((background))) that would make him sensitive to the idea that genetics influences culture and quick to contradict? Or even the idea that culture influences genetics? (((Franz Boas))) would be proud of (((Shapiro))) for being such a real mensch!

Anonymous Cadwallander J December 18, 2017 2:12 PM  

Especially disappointed in Goldberg. He went from Liberal Fascism, which set up a great Voxiversity, to being a reliable ultra-cuck Never-Trumper. And for what, to go on NPR as the resident house conservative and bash the God Emperor for left's enjoyment? Dance (((monkey))), dance.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents December 18, 2017 2:13 PM  

@35 FP
Anyone see the trailer for the movie "The Post"? Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, directed by Spielberg

No. I value my eyes too much.

Blogger seeingsights December 18, 2017 2:15 PM  

I also meant to add Steve Sailer. His ideas on how to win the Presidency was proved correct by Trump.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents December 18, 2017 2:16 PM  

@39
Especially disappointed in Goldberg.

He married a woman older than he is, calls her "Fair Jessica" and let her keep her own last name. She has one child, a daughter. I'd like to play poker with him, his tells gotta be easy to spot.

Blogger seeingsights December 18, 2017 2:18 PM  

Strange, my first post did not appear. Besides Steve Sailer, here are superior thinkers:
Fjordman
Paul Joseph Watson
James Kirkpatrick of V Dare

Blogger KSC December 18, 2017 2:20 PM  

@7
There are some, though they're relatively few and far between. Roger Scruton comes to mind, but he has basically no real-world influence.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LBXUTAQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Blogger Cary December 18, 2017 2:21 PM  

At least 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 were never Trump. That the majority of "leading conservatives" could support Hillary over the God Emperor shows how bankrupt conservatism is.

Anonymous fop December 18, 2017 2:21 PM  

How in the world does Mark Steyn not make the top 40?

Blogger Crush Limbraw December 18, 2017 2:25 PM  

Azimus - you nailed it! I finally quit contacting pastors,including my own-it was a foreign language to them.
That is why I started my own website and archive over two
years ago.
Ironically, the most flak I get is from Churchians and Conservatives.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd December 18, 2017 2:26 PM  

Ryan G wrote:Concepts such as the rule-of-law, democracy, private property rights, etc weren't widespread in Europe until relatively recently. They certainly existed here and there and for varying lengths of time, but they were by no means endemic.

Those concepts developed slowly and incompletely in Europe. Where else did they develop so far and so rapidly? Also, where else than Western, especially Northwestern Europe, did a high IQ, high trust society develop?

Read Le Griff du Lion, particularly his essays on smart fraction theory.

Blogger DonReynolds December 18, 2017 2:30 PM  

Are my eyes playing tricks on me or does this list have a decidedly Germanic scent? (Granted, Williamson could easily be Welsh, but the rest seem to have an affinity for sauerkraut and wurst.)

No...I do not regularly read any of them and some of them, I have sampled over the years and found them feeble on the important issues.

Blogger Chris Lutz December 18, 2017 2:30 PM  

@46 You mean Mark Steyn of "We'll have an easier time of working with Europe once the Muslim's take over" fame?

Anonymous AB.Prosper December 18, 2017 2:34 PM  

I've read most of these people except Ashe Schow. No idea who she is , what she is about though she is kind of pretty is a Cos Play girl kind of way

Kurt Schlichter is getting better, he's still "mainstream republican arm of the 90's militia right" but the gap between that an .alt right is surmountable . It wouldn't not surprise me to see him becomes basically .Alt Right in shortish period of time

Victor Davis Hanson is at least a good academic writer

Anonymous grep December 18, 2017 2:35 PM  

...the five best minds of the Alt-West...

Can we get that list please?

Anonymous BBGKB December 18, 2017 2:36 PM  

Today-Full CUCK Kasich: Republicans can't be 'small, angry and narrow'

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) appeared on Meet the Press to talk about the effect of the Trump presidency on the Republican party.

There is no conservative equivalent to the Gospel.

Adjusts bow tie, what about Hayek? https://gab.ai/BGKB/posts/16372266

How many of those are kikeservatives? The Israel 1st America 5th column

It's this: what facts support the assertion that Western Civilization is tied to genetics?

It's not that freedom is bad but only Whites think it's RAD. Anyone could copy the behavior that produces the golden eggs of western civilization but they don't. The genetics of individuals produce, in the aggregate, the collective phenotype of populations, and populations segregate at the genetic level to RACES. It's a closed loop, and no amount of belief in MAGIC can change it.

Blogger Akulkis December 18, 2017 2:38 PM  

Kevin Williamson can, and should, just die already. He's obsolete, has failed to adapt to the times, and he uses up more than he contribues.

Anonymous Gen. Kong December 18, 2017 2:41 PM  

Chris Lutz wrote:
@46 You mean Mark Steyn of "We'll have an easier time of working with Europe once the Muslim's take over" fame?

That was in the old days, now Steyn (who, despite the name is a mere Shabbas-Goy) likes to prattle on about Evil Mooselimbs and Angelic (((Talmudists))), deliberately ignoring the overwhelming advocacy of importing kebab into EUUSR by the (((Talmudists))) who control the banking system. He can be entertaining, but ultimately useless.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd December 18, 2017 2:41 PM  

Azimus wrote:I was talking to a pastor friend of mine and I said "if all the paid pastors of this county spent 1 day a week evangelizing, this county would be 100% converted in 2 years." He replied that he was willing to help organize, but other people should be doing the evangelizing. We talked further, and it seems this was the consensus among most pastors in my area: they are too busy organizing Guitar Hero tournaments, men's prayer breakfasts, and fundraisers to go out and talk to someone about Christ. Let somebody else do that.

Our church has had a full time pastor since about 2010 (he was working full time and pastoring full-time before that). He has always seen evangelizing as his primary function. He preaches from the pulpit every Sunday, and he'll go preach salvation through faith in Jesus anywhere that will have him any other day. He has preached the Gospel in bars and in churches.

He's not a mangina or a Judeo-Churchian, though.

Blogger Rashadjin December 18, 2017 2:45 PM  

@Ryan G

Vox will probably have answered this by the time I hit publish, but it's a lot based on how historically limited these ideas (common law, principles found within codified Christianity, scientific method) have proven to be despite their apparent wild success at generating prosperity and strong, positive societies.

From my view, it's a post-hoc analysis that weights the variables a bit wrong, notably with regard to over-emphasizing genetics alongside viewing genetics as more rigidly schematic rather than the emerging view of your genes being a range of potential.

Either way, it seems the view Vox espouses strongly ties IQ (mostly correctly), long distance planning/delay of gratification (more incorrectly), temperamental combativeness (somewhat correctly), r/K-selection (guessing less correctly) and so on and so forth directly to genetics.

From there, they view Western Civilization as requiring a certain genetic temperament/habitual nature to be adopted properly and successfully.

Vox and co also see significant genetic change as happening slower than I do.

The other piece is a strong emphasis on identity politics because of the very genetic survival instincts. Even as a matter of comfort, people drift like to like. This can be overlooked and overcome in times of strength and prosperity with strong cultural conditioning, but apply negative pressure and nationalism degrades to tribalism degrades to immediate family. Which is best case. Usual case is people vote based on ethnic identity, so it's foolish to hope otherwise. A mono-ethnic nation will survive adversity where the multi-ethnic quickly splinters.

I think it's more complicated than that on the identity piece too (I'd rate Christianity as a flux factor), but as a pragmatic matter of the immediate, Vox is basically right on where all this is going and the approach best taken.

My differences with Vox and his 16 points are basically academic at this juncture and mostly a waste of time to quibble over. It'll only start to matter long after the rubble gets cleared.

Blogger SemiSpook37 December 18, 2017 2:46 PM  

Schlichter is slowly, but surely, coming around. His treatise on Point 12 was definitely on point (and hence bolsters my argument that it really should be Point 1 and repeated every few points).

Walsh is a toolbox. The smarm that oozed from the guy during the election last year was just unbearable. Sure, I may not like the fact that Trump is a twice-divorced, three times married man, but that's not an automatic disqualifier for the presidency. Talk about comparing apples to oranges.

Now I remember why I stopped paying attention to Hawkins. Mainly because he's an idiot.

Anonymous BBGKB December 18, 2017 2:46 PM  

is assertion is that is primarily the culture which shapes countries and there is no proven link between culture and genetics.

Packed full of links.
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-re-colonization-commonweal.html

Blogger Crush Limbraw December 18, 2017 2:47 PM  

I assume you're referring to Azimus's post about paid pastors- the problem is not who is doing the evangelizing, but what. It goes back over 100 years - when the country was founded, churches were fully engaged in the culture. They gradually withdrew - with results for all of us to see.
It's a bit long for this post, so you can read more at my website - linking to my name above gets you to the archive - from which you can link to the website's fundamentals.
My bottom line is this - Education >Culture >Politics - which simply explains the fact of Conservatives being neutered.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 18, 2017 2:49 PM  

Everyone including Shapiro and even his group believe in eugenics or breeding. Some of us on the right are a bit crass and deterministic at times, but we might as get well used to selective breeding and selection going forward.

Blogger Zimri December 18, 2017 2:50 PM  

Imagine a debate between the five best minds of the Alt-West and the top five conservatives listed there.

Schlichter would have to recuse himself since he's Alt-West too, although he hasn't (yet) admitted it. So you'll have to go to Matt Lewis.

VDH - at the bottom - could at least give the Alt-West a fight. Assuming he doesn't wander over to this side too.

Blogger Akulkis December 18, 2017 2:51 PM  

@46

Mark Steyn isn't a conservative. He's a reactionary.

Blogger Rashadjin December 18, 2017 2:54 PM  

Oh, right. And Vox strongly ties a lot of things to IQ, as he stated above.

I'd say incorrectly in the very overweighted sense (at least; also see his recently deleted Darkstream :p), but there you go.

Blogger Miguel December 18, 2017 2:56 PM  

lol Two non-Christians at the top of the conservative list.

Which part of the Greco-Christian civilization will they "conserve"?

BTW, isnt (((Goldberg))) ok with sodomite "marriage"?

Blogger Lovekraft December 18, 2017 2:57 PM  

Just randomly tuned into a Millenial Woes open mic video and Vox Day's name came up.

He said he has mixed feelings. On the one hand he thinks VD is intelligent and driven, but that MW and he have some differences re historical analysis. He moved onto the next question before elaborating.

Blogger Gloriam Deo December 18, 2017 2:58 PM  

Tom wrote:Not that you need my approval Vox, but I think this is EXACTLY the right front to be fighting on. These are the people we want to be engaging, not the know nothing emotional projectionists of the far left. Let's see a Derbyshire-Goldberg debate. One I keep hoping to see is a Jared Taylor-Charles Murray debate. If the names above really believe we're all a bunch of troglodytes who dream of camps and ovens, let them prove it. They can show us all what imbeciles we are and finally take control of the narrative and put it back where they think it belongs.

I dream of camps and ovens a little bit. Am I bad?

Blogger VD December 18, 2017 3:14 PM  

From my view, it's a post-hoc analysis that weights the variables a bit wrong, notably with regard to over-emphasizing genetics alongside viewing genetics as more rigidly schematic rather than the emerging view of your genes being a range of potential.

Every single time nature has come up against nurture, nurture has failed. The Blank Slatists were wrong. The Nurturists were wrong. The "culture not genetics" crowd will turn out to be completely wrong too.

As I have repeatedly observed, culture and genetics are intertwined and cannot be entirely separated.

The main problem people have with my observations is that they stupidly insist on conflating the micro with the macro, when the micro is entirely irrelevant. Even worse is when they try to relate macro issues to themselves and debunk them on that basis.

Blogger McChuck December 18, 2017 3:17 PM  

Quislings and (((shills))), the majority of them.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash December 18, 2017 3:26 PM  

Imagine a debate between the five best minds of the Alt-West and the top five conservatives listed there. Is there any doubt as to which side would come out easily on top?
On top of which, it would quickly become 6 vs 4 when Schlichter joined our side.

Blogger Weouro December 18, 2017 3:26 PM  

Matt Walsh's cop out was that you didn't have a show on which to debate him. Now there's the dark stream and that brainstorm thing so presumably he would now agree to appear, unless there's some other reason he doesn't want to...

Blogger Rashadjin December 18, 2017 3:28 PM  

@VD

True that all those folks have been wrong.

I'm more of a middle of the road on the culture or genetics question. In times of strength, cultural imperatives can lead a process of change that slowly instills those imperitives into the genes of a people. In times of weakness and/or great adversity, genes and environment take over. In this time of weakness and increasing adversity, genetics will rule far more than less. Genetics will claim the macro once again.

Blogger Aeoli December 18, 2017 3:29 PM  

...the five best minds of the Alt-West...

Can we get that list please?


TFW you make a list and it's Trump five times.

Anonymous Aborted African Einstein December 18, 2017 3:29 PM  

Conservatives lack will to power an thus are irrelevant.

In 15 years, nobody will remember anyone on this (((list))).

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 18, 2017 3:41 PM  

When it comes to genetics, epigenetics and eugenics the same group which is always going on about Hitler gave us "Boys from Brazil."

Anonymous bearspaw December 18, 2017 3:41 PM  

@50 Steyn has already done more than 99% of journalist/commenters out there. He singlehandedly convinced the Canadian govt. To alter unrealistic hatespeech legislation after he was charged for an article he wrote. He is now involved in a lawsuit against the climate change heirarchy. He has/is literaly,
put his money where is mouth is. He is a better man than any of the clowns on this list.

Anonymous Didas Kalos December 18, 2017 3:48 PM  

@tuberman. The narrative they exhibit is not accidental. It is a designed operative to deceive. Rush Limbaugh has been the charade master. I never listen to him anymore. Ever.

Blogger Quilp December 18, 2017 3:50 PM  

Who who be the first pull hair at that Judeo Christian Values party?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash December 18, 2017 3:51 PM  

Michael wrote:I like Matt Walsh. He was egregiously wrong about Trump, but when it comes to moral issues he's spot on. And I doubt he'll ever be popular with the cool kids.d
As a Right Wing Intellectual, Matt Walsh is a world-class figure skater.

Blogger Chris Mallory December 18, 2017 3:55 PM  

Pax_Romana wrote:Glad Crowder isn't on this list, as that would put him in bad company. Though he's a little weak on some points, he at least does take major risks by doing undercover journalism that exposes SJWs and Muslims to the light of day.

Lil Stevie Crowder is a gutless coward and chickenhawk. He loved to support the wars, but when you asked when he was going to sign his name on some enlistment papers he would clam up. No use for that jackass at all.

Blogger Rashadjin December 18, 2017 3:55 PM  

I'll also jump to Mark "Demographics are Destiny" Steyn's defence.

He's not alt-right, but he's damn close and a principled fighter. Particularly on Free Speech.

Steyn has thrown what influence he has to the Free Speech cause in Australia too, along with bearspaw's list.

He's about the best you can hope for with a guy that Fox News will air on TV as a regular. Knows more than just about everyone on semi-modern pop culture too.

Anonymous TroubleSpeak December 18, 2017 3:55 PM  

What would a list of the 5 best minds of the alt-right look like?

Vox, Molyneux, Derbyshire, Sailer and Fuentes, I'd say.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2017 3:57 PM  

> How in the world does Mark Steyn not make the top 40?

The same reason Ann Coulter doesn't.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd December 18, 2017 3:59 PM  

Aeoli wrote:...the five best minds of the Alt-West...

Can we get that list please?


TFW you make a list and it's Trump five times.


Trump certainly has a great mind. I'm just not sure he's Alt-Right. American for sure, but Alt-Right?

Anonymous Andrew E. December 18, 2017 4:01 PM  

Schlichter still has a long way to do. He just tweeted this out:

https://twitter.com/KurtSchlichter/status/942861248772763648

It of course never occurs to him that our judiciary should never have someone named Harmeet in it.

Blogger VD December 18, 2017 4:12 PM  

Trump certainly has a great mind. I'm just not sure he's Alt-Right.

He's not, he's still civic nationalist. But his courage and conviction more than makes up for it.

Anonymous fop December 18, 2017 4:14 PM  

The same reason Ann Coulter doesn't.

Coulter is on the list.

Anonymous Avalanche December 18, 2017 4:20 PM  

Please, Dark Lord, post YOUR List of the top ten Alt Right Commentators so we may continue our studies.

Blogger Robert What? December 18, 2017 4:32 PM  

Clear sign of a phony right wing site: they use FaceBorg for their comments section.

Blogger Longtime Lurker December 18, 2017 4:38 PM  

Hanson and Schlichter. Hanson for his erudition and strategic wisdom. Schlichter for his fighting spirit.

Anonymous fop December 18, 2017 4:38 PM  

You mean Mark Steyn of "We'll have an easier time of working with Europe once the Muslim's take over" fame?

Steyn's been sounding the alarm about Islamification since 2001.

Blogger Johnny December 18, 2017 4:45 PM  

Rashadjin wrote:In times of strength, cultural imperatives can lead a process of change that slowly instills those imperitives into the genes of a people.

This is not a new argument and the science to support it is non existent.

When Stalin ran the USSR, science doctrine ran on the belief that environment changed the genetic inhertance. For example, after a couple generations of growing wheat in an adverse climate, it was thought that the wheat would be adapted to the new climate. None of it worked out in plants and animals, and that I know of, nobody believes it any more.

The apparent reason for the doctrine was social expediency. Communism never worked as intended, and if we are to suppose environment can change genetics, then it was at least arguable that Communism would work well with the next generation, because of the genetic adoption that was alleged to be taking place.

Blogger Johnny December 18, 2017 4:53 PM  

In the nature versus nurture argument, what has become apparent to me is that what causes people to act the way they do is way to important to social organization for it to be left up to the chance event of what happens to be true. Different social orders find it expedient to go one way or the other, and then do what they can to enforce their conclusion.

If the overlords can be seen as genetically different from the lower classes, then genetics trumps nurture and the ennobled classes are blue bloods, which is to say in some way genetically superior to the masses, and thus automatically deserve their favorable treatment. We currently favor nurture and push it to a remarkable degree. No amount of evidence to the contrary is about to change the assumption, and those who do not go along are evil.

Blogger SB Wright December 18, 2017 4:57 PM  

"Imagine a debate between the five best minds of the Alt-West and the top five conservatives listed there. Is there any doubt as to which side would come out easily on top?"

No, there is no doubt. Hell, I'd wager one could pick 5 long-time commenters from this site and they'd win that theoretical exchange.

Blogger Koanic December 18, 2017 5:03 PM  

I can't remember any debates in the Bible, but there were some knife fights.

Blogger S. Misanthrope December 18, 2017 5:06 PM  

I read articles by exactly 2 of those Conservative Leaders in 2017, and both I read only because Vox linked to them to mock them. Having read the full articles, I can confirm the mockery was well-deserved.

Anonymous Avalanche December 18, 2017 5:10 PM  

@36 "> ...and there is no proven link between culture and genetics.
Then why do different genetic groups have different cultures?"

Think of it this way: a culture may not start OUT forming genetics, but it DOES form them, and all modern day peoples have cultures formed BY genetics. Let's start lower down: what do we KNOW FOR A FACT about dog breeds? German Shepherds are protective and brave. Mini-poodles tend toward flightiness; full-sized poodles are working dogs and very very smart! Irish Setters are flaky-as-hell (nervous breakdowns looking for a place to happen!). Jack Russell Terriers (or as my neighbor calls his: Jack Russell Terrierists) have an innate ability to kill rats, no training needed. Aussie Shepherds will herd ducks or children if they have no sheep.

Oh, you say, that's INSTINCT! They don't CHOOSE it, they get it, you know: from. their. genes. What is culture if not "bred in"? Imagine a tribe where some sorts of behavior are not merely accepted but preferred? A good hunter who protects his kin and shares with his neighbors, as against a weaselly thief who is 'respected' by his kin for taking better advantage of others than they can? What kind of MATES will members of each tribe prefer? The ones who MATCH what their tribe supports and prefers, of course.

And the guy (or gal) who does NOT 'fit in,' who does NOT "succeed" by whichever metric that tribe prefers does NOT mate. So, the genes in either tribe that matches that tribe's "cultural" preference get passed on: the other kind disappears. And it's strengthened through the generations, by exactly that assortative mating: old Darwin's sexual selection.

Vox Day divides "civilizations" (actually: nations, which are genetically related, very extended families) into high or low performance and high or low trust.

If you bring a low trust, low performance african-derived child into your high trust, high performance White Euro-derived family; that african will NOT grow to be high trust and high performance, even if it might grow up to be slightly "higher" than its genetic kin. (Bell Curve -- the child is NOT 'getting off' the curve, just possibly moving up a bit within the capabilities of its racial kin.)

The only reason you write there is "no proven link between culture and genetics" is because the left/commies have pushed that onto us with as much force as ANYthing they have wielded as a weapon against us! You've drunk their koolaid, and cannot see the truth.

Blogger Rashadjin December 18, 2017 5:11 PM  

@Johnny

Firstly, not even I think genetics change that fast.

Secondly, mild adjustments in average personality traits (like predisposition to trust/conscentiousness) are a lot different than developing new traits or hyper modifying existing traits required to survive in a hostile, non-native environment.

Thirdly, Communism attempts to defy the laws of life. You can't adapt to a theory that never becomes realized in the environment in any of the predicted ways. Communism adapted people contra its designs and expectations, at a micro and very brief scale - basically just cultural layer.

An appropriate example would be the scientific method in Western Civ leading to higher IQs and more flexible analytical thinking. Which appears to have proven out as one might expect over the hundreds of years. Near 2K years if you want to trace that back to Aristotle.

Blogger Cecil Henry December 18, 2017 5:13 PM  

I remember Victor Davis Hanson said it wouldn't matter if all our elite colleges became filled with Chinese as long as it was based on 'merit'.

Some country. Some conservative. The Chinese love him, as do the cucks.

Blogger YIH December 18, 2017 5:17 PM  

I've always known John Hawkins has been a hardcore neoconman. But Little Benny as #1? Yikes!

Blogger Koanic December 18, 2017 5:20 PM  

> An appropriate example would be the scientific method in Western Civ leading to higher IQs and more flexible analytical thinking.

That is not just wrong, it's risible. Civilization is generally IQ dysgenic, because the post-agricultural environmental selective pressures radically differ from hunter gatherer ones, emphasizing dietary and social selection. When civilization is not dysgenic, it is because the underclass starves and the gentlemen have large families. Science has nothing to do with it. Civilization has reduced the IQ of every civilized race except the Ashkenazi, and their improvement has nothing to do with science.

Anonymous Shotgun December 18, 2017 5:20 PM  

A bunch of jews and fat boomers.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents December 18, 2017 5:23 PM  

@94 SB Wright

No, there is no doubt. Hell, I'd wager one could pick 5 long-time commenters from this site and they'd win that theoretical exchange.

Sure, like WWE, could even be tag team matches.

Looking Glass and Nate vs. David French and Williamson.
BBGKB and Snidely vs. Shapiro and Walsh

Like that. Popcorn concession profits go to the Burn Unit.

Blogger Rashadjin December 18, 2017 5:25 PM  

@Koanic

So...bush people in Africa/Amazon Basin have higher average IQs than China?

I'd need to see your reference there.

Blogger Koanic December 18, 2017 5:28 PM  

> So...bush people in Africa/Amazon Basin have higher average IQs than China?

No, stupid.

Blogger VD December 18, 2017 5:33 PM  

Civilization has reduced the IQ of every civilized race except the Ashkenazi, and their improvement has nothing to do with science.

It appears to have reduced theirs in the last century as well.

Blogger Al December 18, 2017 5:37 PM  

Jared Taylor must be on any list of the best of the Dissident Right. By itself, his epic "An Open Letter to Cuckservatives" earns him a place on the list.

Blogger Rashadjin December 18, 2017 5:44 PM  

@Koanic

If bush people (hunter/gatherers) have lower average IQs than China (old civ), then there's something wrong with your general theory about civs generally detroying IQ.

I'd say it's the modern emphasis on working high IQ types to the point where they don't have kids, and the general animus against real families. Singapore being an IQ shredder doesn't extend to all civilizations and cultures.

Stupid.

Blogger Koanic December 18, 2017 5:51 PM  

> It appears to have reduced theirs in the last century as well.

Why do you think so? I couldn't guess. There's a lot of IQ dysgenics, but also a lot of maybe-IQ-eugenic Jew persecution.

> If bush people (hunter/gatherers) have lower average IQs than China (old civ), then there's something wrong with your general theory about civs generally detroying IQ.

No there isn't. For example, if being in your paternal line results in a lowered IQ with every generation, as appears likely, then your descendants will nevertheless presumably still be able to beat chimpanzees in best-of-100 tic-tac-toe indefinitely.

Blogger Geoarrge December 18, 2017 5:56 PM  

The problem with the culture/genetics issue is that even if you suppose for the sake of argument that genetic factors have a minimal direct influence on culture, the fact that people typically receive their culture from their closest available family members means that you are rarely going to be able to disentangle culture and genetics anyway.

Blogger Johnny December 18, 2017 6:04 PM  

>>Civilization has reduced the IQ of every civilized race...

I think you are over generalizing here, taking our current social circumstance and taking it as general. Until very recently societies were not all that generous to the lower classes.

Also what may be more important than what is brought up here is the shift from the personal to the impersonal. Tribal cultures are commonly biological in that the tribe is a collection of clans that are a collection of families. To use the Roman army as a solitary example, in the very early period the spoils of war went, at least in theory, to the soldier and his relatives. Thus even if a soldier got killed eventually, at least for a while both himself and his biologically closely related relatives were better off and more likely to reproduce at a higher rate. Around the time of the Caesars or a little earlier the Roman army became professional and impersonal. And what was also very likely, is that the reproductive rate of the troopers went way down, and the family got no benefits from him being in the service. Those who served the empire by being soldiers went, with regard to their genetics, from being perhaps self serving to self eliminating. Thus the genetic basis upon which the empire depended, which was men who would work out by temperament and ability as troopers, was being selected against.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd December 18, 2017 6:06 PM  

Cecil Henry wrote:I remember Victor Davis Hanson said it wouldn't matter if all our elite colleges became filled with Chinese as long as it was based on 'merit'.

Some country. Some conservative.


Sounds like a good conservative to me. Nobody will ever call him raycis. Civic Nationalist isn't good for much, but it surely beats globo-homo-leftist.

Blogger Thebrainfuggler December 18, 2017 6:24 PM  

@34 Is Kevin Williamson an autist or something?

Anonymous Ryan G December 18, 2017 6:53 PM  

Geoarrge wrote:...the fact that people typically receive their culture from their closest available family members means that you are rarely going to be able to disentangle culture and genetics anyway.



This is pretty much why regardless of whether Vox is right or not on genetics->IQ->society relationship, I still agree that immigration needs to be heavily restricted.

The only way I know of to make immigration a net positive is to make it both highly restricted and very selective. No chain migration, no handouts to newcomers. If they want to help their extended families, they can send home their paychecks. If they break our laws, regardless of how minor, they should be sent back.

Blogger tuberman December 18, 2017 7:05 PM  

I was at the grocery store, and as I came out, there was a White guy with what looked like two illegals talking after their work day (lawn and landscaping, obviously). My thoughts were, "I bet that white guy is a 'conservative' voter, and hates Trump," and also, "He knows that his cheap help is being heavily subsidized by tax payers, but he's getting semi-wealthy, so he does not care." This type person, along with (((them))) are some of the few strong backers for people like Ben and the rest. Paranoid Jews and greedy whites says it all.

Anonymous Avalanche December 18, 2017 7:17 PM  

@110 'the fact that people typically receive their culture from their closest available family members means that you are rarely going to be able to disentangle culture and genetics anyway."

Unless, say, you can watch as lots and lots of virtue-signaling Whites decided to adopt and raise niglets! And those niglets do not grow up to become sorta-White; they remain exactly what their genes SAY they should be. Money, great schooling, and being surrounded by high-trust, high-performance Whites (i.e. being raised nearly entirely IN a culture not usually found anywhere in their genetics) does NOT turn them into anything other than their genes destine them to be. See, also: twin studies!

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 18, 2017 7:21 PM  

Koanic wrote:> It appears to have reduced theirs in the last century as well.

Why do you think so? I couldn't guess. There's a lot of IQ dysgenics, but also a lot of maybe-IQ-eugenic Jew persecution.


Jewish accomplishment in the upper ranges entered free fall recently: https://www.unz.com/runz/meritocracy-admitting-my-mistakes/

Compare to the end of the Flynn effect: http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-the-flynn-effect-over/). More than likely the dysgenics

We have seen a general decline in eminent genius since 1850 (see Murray's Human Accomplishment).

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2017 7:22 PM  

> Coulter is on the list.

I stand corrected. With that top 10 opening salvo, I didn't bother to check out the remaining 30.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 18, 2017 7:22 PM  

*More than likely the dysgenics have been operative for much longer than that, but improvements in nurture dominated during that time.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2017 7:24 PM  

> Money, great schooling, and being surrounded by high-trust, high-performance Whites (i.e. being raised nearly entirely IN a culture not usually found anywhere in their genetics) does NOT turn them into anything other than their genes destine them to be.

Case in point, Colin Kaepernick.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 18, 2017 7:26 PM  

The takeaway from the Ron Unz article is that Jewish representation in the Math Olympiad winners declined from 40% to 12% between 2000 and 2012.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 18, 2017 7:34 PM  

Relevant for esoteric reasons: http://www.unz.com/isteve/orangutan-iq-nurture-over-nature/

The primitive introvert enjoys a good puzzle, provided the chimps are a continent away.

Anyway, esoteric Aeolitalk is what you get for triggering my inner sperg.

Blogger Koanic December 18, 2017 7:42 PM  

> The takeaway from the Ron Unz article is that Jewish representation in the Math Olympiad winners declined from 40% to 12% between 2000 and 2012.

Too fast for a dysgenic explanation.

Blogger Johnny December 18, 2017 7:57 PM  

@122

It also holds that monkeys living in urban environments in India are smarter than the ones that live in the bush. Apparently the urban environment is more challenging and the monkeys are up to adjusting to it.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 18, 2017 8:01 PM  

Then again, if I'm triggered I might actually run the numbers...

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 18, 2017 8:16 PM  

F***ing spam filter is out of control lately. I get better odds at your tribe's casino, Vox. This is the fourth time I've copy-pasted this.

Koanic wrote:> The takeaway from the Ron Unz article is that Jewish representation in the Math Olympiad winners declined from 40% to 12% between 2000 and 2012.

Too fast for a dysgenic explanation.


Don't be retarded, we're talking about the bleeding edge of math aptitude here. Representation in the top 0.0001% will be extremely sensitive to shifts in the mean.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 18, 2017 8:26 PM  

Johnny wrote:@122

It also holds that monkeys living in urban environments in India are smarter than the ones that live in the bush. Apparently the urban environment is more challenging and the monkeys are up to adjusting to it.


I expect the effect is analogous to children growing up with technology.

Anonymous Reader December 18, 2017 8:34 PM  

Voxday at 37 moving goalpost. Used to be race and culture now IQ and culture.

I bet you don't want East Asians (known to have one of the highest IQ as a group) to populate the U.S. in droves.

Blogger Koanic December 18, 2017 8:34 PM  

> Don't be retarded, we're talking about the bleeding edge of math aptitude here. Representation in the top 0.0001% will be extremely sensitive to shifts in the mean.

Run the numbers, since common sense has failed you. Tell us how many IQ points you think the Jewish mean racial IQ dropped in 12 years.

Should be entertaining.

Anonymous Reader December 18, 2017 8:41 PM  

Why is Shapiro not conservative? He believes in free market economy, hates: abortion, identity politics, believes in a traditional family.

Of course to you here, he is not conservative because he believes that the values of the people shapes the nation, not the colour of the skin. And people who really want to be a part of a nation will try to assimilate to the prevailing values of the nation.

I like Shapiro, he sometimes surprises me with his logic in his arguments.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 18, 2017 8:43 PM  

Shit, I screwed up. The real shift, as reported by Unz, is "over 40% during the 1970s to 12% during 2000-2012".

Sorry Koanic, I was flagrantly incorrect and then rude about it.

I will continue posting this apology until Blogger takes it.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( the Original Militant Apathist ) December 18, 2017 8:56 PM  

98. Rashadjin December 18, 2017 5:11 PM
An appropriate example would be the scientific method in Western Civ leading to higher IQs



wat? the 'scientific method' is responsible for higher IQs?

which is why Han Chinese score higher than Europeans?


98. Rashadjin December 18, 2017 5:11 PM
Near 2K years if you want to trace that back to Aristotle.



oh, i get it.

you don't have any idea what the 'scientific method' is and just claim everything you like as being a product of that method ... because you FLScience!


108. Rashadjin December 18, 2017 5:44 PM
If bush people (hunter/gatherers) have lower average IQs than China (old civ), then there's something wrong with your general theory about civs generally detroying IQ.


a - Bush people ( and all other sub-Saharans ) have 0% Neanderthal admixture, they are a different species

b - the question was WITHIN a population OVER TIME, not BETWEEN populations. sub-Saharans have been notoriously low IQ since the Caucasians first historically encountered them, and the Bushmen are notoriously stupid even by Negro standards. avg IQ of Bush people may be down in the 50s ( yes, perhaps dumber than Koko the signing gorilla ).

now, imagine a Bushman on welfare and dealing drugs on a street corner;
will this low stress, resource surplus life tend to select for Bushmen who are MORE or LESS intelligent?

what about more or less VIOLENT?


Blogger Koanic December 18, 2017 8:57 PM  

No problem. I still doubt that's all or mostly dysgenics though. I'd look at cultural dissolution, demographics and changing competition. Ashkenazi IQ manifests across multiple hard threshold tests. Show a decline in all of them and you'll have evidence of a racial mean shift.

Blogger VD December 18, 2017 8:58 PM  

Voxday at 37 moving goalpost. Used to be race and culture now IQ and culture.

I'm not moving any goalposts, you're just stupid.

Anonymous Reader December 18, 2017 9:02 PM  

@82 Troublespeak

They may be conservatives but they don't have that much reach. Heck the person that compiled this "top conservatives list" may not even know your chosen 5 people exist.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( the Original Militant Apathist ) December 18, 2017 9:08 PM  

130. Reader December 18, 2017 8:41 PM
And people who really want to be a part of a nation will try to assimilate to the prevailing values of the nation.


which is why Shapiro refuses to assimilate but insists upon being ostentatiously Jewish?

except, of course, that he made certain to be ostentatiously Jewish in a state which would not require of him the military service which the Jewish nation would.

curious, that.


135. Reader December 18, 2017 9:02 PM
Heck the person that compiled this "top conservatives list" may not even know your chosen 5 people exist.



a - even if the compiler was competent, i wouldn't give a fuck what his opinion was. because "conservative".

b - his 10th best 'conservative' is a registered Democrat and ranked ahead of both Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn, therefore he's incompetent, QED

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 18, 2017 9:13 PM  

Koanic wrote:No problem. I still doubt that's all or mostly dysgenics though. I'd look at cultural dissolution, demographics and changing competition. Ashkenazi IQ manifests across multiple hard threshold tests. Show a decline in all of them and you'll have evidence of a racial mean shift.

Eyeballing it, a reduction of this magnitude (40% to 12% representation in the +5.5 SD range) only indicates a leftward shift of one, maybe two IQ points.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky December 18, 2017 9:41 PM  

Reader wrote:Why is Shapiro not conservative? He believes in free market economy, hates: abortion, identity politics, believes in a traditional family.s

Ben IS a conservative. Faced with the choice between Hillary or Trump, he launched torpedoes at Trump.

He may even be a True Conservative (TM).

And any way you cut that, it's worthless. See above (Hillary v Trump? Torpedo Trump).

Blogger Rashadjin December 18, 2017 9:49 PM  

@109 Koanic

No there isn't. For example, if being in your paternal line results in a lowered IQ with every generation, as appears likely, then your descendants will nevertheless presumably still be able to beat chimpanzees in best-of-100 tic-tac-toe indefinitely.

(Sings) Paternal line trait inheritance has nothing to do with civilization.

Your ability to be so obviously petty and stupid is starting to amaze me.

But oh, fine, I'll do the long version.

First of all, malnutrition severely hampers brain development. What gave rise to civilization? Above subsistence levels of calorie production via agriculture. What is modern civilization incredibly good at? Ensuring adequate, broad spectrum nutrition is readily available. Particularly carbs, which is an easy source of brain energy. Hunter/gatherers more often had periods of malnutrition (if shorter ones than early agriculture; also had more iron than early agri which is a thing). Either way, advanced civilization is what you want when it comes to stable, quality food supplies, and stable, quality food supplies is what you want for brain development in childhood.

Second, advanced civ gives a reason to have higher IQs which is sort of a thing from an evolutionary standpoint. Rocket science might need a little more of certain cognitive abilities that don't exactly come into play when hunting is the hardest thing around. See: Redneck bow hunting. Conversely, Shakespeare doesn't have a reason to be brilliant without advanced language and an advanced enough civilization for people to be able to care. Or Mozart... Or Aristotle...

Third, the idea of IQ was introduced in 1912. Civilization has been around for, oh...a bit longer. Your data sucks and is entirely inadequate to make the determination that civilization, in general and at large, destroys IQ. You don't even know what the baseline IQ was before people tried that farming thing, particularly when you're tossing out all modern hunter/gatherers just because they don't fit your hypothesis. I picked a group that would seem to favor your theory just for fun - Eskimo mean IQ was 91. United States was 98. From 03/06 data. Congratulations, not only is your data inadequate, it's pointed decidedly in the other direction.

Fourth, Occam's Razor suggests looking at the easy answers for the dip in modern mean IQ. Like, oh, massive immigration from the third world. Socialism overproducing welfare/crack babies. The before mentioned lower (below replacement even) birthrates of intelligent people across the board, for oh so many reasons. But to list three: Modern economies making it harder for higher performers to have the time/money for families, high performing women credentialing themselves out of suitable breeding partners because their hypergamy says the guy needs a PHD, and narcissistic hedonism/empty materialism cratering the desire to have kids outside the before mentioned welfare/crack babies.

Blogger Rashadjin December 18, 2017 9:49 PM  

Fifth, anthropology is a dumpster fire of incompetence and bias, moreso when it comes to big picture stuff. There is a strong ideological need to glorify pre-civ people because of eco-zealots, the desired destruction of Western Civ, and general misanthropic tendencies in academics. These people are in the interesting position where the zeitgeist says you can't praise civilization and can't blame the ideological/cultural peculiarities of recent civilization (communism, cultural marxism, socialism, multiculturalism, immigration, sexual hedonism, etc.) for anything wrong with modern, progressive society. So today's ills have to be inherent in all civilizations for all time, like say, a recent dip in IQ. Funny how that works.

So unless you want to cough up something substantial, it's very likely you swallowed somebody's obvious BS.

@132 ((( bob kek mando )))

Infogalactic - "As regards his method, Aristotle is recognized as the inventor of scientific method because of his refined analysis of logical implications contained in demonstrative discourse, which goes well beyond natural logic and does not owe anything to the ones who philosophized before him." – Riccardo Pozzo

The Chinese were being compared to bush people as a comparison between a long civilized group (7-8 thousand years by some counts) vs a not civilized group in regards to mean IQ and the effects of civilization on it. That comparison had nothing to do with the scientific method possibly improving cognitive abilities in the West.

But thanks for being stupid and unable to follow along.

I'm starting to see why Vox thinks he's surrounded by idiots.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash December 18, 2017 10:35 PM  

Koanic wrote:I can't remember any debates in the Bible, but there were some knife fights.
This is why we love^H^H^H^H tolerate you, Koanic.

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:BBGKB and Snidely vs. Shapiro and Walsh
I'm down for that, but only as long as I get to punch Walsh in his smug, sneering, faggoty face.

Over and over and over again.

And maybe Kevin Williamson too, as long as we're at it.

Reader wrote:Why is Shapiro not conservative? He believes in free market economy, hates: abortion, identity politics, believes in a traditional family.

And works his hardest to make sure nothing effective is ever, ever done about any of them.

We never said he wasn't Conservative. He's a prime example of the breed. He's everything any good Conservative pundit should be. Clever, praised by the NY Times, anti-American, pro-somebody-preferably-Christian-going-to-war, utterly unconcerned with the fate or prosperity of actual Americans, and completely and utterly ineffective.

100% True-pink Conservative.

Blogger M Cephas December 19, 2017 12:05 AM  

Ann Coulter is at least on the list at #23. No Milo though.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( the Original Militant Apathist ) December 19, 2017 12:19 AM  

140. Rashadjin December 18, 2017 9:49 PM
But thanks for being stupid and unable to follow along.



*tips fedora*

and thank YOU for being so stupid as to fail to recognize the impact of Neanderthal gene ( which code for larger brain volume than pure Homo Sap ) admixture creating two more intelligent sub-species ( Caucasian which is Homo Sap + Thal and Asian which is Homo Sap + Thal + Denisovan ) than the pure Homo Sap strain.

call it hybrid vigor.

this is akin to asking why a Border Collie isn't as stupid as a Golden Retriever.

well, fucking duh.


140. Rashadjin December 18, 2017 9:49 PM
analysis of logical implications


ie -
NO experimentation
NO replication
NO falsification via interaction with the Real World
NO double blind studies
NO control samples
NO Science
NO Scientific Method

before the enstupidation of the West, everyone knew that Aristotle was a Philosopher and that he was Philosophizing.

because you idiotic fucking retards have decided to retcon history and call everything you lurv !Science!, now one of the greatest practitioners of Philosophy and Logic is called a "Scientist"
...
because you fricking morons don't know what a Philosopher is and can't differentiate between someone who actually does SCIENCE and someone who just sits there thinking up pretty hypotheses.

protip: if pretty hypothesizing makes you a !Scientist! AND you lurv !Science!, then you also lurv Marx.

so much for civilization driving the species to greater heights of intelligence.

explain please:
why have brain pan volumes been decreasing for the last 1000 years? ( actually much longer )

explain please:
how ~6000 years ago the Babylonians were doing differential calculus
...
in base 60.

Blogger wreckage December 19, 2017 1:34 AM  

Shapiro's OK for a cuckservative, and VDH pointed out the problems with mass Mexican migration years ago. The rest of that list are nobodies.

Blogger wreckage December 19, 2017 1:37 AM  

Aristotle's philosophy elevated what is, and causality, over idealism; so he forms part of the philosophical foundation of science.
Which is why, as he is once again abandoned in favour of Plato, science is turning to crap.

Blogger Koanic December 19, 2017 4:56 AM  

Stupidity compounded by arrogance and dishonesty doesn't interest me, Rashadjin. I no longer read you.

Blogger James Dixon December 19, 2017 6:00 AM  

> Why is Shapiro not conservative?

He believes that all true Americans should be willing to die in wars he approves of, but will not fight in himself.

> And maybe Kevin Williamson too, as long as we're at it.

Punching is too good for Williamson. Besides you wouldn't want to sully your hands with his blood.

Anonymous I Love Reagan December 19, 2017 8:42 AM  

Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew who are basically Super-Conservatives, very pious and rational geniuses, like Wizards in Middle Earth.

Blogger Troushers December 19, 2017 8:45 AM  

Shapiro reacts to what Liberals do, but Liberals need never react to what Shapiro does. That's why they like him.

Blogger Stilicho December 19, 2017 9:24 AM  

Meh. I like Schlicter and Hanson. Both are good in their respective arenas. Both have taken the red pill but not fully internalized it yet. Schlicter's Cuban wife makes him excuse "good" Immigration while he fails to realize that her case is actually one of "special pleading" for which exceptions can be made (actually married to an American, has assimilated and embraced American culture, history and ideals, her children will most likely fully American, etc.). Hanson is an astute historian who sees the likely consequences of the path we are on, but still struggles to overcome his scholarly inclinations and gentlemanly nature in policy prescriptions (in some ways he's like Vox: if you do X, you really aren't going to like what comes next... where Hanson falls a little short is that if you don't actively combat X with Y, then come the horsemen. He's still hoping the left will back off X or that Y won't be needed in its entirety).

Blogger Snidely Whiplash December 19, 2017 10:40 AM  

James Dixon wrote:Punching is too good for Williamson. Besides you wouldn't want to sully your hands with his blood.
You say that, but I'm not feeling it.

Blogger James Dixon December 19, 2017 11:02 AM  

> You say that, but I'm not feeling it.

Well, some people do like to keep things up close and personal. If that's you, go for it. While I don't mind the personal, I prefer to keep my distance with people like Williamson.

Blogger Al December 19, 2017 11:12 AM  

Can Jews be cuckservatives? Rather, don't they play the role of the cuckoo bird while cucks are the warblers? See on Vdare:

Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo in the Conservative Movement's Nest, by Alexander Hart

Blogger Snidely Whiplash December 19, 2017 12:08 PM  

Al wrote:Can Jews be cuckservatives?

The question is, can conservative Jews NOT be cuckservatives?

Blogger Al December 19, 2017 12:15 PM  

@154

No, the question is precisely: Can Jews be cuckservatives?

Those who have read The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by E. Michael Jones and The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald understand this question very well.

Blogger Al December 19, 2017 12:21 PM  

Taxonomy of liberals:

-Avowed liberals (consciously liberal, often activists)
-Disguised liberals (consciously liberal, but masked as conservatives; widely known as neocons)
-Unconscious liberals (cuckservatives, along with legions of useful idiots on auto-pilot )

Blogger Desdichado December 19, 2017 3:31 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:The question is, can conservative Jews NOT be cuckservatives?
In Israel, yes. They're not cuckolds to America, because they're not married to America. It's not their nation, and it's not their people.

Good, alt-right American Jews that actually care about the well-being of America probably exist. At least, in theory. The only ones I know that could potentially qualify are the lapsed descendants of Jews who have intermarried several generations ago with Americans, though, and can't claim a Jewish identity, even if they wanted to.

Blogger Vanners December 19, 2017 11:44 PM  

I may be a little late to the party, so could someone tell me why there is an ongoing spat between Ben Shapiro and Vox Day? Ben is calling Vox a white supremacist and Vox is calling Ben a cuckservative.

I'm a fan of both Vox and Ben, I like a majority of what both of them say, and I think they line up pretty close on most topics, so why the agro?

BTW: Ben is socially conservative, but politically he is more libertarian - he really does want to limit the federal government to just three things: Project life, protect liberty, protect property.

Blogger Al December 20, 2017 12:47 PM  

@158:

(((Ben Shapiro))), like other "conservatives" (neocons) of his tribe, is a disguised liberal. The supreme proof of this is his pushing of "proposition nation" propaganda.

He's not a cuckservative, as those of his tribe do the cucking of the cucks. Taxonomy of liberals:

-Avowed liberals (SJWs etc.)
-Disguised liberals (neocons)
-Unconscious liberals (cuckservatives)

Recommended reading:

"Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo in the Conservative Movement's Nest," by Alexander Hart

"An Open Letter to Cuckservatives," by Jared Taylor

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, by E. Michael Jones

Also search for Shapiro on The Occidental Observer site.

Those "conservatives" who love little Ben are, in fact, pitiful cuckservatives.

Blogger Rashadjin December 21, 2017 12:08 AM  

@143 ((( bob kek mando )))

My key words were 'if you want to trace that back to Aristotle.' Your stupidity was in assuming that I didn't have a reason to suggest that people might have a reason for tracing the scientific method back to Aristotle. Your arrogance is in assuming that no opinion other than your own has merit, which is also stupid.

As for the decreasing size in brain pans - Head size doesn't exactly correspond to IQ. The relationship appears rough at best.

And the Babylonians doing differential calculus in base 60 forever ago might be because differential calculus is kind of easy and they probably had a reason to figure out rates of change. Necessity is the mother of invention after all. The base 60 part is a minor consideration when all is said and done. Working numbers in the base you learned first and everyone around you uses becomes second nature, even if some bases involve more work than others. Just because you can't do it well doesn't mean it was hard for them. Also, we're doing much harder math these days. If IQ were going down, the Babylonians would likely have been doing math more complex than the crap that I picked up in American grade school.

You're drawing inferences that suit your preconceptions. Saying 'differential calculus 6K years ago' doesn't prove anything regarding mean IQ. And as shown, brain pan size also doesn't really say what you want it to say either, if there is at least some rough basis for that data point. So not a total fail on that one. Congrats, I suppose.

But your support for the idea that Civilization decreases IQ remains incredibly, incredibly weak. I'd say you have nothing given that you haven't linked the decrease in brain pan volumes to civilization in any appreciable way. The two existing side by side proves nothing about their relationship or if they even have a relationship. But you should know that, shouldn't you? Mr. ILURVSCIENCE.

@146 Koanic

I really don't care if you read me, Koanic. Responding to you is a waste of time and effort, so thanks. I did have a bit too much fun triggering you though. Your reliably ape Voxisms whenever it occurs, so it's a remarkably easy tell. Mentioning Africans (along with Amazons) with the bush people immediately set off those Alt-Retard tendencies of yours exactly like I knew it would. It's like a laser pointer with a cat. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic in your case.

Blogger Vanners December 22, 2017 8:28 PM  

@159 This is the first I have heard of proposition nation. I tried looking it up on DuckDuckGo and it didn't help much. I found a particularly uninformed article on Amerika that defined proposition nation as an acceptance of immigrants based on shared values, as opposed to maintaining ethnic purity within a nation.

In the same article it mentioned that individualism was a left wing concept, which is utterly inane and provokes doubt in the rest of the article. It seems as though it was a propaganda piece that seeks to place white supremacy on the right - something that Vox has successfully rebutted (I'd link to the video but it was on Vox's vid.me channel and as such is no longer available).

The other reference I found was in this blog: https://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/america-is-not-idea.html
Where a rather facetious article quoted by Vox tries to make an argument, but completely fails to land it. Unfortunately Vox's comment was fairly bland and didn't declare what he thought of the banal piece he quoted. Instead, Vox made his own nebulous statement that attempted to argue that because we have atheists today we can't say that it is self-evident that everyone has inalienable rights. I say nebulous, because after reading his comment I still can't see where Vox stands on the proposition nation topic. He says America is not an idea, but only the article he quoted suggested that anyone thought this, and as I said - the article was quite facetious, so its grain-of-salt time.

Care to enlighten me about what proposition nation is really about, and what is wrong with it? (Note: until I understand more I am not taking a side on this - so far I am merely critiquing the quality of arguments made)

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts