Saturday assorted links


6) In bizarro world where democracy means the opposite of rule by majority opinion.

If only Hitler had been as smart as Merkel he could have just told the world he was occupying Poland to spread democracy.

He said he was doing it because the Polish attacked first. As lies go, it is as good as any other.

Yeah, and the Poles may well have had weapons of mass destruction. I don't think Hitler's pretext was any flimsier than the pretexts on which the US has launched its wars.

"The victor will not be asked afterwards, whether he told the truth or not".-- attributed to Hitler

"The 'Professional Historian'™ will not be asked afterwards, whether she told the truth about libertarians and democracy or not, provoking Tyler Cowen to make repeated, exaggerated inside jokes on his blog about democracy-support signaling." - attributed to Nancy MacLean.


Good for Poland in learning from America's disasterous experiment with judicial rule.

I hope he's wrong, but comment streams always have a few.

Dreher is a lot like Tyler. He is smart and often says sensible things, but the ultimate, overriding goal is gaining the approval of his liberal peers as "moderate" and "tolerant." A cuckservative, in other words.

I think that is perverse and motivated reasoning, and all to common in comment sections.

Is it because you, the reader, are so weak-willed that in the same situation you would be cowed?

You would be afraid to be honest?

Is it because you, the reader, are so weak-willed that in the same situation you would be cowed?

No, it's a consequence of reading Dreher. He's always been an intensely other-directed and emotions-driven character. It's not so much 'his liberal peers' as any identifiable audience which triggers his social anxiety. He some consistent features: he defaults to the accusatory mode, he gives the benefit of the doubt to one identifiable social sector (J-school graduates - or perhaps reporters in general), he has a truncated or absent sense of honor (and as a consequence admires creepazoids like Damon Linker), and he's almost incapable of being impartial.

He's a verbiage producer who has the capacity to provoke interesting discussions. He isn't nearly as bright or as educated as the moderators here.

Muh church!

In other words, Dreher and Cowen are serious thinkers, not fanatical ideologues.

I don't think any liberal is going to think the guy who supports imprisoning people for blasphemy is a moderate.

@#6 - Polish democracy op-ed:

1) "Kamil Marcinkiewicz is a lecturer in political science and research methods at the University of Hamburg in Germany" - talking his book.

2) Keep in mind Polish president Kaczyński got about one-third of the votes (same as Hilter!) so he naturally feels insecure and wants more power. It's up to the opposition to unite. Why doesn't the opposition unite? Because Poles, like the Greeks, are too damn stubborn and proud to think strategically. Keep in mind, like in Greece, there's a number of Communists who love Russia (even love Stalin). In the end, as Churchill? said, every society gets the government they deserve.

3) Article fails to mention this big deal (for Polish people, I personally think the idea is far fetched): (twin brother and former president of the present Polish president killed in somewhat --to some-- mysterious plane crash going to the site in WWII in Russia where 22k Polish officers were executed by Stalin, on the invitation of the Russians. For a view on how the twin brother Lech may have been killed by his own brother (!) see this site, which is about as equally plausible as the other viewpoint that he was killed by the Russians: - it's not impossible that Jaroslaw killed Lech in a bid to increase his own power)

IMO it's negligence not to mention bullet point 3) above. Clearly the author of the op-ed is biased.

Bonus trivia: one of these days I may read Norman Davies long and detailed tomes, as is his wont, "God's Playground" on Polish history.

Norman Davies' books are mostly long and detailed, but rewarding.

Re: Poland. I don't really care about jostling in the Polish judiciary. Let the Poles do whatever they do. (I'm more inclined to be worried about Erdogan and the consolidation of his Islamist rule over Turkey. The Turks are longstanding meddlers in the affairs of their neighbours. The Poles are not; they are the "meddlees" not the meddlers.)

Re: Greece. In my experience, a small but not negligible percentage of Greeks are profoundly conspiratorial and anti-American, to the point of being unbalanced. There is probably no place outside of the Middle East where conspiracy theories are taken as seriously. A legacy of the myriad city-states of the classical past?

@Thor: "There is probably no place outside of the Middle East..." true, because--logically--Greece is *the* Middle East (in Europe...excellent book by Norman Davies btw).

Only if you're a "genetics is all that matters" sperg or a Leftist looking to create division between Whites.* Historically, the great division between Europe and the Middle East was about religion. Why do you think that educated Englishmen used to learn Greek and Latin, while the Turkish and Persians learned Arabic? That Greece used to rule Turkey and Persia and not England makes no difference. That Greeks are genetically closer to the Turks and Persians than the English makes no difference. And it's still religion, rather than geography or some biologically defined racial grouping that separates "Europe" from the Middle East, even though few Europeans believe in their historical religions.

*You won't hear any of them calling for affirmative action to extend to Greeks, showing the dishonesty of their approach.

Winning an election with about a third of the votes is not particularly unusual in Europe. Cameron in 2015 and Macron in 2017(in the first round when people could vote any party) both got less.

6. "I don’t know a single person who is happy about this."

Tyler's commentariat says "hold my beer."

"Now that the left is out of power, I really think that the right should be focused on playing according to the rules!"

If the Obama administration had moved to take control over the judiciary, would you have been so keen to call that democratic?

How much of public school spending is on fixed costs? Without thinking about it much, I'd think facilities are meaningful portion of the budget such that using average costs to measure savings is misleading.

Personnel and benefits make up between 80 and 85 percent of the budget for the average public school system, according to the American Association of School Administrators.

Not only is Ted Craig correct, but school facilities are generally sized to expected student numbers. If private school and home school are fairly constantly around 10% then the number or size of schools we pay for are less by 10%. Private schooling of course involves even more children than home schooling.


There were several questions posed by her analysis. If her analysis was only looking at State per Pupil spending (ie, State Government dollars, not the average spent in the state which includes federal and local dollars), then the questions of the marginal cost and fixed costs are moot. The State and the Federal government only support school districts on a per pupil/per disadvantaged student basis.

So while it might not drop those fixed costs, those costs would not impact the state budget. It would however affect the local budget, and it could present problems for those localities that use the state dollars to pay for their fixed costs. I can only speak to Virginia, but the formula for determining state funding for education to the local governments is actually somewhat complex (elements of enrollment, population, and economic conditions of the locality all play a role).


Per the US Department of Education 2014-15 figures, 13% of public-school students qualify for special treatment under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The per-pupil cost of educating them is considerably higher than the cost of educating "normal" students; per an undated National Education Association page, the average per-pupil cost in the US is $7,552, and the average per-pupil cost of a special-ed student is $16,921.

Presumably, most home-schooled students are non-disabled or suffer only very minimal disablities. The marginal cost of educating them is considerably less than the mean marginal cost per student, which includes the 13% covered by IDEA.

Thus Holmquist's analysis neglects at least two important points: fixed costs, as Gee notes; and the fact that some of the mean marginal cost per pupil represents the extra marginal cost of special-ed students, averaged over the whole student body.

"Presumably, most home-schooled students are non-disabled or suffer only very minimal disablities."

This assumption is not as strong as it might seem at first glance. I do homeschool, and a surprisingly large number of the families I know have students with disabilities, and never even intended to homeschool until they had terrible interactions/services with their local district.

Kritarchy is not the same thing as democracy.

Counter Currents hosts Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, eliminationist anti-Semites, and others of that ilk. It's kind of odd to characterize it as "alt right" unless you're confused or wish to associate the alt-right with such views.

Exactly. Disappointing that Cowen gives web traffic to people who consider Hitler "the greatest European of all ages" and calls Europe "rotten and Jew-ridden".

There is indeed a difference between, say, (some) Straussians who urge that we should be ruled and advised by the cleverest and best educated -- since intelligence and wisdom are not evenly distributed -- and those who think we should be ruled by a bloodthirsty fuhrer.

There is indeed a difference between, say, (some) Straussians who urge that we should be ruled and advised by the cleverest and best educated — since intelligence and wisdom are not evenly distributed — and those who think we should be ruled by a bloodthirsty fuhrer.

The 'cleverest and best educated' gave you a seven-digit annual abortion count in this country because reasons. There's a 'difference', or whatever.

It's the lowest it has been in 44 years. Since you clearly care about this topic for some reason, that should be a victory, no?

It's still a really big number of baby murders.

that should be a victory, no?

No, it's an improvement over a worse situation. Victory is when this ghastly practice disappears.

Special snowflake triggered?

Here, have some more:

I don't know what "special snowflake triggered" means. What does it mean?

Characterizing Counter Currents as "alt right" is odd unless you're confused or if you're trying to associate the alt right with Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, eliminationist anti-Semites and the like, for whatever reason.

Alt right just means right wing and not happy with the Republican party.

I thought that was the Tea Party?

Same thing. Tea party petered out so a new name was required. In ten years the alt right will be replaced with yet another term.

The semitic shit show rill roll on.

The semitic shit show rill roll on.

Other people in the dayroom want to use the computer. Time for your thioridizine.

I do associate the alt-right with those things.

What is wrong with that, aside from the fact that you don't like it?

But the alt right is explicitly white nationalst. Richard Spencer popularized the term. The Milo-type civic nationalists are alt lite, not alt right.

Richard Spencer, who came up with the name "alt-right", is exactly that sort of type. That's what "alt-right" refers to.

The alt right wishes to associate itself with those things.

The alt-right does a pretty good job of that themselves.

6-. Maybe you need to read an alt right review.

Or a couple of commenters above, of course.

Die Brücke, to name one very concrete example of a movie about the Second World War, is not a movie that 'serves as propaganda for multiculturalism.'

And really, one can be confident that A Bridge Over the River Kwai does not serve as 'propaganda for multiculturalism' either.

I believe Lynch was referring to English language movies(Die Brücke is a German film) made in recent times.(The Bridge on the River Kwai is 60 years old) Of the recent ones, nearly all of them do glorify multiculturalism, in an often ahistorical manner.

Saving Private Ryan is a particularly egregious example. No surprise given its director.

Sure Spielberg, merchants actually risked their lives in that war. Tell me another!

The military kept data on the religions of soldiers, so that proper burial could be assured, and in fact many "merchants" did fight and die.

Truly the the Greatest Ally.

There was one Jewish character in Saving Private Ryan (who was given an oddball English name).

Oh you're anti-Semitic. You've also clearly never been to Arlington Cemetery. Hint: it's where we bury our dead. Look for the stars of David. There are plenty. Roughly proportionate to the population.

Apparently they not only risked their lives, but were KIA. In France, yes. Also Korea and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan.

The majority of every male cohort born during the period running from 1913 to 1926 was in uniform during the 2d World War. With regard to the 1922 cohort, about 80% were in uniform. Jews made up about 4% of those age cohorts. Your contention is what, that Jew wirepullers got themselves exempted from military service or that they got themselves assigned to non-combat postings? Exactly how did they Jedi-mind trick local draft boards or the military personnel system to arrange for this?

Does homeschooling really save money if you consider the opportunity cost of people teaching a very small number of children rather than having a normal job?

Afaik schools are paid for by property taxes almost everywhere in the US. So....yes?

Unless you mean GDP goes down since parents drop out of the labor force. But that has nothing to do with "saving money."

Would need to take into account: 1. lost state income tax from the homeschooling parent not working outside the home, 2. lost sales tax from the extra consumption the household would likely have in if both parents worked outside the home, and 3. lost federal subsidies sent to state (or local school district) based on # of students.

Also, I suspect the % of students with (expensive) learning disabilities or behavioral issues that home schooled is considerably less than the % of students with those issues in the public schools. Educating such students is disproportionately expensive and inflates the average. Removing a "normal" student from the public system probably "saves" an amount less than the average cost per student.

Sometimes it's useful to look at the extreme scenarios:

Suppose 90% of the kids currently in school become home schooled. Female LFPR of women with young children declines 10%. The local government collapses some schools, fires most of the teachers, and does not have to pay into pensions. Demand curve for teachers shifts drastically to the left. Salaries and perks go down and the teachers union collapses.

In this scenario, does the loss in state income tax make a difference?

Keeping with the hypo, we'd have to put numbers on how revenues and outlays are affected. How much does the state (and local) govt. have to spend to educate the 10% of students who remain? Recall how much of education expenditures go to administrators. If a school district goes from 10 high schools to 1 high school it's still going to have a superintendent. Also, the 10% of students who remain are going to be the ones that are most difficult to home school. Kids who are mentally impaired, autistic, or have serious behavior issues. So their "cost" is potentially several times the average cost-per-student under the status quo.

Charitably, eliminating 90% of students might reduce costs by 80%. When it comes to LFPR I suspect it would drop considerably more than 10%. None of the moms I know who work full-time could continue to do so if they were tasked with home schooling their children. I doubt most would even be able to work part-time. That said, many "home schooling" parents actually send their kids to a co-op a few days a week so maybe they could manage to work part-time. (Which is funny since they're ostensibly *home* schooling. Co-op != home).


Can't reply to you downthread. I agree that the assumptions going into the sensitivity analysis would sway the results in a large way.

In general, I do believe it would save local governments money in the short term. Long term is murkier, since some good % of real estate is really tuition for quasi private school. And property taxes is how local governments get their cash. In general I think it would be a large redistribution from the rich to the lower middle class. Think Robert Frank and his deer antler analogy.

Number 6 is a link to the Washington Post. The host's comment says more about him than anything substantive. (No, I didn't read it.)

6. Trump's happy.

"I don’t know a single person who is happy about this."

LOL. Classic Tyler Cowen Straussian/signalling combo.

Why, there oughta be a name for it. "Mood affiliation enhancement" or something.

4. What valid point is being made? Lynch claims that Hitler allowed the British to escape Dunkirk, which is complete nonsense. He may have a valid point that, seeing the state of the U.K. and Europe now, fighting in the war seems like a pointless sacrifice to liberate people who reciprocate that sacrifice with hostility. But, then, when you pair that valid point with Holocaust denial and the generally mean spirited attitude you find on that website,(Tyler should have included a NSFW warning) people are going to ignore it.

"Tyler should have included a NSFW warning"

Trigger me timbers!

Some of us have jobs and want to keep them.

Your employer allows you to dick around on the internet as long as you don't stumble across anti-establishment content?

Where do you work? Buzzfeed?

I work for a big name software company, and I'm allowed to dick around on the internet for as long as I want so long as I get my projects done. The higher-ups at my company are cucks and I know they have spyware on my machine, so I'm not going to risk becoming another statistic. I'm writing this from my home computer, but if I were browsing MR at work I wouldn't have clicked on that link.

Was the point supposed to be .. what was Tyler's old term .. that the Brutes did have a racial cohesion?


They did. If only they had the "little England can't survive without Europe" mentality in 1940!

The flip side is of course that the Americans came out of WWII with an ideological (democracy, melting pot, anyone can play baseball) cohesion.

Pretty much 1, 2. WWII led to military integration and then the civil rights movement.

We would be nuts to give up that robust vision, and probably will not, a few nutters notwithstanding.

On "nutters," this is for reals, right?

The elevation of this racist idiot is absurd. Do conservatives give a nationwide platform to literal Stalinists? I remember living in Berkeley. There are plenty. But they're not featured in the Nytimes. Or daily articles on Vox. Because they're not representative at all of the liberal movement in this country. It would be absurd to conflate idiot Stalinists with democrats. Just like it's absurd to conflate repubs with an actual nazi. You're displaying your own intellectual hypocrisy.

How many supporters does this Nazi moron have ? You have to realize by implying all cons are spencer you're pushing people into extreme positions. How's that working out ?

How many supporters does this Nazi moron have ?

His 'institute' has one employee.

I kind of get you, but remember, when Milo wrote his Guide at Breitbart, he said:

"The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. "

Thank you Richard Spencer, for killing the alt-right.

We can hope.

Wait, I thought the Germans kinda did let the British slip away at Dunkirk, hoping they'd then quietly withdraw from the war. No?

The Germans were busy preparing to turn south to fight the French. It's only hindsight that says the French would anyway put up no fight. And it's only hindsight that thinks it conceivable that hundreds of thousands of troops could escape Dunkirk.


"The Germans were busy preparing to turn south to fight the French. It’s only hindsight that says the French would anyway put up no fight. And it’s only hindsight that thinks it conceivable that hundreds of thousands of troops could escape Dunkirk."

Agreed. The Germans had the Allied Expeditionary & a good chunk of the French Army pinned. They blocked it with a minimal force and prepared to wheel south and take on the majority of the French army before it could regroup.

It's not just Lynch who makes the point. Hitler not only slowed down the approach to Dunkirk, he could have won the Battle of Britain had he continued to bomb the airfields. Reading these commonly accepted historical facts* as complete nonsense is just posturing in the other direction.

*(I first learned them from a Great Courses lecture series on WWII taught by Professor Thomas Childers of the University of Pennsylvania, hardly an alt-right icon)

The point Childers made in his lecture was that HItler's original vision was the world divided into several pieces, with England getting one of the pieces, and that drove his decision making, which was clearly ideological and emotional at times.

4. Alt right review of Dunkirk. Offensive, but makes a real point.

If only there were some way that point could be presented to your readers without driving traffic to an offensive alt-right site.

#4 ... I agree with Stormy Dragon. I wish I had not read that. I am still looking forward to the movie. But that web site is pollution. Nothing more.

6. Sadly, Poland is dismantling its own democracy. I don’t know a single person who is happy about this.

Well, if you read the article with a critical eye, you'll notice that the authors' complaint has nothing to do with the operation of democratic institutions. Their complaint is that the Law and Justice ministry is taking the court system away from the political opposition through modifying the appointment and disciplinary procedures. Only the sparest summary of the legislation in question is given. Limitations of space are not the reason for that. The authors have the space to offer a 'parade of horribles' concerning the law as well as to complain about 'Catholic fundamentalists' (a nonsense term, btw), Polish abortion law, and the distribution of parliamentary seats (which distribution is perfectly unremarkable where you have first-past-the-post balloting conjoined to a multi-party electorate).

Here's a more extensive paraphrase (though still tendentious).

TC's never bothered about our hopelessly politicized appellate judiciary in this country, so no clue why Poland's problems interest him.

+1 the stench of hypocrisy coming from fascist elements in the US and EU is overwhelming

If you snowflakes don't like going to a neo-nazi site for your movie reviews, here is the "good point" that I assume Tyler was referring to. I don't find the point as profound as our host seems to.

- Dunkirk is a movie about England: about the patriotism, social solidarity, ingenuity, hard work, and bravery of countless humble white people whose primary mistake was to trust the leaders who delivered them into two World Wars and are now overseeing their replacement with the scum of the Third World. Leftists fear Dunkirk because it gives white men a glimpse of a nice white country we could someday restore, and the virtues we must find again if we are to defeat the real enemy this time.-

Grauniad collects a lot more reviews that seem to fit in here.

Obvious racist movie is obviously racist.

I have no worries. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis will redefine Britain. For the better. Turbulent periods end. It's just a matter of letting the old generation die out. The young don't care and won't have enough kids to have a vote in the future anyways.

The goal should be the U.K. As the Bahrain of Europe.

It's kind of amazing that in 2017, "Potato" is considered the normal civil mainstream position, and "Rabscuttle" is considered the crazy wacko extremist.

Conquest and population replacement has never been a peaceful happy process. I don't think this case will be any different.

"(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

(b) - (e) are in full effect from the DNC to the EU, but, you know, you have to be a Nazi to apply the UN's definition of genocide to a white population.

I saw it yesterday and I don't see how its about patriotism, social solidarity, or bravery.

Aside from the spitfire dogfights, the movie is like a horror/disaster movie, where characters will cheer patriotically before something horrible happens. Certainly no little platoons of any sort, when the characters are willing to sacrifice others for their survival.

If anything, Nolan seems to be poking at civilian patriotism and war from a conservative angle, a la stormtroopers.


"Naturally, those humorless culture-killing religious fanatics of the diversity cult are complaining that Dunkirk is too white and too male, since not only must white men be engineered out of England’s future, they must be airbrushed out of her past."

Where? So far I don't see the complaints. Not on the first 3 pages of search results, anyway. Maybe the author is the triggered snowflake.

Some weak tea. Hahahahaaaaaahaha.

"Social media ridicule followed the publishing of writer Brian Truitt’s reaction to director Christopher Nolan’s latest film, a World War II tale about Allied soldiers attempting to survive while pinned down by German adversaries. The columnist gave the film a glowing review while saying its lack of diversity “may rub some the wrong way.”

Glowing review.
"May" rub some the wrong way. But who?

"“May” rub some the wrong way. But who?"

The snowflakes and those who signal by pretending to care if they may be offended.

Defying President Trump's budget proposal, the House Appropriations Committee this week voted to fund the IMLS, and the NEH and NEA for 2018.

Courtesy the usual Vichy careerists in the House Republican caucus. The perpetrator of this travesty is a fat guy named Ken Calvert (lapsed real estate agent, sleeps with call girls). Gov Track is not revealing the names of his 7 co conspirators.

Right, we can forgive the Vichy for everything else, but never, ever, for their arts programs.

It's obviously a metaphor. Can we not take Dr Klings advice, and assume best Intentions when not clearly trolling?

"Can we not take Dr Klings advice, and assume best Intentions": not of politicians, for heaven's sake.

My intentions were neither good nor bad. They did fly over his head.

Bullshit, Mr. Potato.

One uses "Vichy" when one is dealing with collaborators murdering Innocents.

Or when one is an idiot.

"One uses “Vichy” when one is dealing with collaborators murdering Innocents."

Cut the fake outrage. People use "Vichy" as a synonym for generic "traitor" all the time


'Cut the fake outrage. People use “Vichy” as a synonym for generic “traitor” all the time'

Is "traitor" to the United States funding the arts?

Did Don Jr go that far?

Lapsed real estate agent? Is real estate like the Night's Watch, do they take lifetime vows?

The party of "we have to cut medicare because muhFinancialResponsibility, but not a penny less for the degenerate arts." Not sure where I'll be living in November of 2018, but I'll be giving whoever the Republican congressmen or candidate is a lot less leeway than I gave in 2016.

Only the Vichy would fund the IMLS, and the NEH and NEA. This has never been done before and is an outrageous attack on American values. The death penalty may be indeed required for these traitors, but we should demand as a minimum long sentences of hard labor. MAGA!

What a worthless measure.

Well, it does make the fundamental assumption that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional, Euclidean space.

That is pretty elitist right there!

Re #1

Stepwise cost function. If it takes $50M to run a school that houses 10,000 students, then the cost is $5000 per student. But if instead of 10,000 students you get 9,999 that does not mean you save $5K. If the number of students drops dramatically then you can achieve a savings but it has to be dramatic. One or two kids no impact. On the positive side that also means if you add one or two kids it doesn't automatically raise costs.

Economies of scale? Exactly what in our economy is more efficiently produced at home rather than mass produced? Is it more efficient to sew your own clothes, grow your own food, make your own paper towels, generate your own electricity? None of those things and mass education is not more efficiently produced 'at home'. If you're doing as an act of love or being 'artisanal', then go ahead and do it. That's not a mass market solution, though.

Now take 1-2 students randomly from every school in the country, and you'll hit a couple where the reduction is enough to make a step down or avoid a step up,.

How much would our energy costs go down if 1 or 2 houses everywhere suddenly decided to go 'off the grid' and make their own power with generators?

Can we transmit one millionth portions of teachers down power lines to correct for sudden spikes in student: teacher ratio?

4. A friend shared the link and told me that Marginal Revolution linked it. I was amazed at the overt racism. Anyway, I asked my friend to provide some links to the offended parties. As best both of us can tell (based mostly on the "diversity cult" claim is based on the following paragraph in a general positive review from USA Today:

"The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way. Still, Nolan’s feat is undeniable: He’s made an immersive war movie that celebrates the good of mankind while also making it clear that no victory is without sacrifice."

I am not sure how Cowen can stand by the "real point" claim if this really is it. (Or if there is more out there, either Cowen or the author of the link very much needs to provide the evidence.)

So the 'alt-right' seems to share the right's general ability to make crap up. The USA paragraph isn't a diversity complaint, but an imaginary diversity complaint. Rather than conversing with actual leftists, reviewer creates imaginary leftists, tries to imagine what they would say, then goes on to cleverly refute their points.


So the ‘alt-right’ seems to share the right’s general ability to make crap up. T

We're in month 8 of the CNN coverage of the 'collusion with Russia' fiction.

How long did Whitewater go on? To what end?

We already have Donald Trump Jr. admitting collusion with Russia.

Why are you so dishonest? Donald Trump Jr. admitted to attending a meeting with a Russian who claimed to have information damaging to Hillary Clinton. Foreign governments gave millions of dollars to your queen and you didn't care.

The review's complaint reminds me of a Tyler comment about not debating against the "stupid version" of what you're against. Every philosophy has a stupid version of it being pushed by it's most unimpressive adherents. If you want to make a point, debate against the best and most coherent version of the other side. Arguing against the stupid version of what you are against convinces no one (because everyone who isn't on your side sees this as an obvious straw man) and only serves to make you feel better about yourself.

This review seems to be debating against the stupidest version of multiculturalism.

I think the question to ask is there a non-stupid version of the 'alt right'. For example, what 'ideas' does Milo have to offer us other than some transgendered people look very unattractive and there might be a theoretical problem in some men claiming to be transgendered and attacking women in the restroom. Twitter led me to an 'alt-right' video about architecture...not a subject I'm very keen on. It was somewhat witty and had a good point against 'brutalist' buildings. It made a point that high rise 'public housing' projects led to dysfunction by destroying community. But these valid criticisms are of my first readings in sociology when I was in college in the early 90's made that very point about high-rise public housing.

At its best is the alt-right a set of ideas? Or is it a type of brain dead entertainment fighting against the stupidest version of multiculturalism as you say? Or maybe not even that....maybe it's an intellectual type of professional wrestling where it isn't even fighting any real villains but cartoon fake ones.


And the answer is no, there is no non-stupid version. And "stupid" is polite.

Start with Sailer, Lion, Derb, and Greg:

Are these 'alt-right' or simply right? For example, what would make Sailer different from Charles Murray, who anyone who read either mainstream conservative or even just mainstream media in the 90's would have been very familiar with? Are these just people with off beat views who should be read or do they justify the need for an 'alt-right'?

I don't see them on TV or in the magazines. Is anything to the right of Foxnews off beat?

"Are these ‘alt-right’ or simply right? For example, what would make Sailer different from Charles Murray, who anyone who read either mainstream conservative or even just mainstream media in the 90’s would have been very familiar with?"

I think it's a matter of emphasis. The right can publish interesting stuff on feminism or demographics, but when in power it always seem to be more motivated to cut taxes for the wealthy or build democracy in the Middle East than cut immigration or make family formation more affordable. Plus Sailer follows the logic a bit past where Murray is willing to go. Look up Sailer's articles on interracial dating, female journalists and beauty standards, and affirmative action in policing.

Murray's support base is either in hiding or in the alt-right activist circles willing to stand up against the murderous leftist antifa mobs that are supported among verified-twitter leftists. Tim Kaine's own F*ing son is a member of this violent, murderous communist revolution group. The movement that opposes Tim Kaine's psychotic son (imagine your tears if Don Trump Jr. had been arrested while masked and throwing bombs at PP activists, you partisan hackjob) and also has no interest in bible-thumping, is a movement that I can support.

It's almost entirely a collection of trolls. The fact that people are talking about them means they already won. They don't exist as a political party. They don't vote, have think tanks or write publications. It's a joke on /pol that got out of hand.

They're making Nazi frog memes and a presidential candidate made a speech denouncing it. A frog meme. We're through the looking glass. The nytimes has written dozens of articles, vox has a Pepe the frog explainer, and CNN/MSNBC devotes a not insignificant % of their airtime to this bs.

If you went to college in the 90s, I get it. You're too old. But understand this. The exact same people who invented rick rolling are now trolling so hard half the country thinks the other half is actual nazis. And the professional class is so stupid they not only fell for it but write breathlessly and endlessly about it.

The Times once published 3-dozen articles about the membership policies of a golf club in Augusta, Ga. The fish rots from the head down and the Times has for 25 years been in the grip of a deeply unserious man named Pinch Sulzberger. The Republic will be better off when Carlos Slim pulls the plug.

Let's say the Times did publish 3 dozen articles on that. So what? How many articles in a single daily edition of the NYT? 100+? No doubt the articles spanned multiple time periods. Not your thing? I'm sure there were many articles about more 'important' events you could have spent your time with.

More importantly, though, whether you spent your time on the golf club or the other articles, you had a high percentage of getting at the truth. How did you do if you relied upon the articles of the alt-right? How many Pizzagate, email gate, 'Hillary is about to die'-gate articles would you have gone down in order to get maybe a movie review here or there with some trite points or some modest 'insights' sprinkled in among the trash?

Let’s say the Times did publish 3 dozen articles on that. So what?

That tells me what their priorities are, and what is their definition of 'news'. They are unserious, as are you.

1. 3 dozen? Count them. I bet it was more like 6 to 12 spread out over multiple days.

2. Priorities? Since you didn't challenge my guess of 100+ articles per day 12 articles spread out over 6 days would be at most 2% of the news.

3. Priorities II? How about wedding cake bakers. How many wedding cake bakers really refuse to take money for SSM wedding cakes? How many are really have legal problems?

4. Priorities III? Pizzagate. This indicates someone who has plenty of time for trivial, trollish, time wasting games rather than confronting any serious issues with a limited amount of time.

How many articles did the times publish on the enforcer front of the leftist movement, to which Tim Kaine, a leftist professor, and the Mayor of Berkeley are already established as members? I mean, do you support the antifa, Boonton? Do you not believe they are real? Do you think the NYTimes staff isn't aware of Eric Clanton? Are you not aware of Tim Kaine's psychotic, loser son? How about the Steve Scalise shooter that the NYTimes already forgot about? The political violence today comes from the same scumbag movement you belong to.

How about absolute truth? Something either is or isn't, and it doesn't depend upon subjective opinion? That seems to be an interesting and useful idea in light of the push to force other people to use chosen pronouns or else face legal penalties. How about the idea that we can make determinations on the relative quality of traditions and cultures. We can say that, objectively, harming another person against their will is wrong and should be illegal, no matter if it is the KKK performing a lynching or a Muslim family honor killing their daughter. How about honesty in public policy: there is a problem with gun violence that is almost entirely centered in black communities. If we refuse to acknowledge the reality of the problem, how can we possibly arrive at the correct solution, which is increased presence of authority which is limited against nuisance policing?

I mean, are you joking? The intellectual left is a mishmash of anti-realist, anti-truth, anti-western dogma. There is a place for opposition to that.

We both were lead to the single Moony Times article. I'm still looking for a triggered snowflake.

This is what Moo cow either supports or ignores:

Moo cow voted for a VP candidate whose own son is a member of this violent revolutionary group.

"I don’t know a single person who is happy about this."

Now I know several.


An example of diversity that one can choose to ignore.......

What’s missing from the film that a historian might add?

In the film, we see at least one French soldier who might be African. In fact, soldiers from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and elsewhere were key to delaying the German attack. Other African soldiers made it to England and helped form the nucleus of the Free French forces that soon took the fight to the Axis.
There were also four companies of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps on those beaches. Observers said they were particularly cool under fire and well organized during the retreat. They weren’t large in number, maybe a few hundred among hundreds of thousands, but their appearance in the film would have provided a good reminder of how utterly central the role of the Indian Army was in the war. Their service meant the difference between victory and defeat. In fact, while Britain and other allies were licking their wounds after Dunkirk, the Indian Army picked up the slack in North Africa and the Middle East.

You can claim any sub-section of the armed forces were central and the difference between victory and defeat. I'm sure there are Buryat's somewhere claiming how critical their part was in destroying Hitler.

Everyone had their part to play. (Except Portugal.)

Hypothetically, imagine you're a major public figure like Tyler Cowen and secretly a Nazi. You could come out of the closet and ruin the quality of your life, be ostracized, and end up like a smarter, more famous version of Keven McFührer. Or you could expose hundreds of thousands of readers (over time) to Nazi sites knowing that a certain percentage will join the cause.

This is the first time he's exposed anyone to a nazi site as far as I'm aware. And, though I think MacDonald overstates his case, it's unfair to call him a nazi.

Old McFührer is only willing to go as far as the Penultimate Solution. I'll give him that much.

Tyler Cowen, who I think is a good guy, is usually more subtle about exposing his readers to the Dark Side. In fairness, the fascist left has forced a lot of interesting ideas out of polite society.

Incidentally, it's actually not the first time, and he's linked to a site that MacDonald edits, The Occidental Quarterly, before:

Note that both reviews are written by "Trevor Lynch", which is the pen name that Greg Johnson, founder and editor of Counter Currents, uses when writing movie reviews. And both are reviews of WW2 movies, and both suggest that the Allies were fighting the wrong enemy during the war, the Germans were fighting the real enemy, the Germans should have won, etc. That's basically what distinguishes Lynch's WW2 movie reviews from conventional right wing ones that lionize the war as a great patriotic cause and enterprise. Apparently that's the profound point that speaks to him.

Hypothetically, imagine that you are a communist who bears no allegiance to the country you live in. You could come out of the closet and live at the margins of society, albeit as a celebrated member of the left. Or, you could suggest that everyone that opposes your agenda is a Nazi. You could even create a movement of indoctrinated young people to go around the country attacking anyone right of center who dares to show up to a political activity:

"Alt right review of Dunkirk. Offensive, but makes a real point."

Wait what? The point of the article was the dream of an all white society. Is that what you promote Tyler? Somehow I knew you were a white supremacist. That is why you are so enamored with Mormons.

Bookmark it kids, this is the post that Tyler comes out as racist.

This is satire, right?

Alas, no. But you can ignore Benny.

4. On the alt right review of Dunkirk, I think people are missing the point that Tyler points to. It's not that Hitler was nice to the British, the main thrust of the article is that WWII is usually told as a morality tale in order to condemn all forms of nationalism. Yet the Allied Powers that fought the war had more in common with alt right on views of demographics and gender roles than they do with modern elites.


That's the whole point. Nationalism is evil. It's a way to trick idiots to fight wars for corporations, etc etc ad nauseam.

No blood for oil, war is a racket, yadda yadda. You have to remember a large and growing majority of Americans and Koreans think our intervention in the Korean War was morally wrong.

And Vietnam? Vast majority of Americans think it was imperialism and evil. Just a murder fest to feed the MIC. Of course, if you ask Hmong refugees or Vietnamese boat people, you get a much different story. But remember, minority voices are only valid in the advance of stupidity. Dark skin voices don't count if they don't agree with the Narrative.

"That’s the whole point. Nationalism is evil. It’s a way to trick idiots to fight wars for corporations, etc etc ad nauseam. "

The point is that it's what people, on all sides, fought in WWII for. Was it evil to fight in WWII? Like anything else, nationalism can be good and it can be bad.

No blood for oil, war is a racket, yadda yadda. You have to remember a large and growing majority of Americans and Koreans think our intervention in the Korean War was morally wrong.

Only if 'a large and growing majority of Americans' are to be found on the contributors list of the American Friends Services Committee.

That's a bizarre point. Which Hollywood WW2 movies condemn American or British nationalism? Virtually all of them glorify American and British nationalism. There are even Hollywood movies that glorify Soviet nationalism like Enemy at the Gates.

Vietnam War movies tend to be critical, but even there American nationalism isn't condemned per se, but war in general.

I think the point is along the lines of John Rivers' Twitter (now banned) that roughly says "I don't think my grandfather fought the Nazis so that the left could call me a Nazi for being like my grandfather"

Don't know John Rivers' but it sounds like he thinks being banned from Twitter is somewhat akin to what Nazi's did. Besides, how many right wing books, even before the alt-right, did the equating the left with Nazism schtick? If the Alt-Right doesn't like being called Nazis why are they so liberal to toss the charge out at others?

I've always found it funny to listen to the same people who decry nationalism, military service, and patriotism, claim interest in preventing or punishing "treason", or claim that "they" fought the Nazi's in WWII. In what universe would leftists join the United States military in order to fight a foreign power? In what universe would leftists approve of any of the viewpoints of WWII military members? The leftists were far too busy admiring Stalin and Hitler.

How is it democratic for a handful of people in robes to overturn the will of millions based entirely on mood preference? I don't follow the Polish situation very much, but if they can avoid our judicial tyranny it would be a good thing.

How is it democratic for a handful of people in robes to overturn the will of millions based entirely on mood preference?

Because that's what Tyler and his social circle prefer. The progressive vision of political society considers elected officials like student councils, and people like themselves (incorporated in the judiciary) the school administration. Palaeolibertarians object to this. Richard Epstein objects to this. Most libertarians just have their nose out of joint about the drug laws.

That is why it is useful to speak of liberal democracy. We want the people in charge to be accountable to the people but we also want them to be accountable to the law and restrained from abusing their powers in a surreptitious manner and that requires, among other things, having judges who are independent of elected officials.

Since when did TC embrace alt-right ideology? I thought that he was an economist that looked at data and didn't have such political leanings? Any historical situation can easily be made to mean something else when given a propagandist reading. I have not seen Dunkirk, but the logic of the article referred to by TC, is completely faulty, although TC asserts that it is 'true'. By this logic, we could look to any moment pre Yalta and say, 'yes white people got together to defend themselves'. But this is a complete disavowal of intellectual honesty, and the embrace of convenient narratives and half-truths in the support of an ideology.

I'd like to recommend a new book by Thomas Ricks entitled "Churchill & Orwell: The Fight for Freedom." Russ Roberts has an Econ Talk podcast about it as well. The book has a bearing on a number of the issues dealt with in the posts above.

4. Most public intellectuals and academics circa, say, 1896 - 1924, believed the things that the Alt-Right now believes. All that's changed is how societal taboos get defined and enforced. Most people just go along with the particular zeitgeist they find themselves enmeshed in. Rather than recognize this fact, a lot of folks today prefer to see themselves as somehow morally superior and insist that had they been born during that time, they'd maintain their "universally true and transcendent" values--that they would have "resisted."

To the extent that schools do too much, the marginal cost of a student will exceed the average cost. Therefore, all of these estimates, which use average costs, are TOO SMALL.

In what sense might schools be doing too much? There's a basic implication of cost functions in micro that every optimizing business tries to produce either the quantity that minimizes average costs, or something less than that (with a somewhat higher average cost). No one goes to the right of the minimum unless they are pushed too hard. In short, when you're on the right side of that minimum you have diseconomies of scale.

Does anyone doubt that schools have diseconomies of scale? There are empirical estimates out there that support this, but you pretty much have to just look around. Too many high cost pupils (that might be more efficiently handled without mainstreaming), too many poorly athletic teams and other extracurriculars, too many overloaded structures, and so on.

I'm not a huge advocate of home schooling. Just don't underestimate how much it saves because you're not thinking about cost curves enough.

4. I'm having a hard time finding the real point. Would it be possible to explain what it is, Professor Cowen?

Based on the discussion above, candidates seem to be:
- Hitler was too soft on the British
- American WWII movies glorify multiculturalism when in reality every nation's involvement in WWII was rooted in nationalism
- Some more complex point about how we should think about WWII in light of today's politics (I'm especially not seeing this one)

Full-bore multiculturalism in practice leads to 1) an atomized society of individuals who are barely unified, and if so only around lowest-common-denominator abstract liberal principles like "people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't harming anyone (and we'll conveniently gloss over what harm means)" and "everything should be a voluntary transaction" OR 2) people rejecting that and retreating into their own ethnic/religious enclaves and not engaging with the wider society.

Both of those things are bad when you need everyone to come together for some big shared sacrifice, like beating Hitler.

From a comment by a Facebook friend:

Captain Liddell Hart, the eminent military critic, wrote a book on the military events of 1939-45, which was published in 1948, and entitled The Other Side of the Hill. Chapter 10 -- which deals with the German invasion of France down to and including Dunkirk -- bears the somewhat startling title, "How Hitler beat France and saved Britain."

The reading of the chapter itself will astound all propaganda-blinded people, even more than the title: for the author therein proves that not only did Hitler save this country; but that this was not the result of some unforeseen factor, or indecision, or folly, but was of set purpose, based on his long enunciated and faithfully maintained principle.

Having given details of how Hitler peremptorily halted the Panzer Corps on the 22nd May, and kept them inactive for the vital few days, till, in fact, the British troops had got away from Dunkirk, Captain Liddell Hart quotes Hitler's telegram to Von Kleist:

"The armoured divisions are to remain at medium artillery range from Dunkirk. Permission is only granted for reconnaissance and protective movements."
Von Kleist decided to ignore the order, the author tells us. To quote him again:

"Then came a more emphatic order, that I was to withdraw behind the canal. My tanks were kept halted there for three days."
In the following words the author reports a conversation which took place on May 24th (i.e. two days later) between Herr Hitler and Marshal Von Runstedt, and two key men of his staff:

"He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world ...
He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church -- saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the continent.
The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable, but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops, if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.

He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept."

Captain Liddell Hart comments on the above as follows:

"If the British Army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might have felt that their honour had suffered a stain, which they must wipe out. By letting it escape, Hitler hoped to conciliate them. This conviction of Hitler's deeper motive was confirmed by his strangely dilatory attitude over the subsequent plans for the invasion of England."
"He showed little interest in the plans," Blumentritt said, "and made no effort to speed up the preparation. That was utterly different to his usual behaviour. Before the invasion of Poland, of France, and later of Russia, he repeatedly spurred them on; but on this occasion he sat back."

The author continues:

"Since the account of his conversation at Charleville, and subsequent holding back, comes from a section of the Generals, who had long distrusted Hitler's policy, that makes their testimony all the more notable."
And later he goes on to say:

"Significantly their account of Hitler's thoughts about England at the decisive hour before Dunkirk, fits in with much that he himself wrote earlier in Mein Kampf; and it is remarkable how closely he followed his own Bible in other respects."

I'm happy the communist judges are going to be removed.

Here is the whole of Liddell Hart's discussion of Dunkirk based on his interviews with German officers after the war:

Comments for this post are closed